Recommendation or Recommended Mitigation Measure: CDFW recommends that Table PD-3 be modified to include the Project’s need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. CDFW also recommends the DEIR clearly state that notification for a Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required for the three Project activities listed above as well as any other activities that will impact the West Drainage Canal. The notification should include mitigation proposals for compensation to any permanent impacts to the canal which may include the purchase of suitable mitigation credits at a 3:1 replacement to loss ratio, habitat restoration/enhancement onsite or offsite, habitat connectivity enhancements (wildlife crossings), partnership with other agencies or non- profit groups on restoration projects, or other mechanisms pre-approved by CDFW.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected].
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.
Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub.
Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092 and § 21092.2, CDFW requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the proposed Project.
Written notifications shall be directed to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 or emailed to [email protected].
Upper Westside Specific Plan
October 30, 2024
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Upper Westside Specific Pan to assist Sacramento County in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize and/or mitigate impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Harvey Tran, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at (916) 358-4035 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Morgan Kilgour
Regional Manager
ec: Dylan Wood, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Harvey Tran, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento
Docusign Envelope ID: AFC6828D-10A2-4912-A8DF-0D0A8055D4C2
Upper Westside Specific Plan
October 30, 2024
REFERENCES
2016 Five-year Status Review of the Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in California, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=133622&inline
2023 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Natomas Basin HCP Area, Available at: https://natomasbasin.org/reports/monitoring-reports/
����□� [Q)
OCT 2 8 2024 Edward J. Costa (in pro per)
6929 Larkspur A venue
2 Citrus Heights, CA 95610
916-599-2986
County of Sacramento
Planning and Environmental eview
3 [email protected]
4 5 IN THE MATTER OF UPPER WEST SIDE E.1.R.
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 DA TE: October 28, 2024
DECLARATION OF EDWARD J. COSTA
I Edward J. (Ted) Costa do declare:
1. I am a trustee of the Manuel Costa Trust which owns some 20 acres of property located at 3201 El Centro Rd.
2. The property was purchased by my uncle in 1917 from the Natomas Co. and passed down four generations.
3. On October 21, 2024, I testified before the county Plenning Commission. I told them that in my 83 years being associated and living on this property, I have never seen a Swanson Hawk on the property, and challenged the planning commission and county staff to tell me if they had ever seen a Swanson Hawk on the property. To this date no one has responded.
4. Some people from the audience spoke up and said they had seen Swanson Hawks on the Garden Highway---some one and a half miles away from my property. However, others who live on the Garder Highway, testified that the big trees a-long-side the river where the Swanson Hawks like to hang out were being cut down.
DECLARATION OF EDWARD J. COSTA- 1
41 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 3
703 B STREET | MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-5556
(530) 821
-8401
www.dot.ca.gov
No
vember 6, 2024
GT
S# 03-SAC-2022-01943
SCH# 2020100069
Ms
. Julie Newton
Environmental Coordinator
Sacramento County
Community Development Department
827 7t h Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
PLNP2018-00284 - Upper Westside Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Newton:
T
hank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the project referenced above. We reviewed this local development for impacts to the State Highway System (SHS) in keeping with our mission, vision, and goals, some of which includes addressing equity, climate change, and safety, as outlined in our statewide plans such as the California Transportation Plan, Caltrans Strategic Plan, and Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.
T
he project encompasses approximately 2,066 acres in the unincorporated Natomas community of Sacramento County, approximately 3.5 miles from downtown Sacramento. The Project area is bounded by Interstate 80 (I-80) to the south, the West Drainage Canal to the east, Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, and Garden Highway to the west. The Project is located outside of the County’s Urban Policy Area and Urban Services Boundary and is bounded on three sides by the City of Sacramento, bordering the communities of North and South Natomas. The Specific Plan would encompass a 1,532± acre Development Area and a 534± acre Ag Buffer Area that is located west of the Development Area, providing a transition to the Garden Highway. The Upper Westside Specific Plan, which would construct an urban, commercial mixed-use town center district near the intersection of El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue in Sacramento County. The plan includes 9,356 residential dwelling units and 3.1 million square-feet of commercial uses, with three K-8 school sites, one high school site, and several public parks. Other amenities include trail networks, a greenbelt and urban farm corridor, and a canal system that will 42 Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity by providing connections between neighborhoods. Based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) provided, Caltrans has the following requests and recommendations:
Freeway Operations / Traffic Safety
The submittal of the DEIR includes its appendices, which contain the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) (Appendix TR-1), and Local Transportation Impact Analysis (LTA) (Appendix TR-2). Both documents inform the conclusions of the Transportation chapter of the DEIR (Chapter 18) and were prepared March 2022 by Fehr & Peers in accordance with the Sacramento County Transportation Analysis Guidelines.
However, the appendices and technical calculations of the TIA and LTA were not included in the appendix of the DEIR, and therefore were not reviewed by Freeway Operations. Freeway Operations requests the technical calculations and files used for these analyses to verify their accuracy and validity.
Comments on the DIER are as follows:
• For Plate TR-5, please include which Regional Transit routes operate/will operate along the navy path shown. Please clarify does the gold route represent the “on-site shuttle” described in the last paragraph on page 10. If so, please consider using consistent terminology between the text and the figure so it is clearer.
o The legend includes conceptual stop locations for the gold route, but none are shown on the map. Please clarify will these be determined at a later date. If so, please consider removing or including a note that explains why they are not on the map.
o Please include a description of the headways and hours of operation for these transit routes.
• On page 18-33, there is discussion that states that the off-ramp queue that exceeds available storage on the I-5 southbound ramp to J Street during the peak hour with the addition of the project. It argues that this is not a significant impact because the speed differential between the off-ramp queue and adjacent travel lane would be less than 30 miles per hour. Please provide technical calculations that show support this statement. • Plate TR-8 shows a potential configuration for improvements to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. The figure includes the widening of West El Camino Avenue to 6 lanes as well as the widened intersection of West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road.
Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” o The West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection includes two channelized right-turn lanes on the westbound approach that would operate with free operation. Please clarify what will be done to accommodate pedestrian crossings that conflict with this movement (i.e., pedestrians on the north leg of the intersection).
o Please provide what are the safety implications of the triple left-turn lanes on the southbound approach the dual right-turn lanes on the northbound approach, and the dual right-turn lanes on the westbound approach of the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection.
• Mitigation Measure TR-3a lists improvements on West El Camino Avenue and El Centro Road. One of these improvements is channelizing the dual westbound right-turn (WBR) lanes at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection. This movement will be extremely heavy with the addition of the project during peak hours and will conflict with the crosswalk that will be added to the north leg of the intersection. As mentioned previously, Freeway Operations has concerns over the safety of pedestrians using the crosswalk.
Please clarify whether additional enhancements or accommodations be added to this intersection to protect pedestrians. The LTA specifically mentions grade- separated pedestrian overcrossings for the north and west legs.
Comments on Appendix TR-1, the TIA, are as follows:
• For Figure 1, the city boundary is very faint and difficult to see. Please consider revising so the boundary in the map matches the legend more closely. • Previous comments on Plate TR-5 in the DEIR apply to Figure 5. • On page 22, please clean up the grammar in this sentence: “By definition, one VMT occurs when a vehicle is driven one mile.”
• Please refer to previous comments on Plate TR-8 from the DEIR, as they apply to Figure 11.
• Please refer to previous comments on the I-5 SB/J Street off-ramp queue exceeding available storage during the AM peak hour under Existing Plus Project conditions in the DEIR.
• For the results in Table 14, Please clarify what assumptions were made for the ramp metering at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. With these improvements, it is very likely that the HOV preferential lane (HOVPL) would be metered along with the GP lanes.
• One page 53, Mitigation TR-2 states that the Garden Highway on-ramp existing operational issue is “caused in part by Caltrans’ decision to apply metering rates Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” of about 800 vehicles per hour (due to congestion along I-5).” These ramp meters currently operate with metering rates of 900+ vehicles per hour. • On page 55, there is discussion of a potential sidewalk on the south side of West El Camino Avenue east of El Centro Road across the interchange. The paragraph states that this sidewalk may not be built, as pedestrians using it would encounter three on/off ramps carrying considerable levels of traffic.
However, the Class I path along the north side of West El Camino Avenue would also encounter similar conflicts.
Comments on Appendix TR-2, the LTA, are as follows:
• Table ES-1 lists operational improvements that would address operational deficiencies that result from the addition of the project under Existing Plus Project conditions.
o In Table ES-1, the improvements at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange include installation of two metered lanes on the I-80 westbound (WB)/diagonal loop on-ramp. However, in Table 14 of the TIA, the ramp meter analysis assumed there would be 1 GP lane and 1 HOVPL at the West El Camino Avenue on-ramp to I-80 eastbound (EB). Please explain why this improvement is not included in Table ES-1. o Please explain why the improvements are described in the Mitigations TR- 2, TR-3, and TR-5b from the TIA not included in Table ES-1. Some of these improvements address “operational deficiencies.”
o These comments also apply to Table 20.
• Table ES-2 lists operational improvements that would address operational deficiencies that result from the addition of the project under Cumulative conditions.
o In Table ES-2, the improvements at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange include installation of two metered lanes on the I-80 WB/diagonal loop on-ramp. However, in Table 17 of the TIA, the ramp meter analysis assumed there would be 1 GP lane and 1 HOVPL at the West El Camino Avenue on-ramp to I-80 EB. Please explain why this improvement is not included in Table ES-2.
o Please explain why the improvements are described in Mitigations TR-8 not included in Table ES-2 and Figure ES-1. Some of these improvements address “operational deficiencies,” such as the widening of the I-5 SB diagonal on-ramp at Del Paso Road from 1 to 2 GP lanes in order to avoid Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” severely over-capacity conditions along Del Paso Road and El Centro Road.
o These comments also apply to Table 23 and Figure 22.
• Please refer to previous comments on Figures 1 and 5 on the TIA, as they apply to Figures 1 and 5 of the LTA.
• Please consider including a note that the 7th Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (published February 2022) was not available at the time the analysis was conducted.
• Page 38 of the LTA states that a peak hour factor (PHF) of 1.0 was applied for this analysis in accordance with current practices from City of Sacramento and Sacramento County. The effective PHF of SimTraffic is 0.98. However, it is likely that the PHF is lower than 1.0 or 0.98, so can we be certain that the conclusions around queueing for the off- and on-ramps are accurate. Please determine the PHF at/near the study interchanges so we can be informed of the difference between actual conditions and what was modeled.
• Chapter 4 (on page 83) describes the lack of land use assumptions for the redevelopment of the Sleep Train Arena area at the time of analysis. In February 2022, plans for the proposed Innovation Park were approved by the City Council of Sacramento. Please clarify whether sensitivity tests be conducted with both the Innovation Park and Upper Westside Specific Plans to determine the effects on transportation and circulation for both projects.
• On page 106, the LTA states that traffic signals were not re-optimized between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. However, it is probably safe to assume that traffic signals would be optimized to accommodate the 2040 level of project traffic, regardless of the project is built or not.
• The description of improvements for the I-80 WB Ramps/West El Camino Avenue intersection on page 119 is confusing because the off-ramp is regarded as the westbound approach, but the intersection peak hour turning movements/lane configurations figures show it as the southbound approach. Please consider revising for consistency.
• The intersection peak hour turning movement/lane configurations diagrams for intersection 33 show 3 through lanes and 2 free right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach. However, the diagram in Figure 20 shows 2 through lanes, 1 shared through/right-turn lane, and one free-right turn lane on this approach at this intersection. However, these changes are not described or justified in the list of improvements on page 119. Please revise.
Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” • Page 121 includes discussion of grade-separated pedestrian overcrossings for the north and west legs of the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection. These were ultimately ruled out as design features because they did not yield improved operations in the microsimulation models and would reduce pedestrian inconvenience. Freeway Operations has a few rebuttals to these statements:
o The microsimulation models used for this analysis were created in SimTraffic, which does not model pedestrian activity as well as other softwares such as VISSIM. The crosswalk across the WBR channelization at this intersection will conflict with over 2200 vehicles during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, that will operate with free operation. Please clarify what were the pedestrian demands assumed in the SimTraffic model, and can the consultant confirm that the pedestrians using the north leg crosswalk also used the crosswalk across the WBR channelization.
o Furthermore, the safety implications of this set-up are not discussed, nor are the safety implications of the triple left-turn lanes on the westbound and northbound approaches as well as the dual right-turn lanes on the northbound approach.
• Please consider including more discussion as to what effect the geometric improvements on West El Camino Avenue and El Centro Road would have on Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Please include screenshots of SimTraffic, bar charts of percent demand served, etc.
• Please confirm that the dual right turn lanes on the westbound approach of West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road Intersection is not a free operation and is signalized as is mentioned in TR-3a.
Forecasting & Modeling
In the CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Final Report of Fehr & Peers, which is in the file titled "Upper_Westside_SP_DEIR_Appendix_Aug_2024," it says that the project will result in a net decrease in VMT. Yet, the SACOG residential VMT HEX map shows that the project’s site has parcels with residential VMT that is more than 85% of that of the regional average. Similarly, some parcels of the project’s site have work related VMT that is higher than 85% of that of the regional average as per the SACOG work related VMT HEX map. Please provide an explanation for the discrepancy between the results of the VMT analysis that are documented in the CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Final Report and what the SACOG VMT HEX maps are showing.
Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Right of Way
As project moves forward, Caltrans requests the County show the State right of way (ROW) delineated in the site plans. Caltrans record maps for State Highway ROW can be by contacting: [email protected]
• Caltrans recommends showing any monument preservation plans (if applicable) to identify any vulnerable survey monuments that will need to be perpetuated, as required.
Hydraulics
Upper Westside Specific Plan has large footprint that will invariably alter the drainage pattern of the area. The project’s net new impervious layer may result in runoff increase in a 100-year storm event which may trigger erosion and siltation. The owner should show how these concerns will be reduced to a less than significant level on Caltrans/State’s drainage facilities. Developer may be held liable for future damages due to impacts for which adequate mitigation was not undertaken or sustained.
Encroachment Permit
Any project or work, including access modificatio n and drainage work, that takes place along or within the State’s ROW requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to Encroachment Permits Offices as indicated below:
Hikmat Bsaibess
California Department of Transportation
District 3, Office of Permits
703 B Street
Marysville, CA 95901
[email protected]
Please provide our office with copies of any further actions regarding this proposal.
We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on any changes related to this development.
Ms. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If you have any questions regarding these comments or require additional information, please contact Satwinder Dhatt, Local Development Review Coordinator, by phone (530) 821-8261 or via email at [email protected].
S
incerely,
G
ARY ARNOLD, Branch Chief
Local Development Review and Complete Streets
Division of Planning, Local Assistance, and Sustainability California Department of Transportation, District 3
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
A
ttn: Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
County of Sacramento
Department of Community Development
Planning and Environmental Review Division
827 7th Street, Room 225 Sacramento, California 95814
25 October 2024
RE: Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR
De
ar Ms. Newton,
H
aving been retained by ECOS and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, I write to comment on potentially significant impacts to biological resources from the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan and their analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). I understand the project would add 9,356 housing units for a predicted 25,578 people (the DEIR also predicts 25,200 residents and 25,460 residents), and >3 million square feet of commercial, retail, office buildings as well as parks and greenbelts on 1,532 acres, and on another 534 acres agricultural buffer to the Sacramento River.
M
y qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
S
ITE VISIT
T
o prepare my testimony, I visited the site to complete a reconnaissance survey to sample the wildlife community. On 23 October 2024, from 07:00 to 08:42 hours, I surveyed from San Juan Road, scanning for wildlife with use of binoculars. After 1 hour and 42 minutes, I relocated to Radio Road because a tractor-drawn disk assembly covered my survey area with dust. I surveyed at my second site until 10:50 hours. I recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife we detected, including those whose members flew over the site or we saw nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. 43 2
Conditions were clear with no wind and temperatures of 47–66° F. Most of the site is in agriculture, which is irrigated by canals and interspersed by ditches, annual grassland and small stands of trees including willows, oaks and Fremont cottonwoods (Photos 1 through 4).
I completed my survey was too late in the season for detecting Swainson’s hawks, as by October 1
st the last of the local Swainson’s hawks would have departed on their annual winter migration to Mexico. However, I have seen Swainson’s hawks on the Specific Plan area many times before.
Photos 1 and 2. Western king amid a stand of willows on the project site, 14 May 2024.
3 Photos 3 and 4. Mallards on one of the water channels on the project site, 14 May 2024.
On the Specific Plan area, I observed two pairs of white-tailed kites and a peregrine falcon (Photos 5 and 6), California ground squirrels and sign of bobcat (Photos 7 and 8), coyotes (Photo 9), American kestrels and Anna’s hummingbirds (Photos 10 and 11), California scrub-jays and yellow-rumped warblers (Photos 12 and 13), Dark-eyed juncos and house finches (Photos 14 and 15), Great egrets and northern flickers (Photos 16 and 17), song sparrows and lesser goldfinches (Photos 18 and 19), white-crowned sparrows and golden-crowned sparrows (Photos 20 and 21), Lincoln’s sparrows and Nashville warbler (Photos 22 and 23), and many more species (Table 1).
4 Photos 5 and 6. A pair of
white-tailed kites atop an oak
(top) and a peregrine falcon
on the hunt (right) on the
Specific Plan area, 23 October
2024.
5 Photos 7 and 8. California ground squirrel (L) and track of a bobcat (R) on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024.
Photo 9. One of four coyotes on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024.
6 Photos 10 and 11. American kestrel (L) and Anna’s hummingbird (R) on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024.
Photos 12 and 13. California scrub-jay (L) and yellow-rumped warbler (R) on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024.
7 Photos 14 and 15. Dark-eyed junco and house finches on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024.
8 Photos 16 and
17. Great egret
and northern
flicker on the
Specific Plan area,
23 October 2024.
9 Photos 18 and 19.
Song sparrow and
lesser goldfinch on the
Specific Plan area, 23
October 2024.
10 Photos 20 and 21.
White-crowned sparrow
and golden-crowned
sparrow on the Specific
Plan area, 23 October
2024.
11 Photos 22 and 23.
Lincoln’s sparrow (top)
and Nashville warbler
(bottom) on the Specific
Plan area, 23 October
2024.
12 Among the 73 species I detected, 17 (23%) are special-status species (Table 1), including tricolored blackbird, which is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, white-tailed kite, which is a California Fully Protected Species. Combining my results with those of Bargas (2022) and Helix (2024), we have detected 119 species of vertebrate wildlife on the Specific Plan area, 100 of which were detected by Bargas over their 40 surveys spanning more than two years, three additional species detected by Helix and 16 more detected by myself (Table 1). Our combined 119 species include 26 special-status species, including two Threatened species under CESA.
Although I saw 73 species of vertebrate wildlife during my brief 3.83-hour survey, the species of wildlife I detected comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during our survey, as was evidenced by the Bargas and Helix surveys. Reconnaissance surveys, such as the one I completed at the project site, cannot support determinations of species’ absence, but they can confirm species’ presence. Such surveys can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected, thereby revealing the degree to which the survey sampled the local wildlife community that was available at the time of the survey. One way to do this is to model the pattern in species detections with time into a survey. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). In the case of my survey on the project site, the pattern in the data predicts that had I spent more time on the site, or had I help from more biologists, I would have detected 135 species of vertebrate wildlife during the morning of 23 October 2024, or 62 more species than I actually detected.
The pattern in my data also indicates that my rate of species detections at the project site far exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval I estimated from 52 surveys at other project sites that I have surveyed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley since 2019 (Figure 1). In other words, wildlife species richness at the project site far exceeds the species richness my surveys indicated at other project sites in the region, despite the agricultural activities on the Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan area supports many species of wildlife, including many more than I could detect during a brief reconnaissance survey. However, although this modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat. I surveyed only in October, and therefore I was unlikely to see some of the species that would use the site in winter, spring or summer.
13 Table 1. Species of wildlife observed by Bargas during 40 surveys from March 2019 to July 2021, by Helix on 7 and 8 March 2023, and by myself (KSS) 3.83 hours on the morning of 23 October 2024.
Common name Species name Status1 Bargas Helix KSS Notes Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis X
Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans Non-native X X Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT X2
Snow goose Anser caerulescens X
Canada goose Branta canadensis X X X Low-flying flocks Cinnamon teal Spatula cyanoptera X
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata X Just off site
Gadwall Mareca strepera X
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X X
California quail Callipepla californica X
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X
Ring-necked pheasant Phaianus colchicus Non-native X
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X X X Hundreds
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC X
American coot Fulica americana X X
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus X Just off site Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X X
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus X
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca X Just off site Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC X
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL X X X
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 X X American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X
Great blue heron Ardea herodias X X X
14 Common name Species name Status1 Bargas Helix KSS Notes Great egret Ardea alba X X X
Snowy egret Egretta thula X X X
White-faced ibis Pledagis chihi TWL X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X X
Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP X X
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP X X Two pairs Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
X X Harassed by yellow-
headed blackbirds
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X X
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP X
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP X
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X X
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X X
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X X
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X X X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X Several
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP X Foraging
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, BOP X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X X
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC X X X
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X Many
Common raven Corvus corax X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X X
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris X X Many
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X
15 Common name Species name Status1 Bargas Helix KSS Notes Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina X
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X X
Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa X
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens X
White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X X
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X
House wren Troglodytes aedon X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X X X
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X X X
American robin Turdus migratorius X X
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native X X
American pipit Anthus rubescens X X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X
American goldfinch Spinus tristis X X
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus X
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis X X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X X Many Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla X X
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X
Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia SSC3 X X
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X
California towhee Melozone crissalis X
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 X X Many 16 Common name Species name Status1 Bargas Helix KSS Notes Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC X
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X X
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor
CT, BCC,
SSC1
X
Multiple small flocks
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X X X
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus X X Flock
Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla X
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 X
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X X Many
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X
Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea X
Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus X X X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X One a roadkill Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger X
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X Raccoon Procyon lotor X One a roadkill
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X
American mink Neovison vison X
River otter Lontra canadensis X
North American beaver Castor canadensis X
Bobcat Lynx rufus X
Coyote Canis latrans X
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus X
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern with priorities 1, 2 and 3, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5). 2 Eric Hansen detected eDNA on site. 17 Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and my
elapsed survey
time on 23
October 2024.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the Specific Plan area, but I only my one brief diurnal survey. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a more expansive data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the Upper Westside Specific Plan area over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed 41 diurnal surveys on the Kassis property in Rancho Cordova, California. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I used on the Specific Plan area. I selected the Kassis data set as the basis of an analytical bridge because the species richness I detected there in my initial survey was similar to that of the Upper Westside Specific Plan area. I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least- squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey: 𝑅𝑅� =
1 1 𝑎𝑎� +𝑏𝑏×(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻)𝑐𝑐 , where 𝑅𝑅� represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficient of determination, r2, was 0.98, indicating the model was an excellent fit to the data (Figure 2).
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 379.5
95% CI of visual-
scan surveys 2019-2024
Actual count of species
18 Figure 2. Cumulative
number of species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
with increasing number of
hours of survey at the Kassis
site in Rancho Cordova,
California, which was
surveyed 41 times from 3
December 2020 through 27
October 2023.
The model-predicted asymptote of species richness at the Kassis site was 180 following many more hours of visual-scan surveys than I actually completed. On average I would have detected 53.8 species over my first 3.83 hours of surveys at Kassis (3.83 hours to match the 3.83 hours I surveyed at the Upper Westside Specific Plan area during daylight), which composed 29.9% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at Kassis. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 73 species I detected after 3.83 hours of diurnal survey on the Upper Westside Specific Plan area likely represented 29.9% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 73 0.299� = 244 species of vertebrate wildlife on the Upper Westside Specific Plan area. Assuming my ratio of special-status to non- special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 244 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 54 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.
I applied the same analytical approach to special-status species, where at Kassis I detected 34 special-status species after 157 hours across 41 surveys. The model- predicted asymptote of special-status species richness at Kassis was 36 following many more hours of visual-scan surveys than I actually completed (Figure 3). On average I would have detected 6.45 special-status species over my first 3.83 hours of surveys at Kassis (again, the 3.83 hours used here is to match the 3.83 hours I surveyed on the Upper Westside Specific Plan area), which composed 17.9% of the predicted total number of special-status species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at Kassis. Given the example illustrated in Figure 3), the 17 special-status species I detected after 3.83 hours of survey on the Upper Westside Specific Plan area likely represented 17.9% of the special-status species to be detected after many more visual- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Hours of survey
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 366
Actual count of species
19 scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 17 0.179� = 95 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife on the Upper Westside Specific Plan area.
Figure 3. Cumulative
number of special-status
species of vertebrate wildlife
detected with increasing
number of hours of survey at
the Kassis site in Rancho
Cordova, California, which
was surveyed 41 times from
3 December 2020 through 27
October 2023.
Because my predictions of 244 species of vertebrate wildlife including 54 to 95 special- status species of vertebrate wildlife are derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the Upper Westside Specific Plan area must be larger. My reconnaissance survey combined with the surveys of Bargas (2022) and Helix (2024) have so far detected fewer than half of the vertebrate wildlife species that occur on the Specific Plan area, and between a third to half the number of special-status species that occur there. The wildlife community has yet to be inventoried, and therefore has yet to be accurately characterized as part of the existing environmental setting. More surveys are needed, as the wildlife community is far richer in species than depicted in Helix (2024) and the DEIR.
Known for certain is that the project Upper Westside Specific Plan area supports Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird, both species of which are listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Helix (2024) also reports the presence of the federally- and state-listed threatened giant gartersnake on the Specific Plan area. It also supports yellow warbler, which is considered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to be a Species of Special Concern with priority level 2.
Also certainly present is Bullock’s oriole, which is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird of Conservation Concern. Double-crested cormorants are present, as are multiple species protected under California’s Birds of Prey statute. As my modeling 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Hours of survey
Cumulative number of special-status
species of wildlife detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.97, loss = 48.3
Actual count of species
20 suggests, many additional special-status species use the site, but I just did not have the fortune to see them on the project site during my survey.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts and to formulate appropriate mitigation measures. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps.
Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting Informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the project site or nearby, and which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.
Bargas (2022) committed to a serious survey effort of the Specific Plan area, and documented the presence of multiple special-status species. It is unfortunate, however, that Bargas (2022) refers the reader to other reports that purportedly include the details of study methods. These other reports are not provided with the DEIR, so I am unable to assess the methods, which makes it very difficult to assess Bargas’s findings.
Helix (2024) surveyed the Specific Plan area only on two consecutive days, and like Bargas, fails to report survey start times and survey duration, which are critical methodological details that the reader needs in order to assess the survey findings. Helix detected fewer than half the number of species detected by Bargas, but it is unreported exactly where Helix surveyed or for how long. Nonetheless, Helix (2024) detected three more species of wildlife that Bargas did not.
Although 102 species of vertebrate wildlife were detected by Bargas (2022) and Helix (2024), the DEIR does not summarize the survey findings into a coherent characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.
Most of the species that truly occur in the area are never mentioned, nor is the species richness or biological diversity of the area summarized. The result is an unfortunate insinuation that the Specific Plan area is of low overall value to wildlife. My survey 21 results indicate the opposite, which is that despite the annual disking of most of the acreage on the Specific Plan area, the area is inherently species-rich.
Environmental Setting Informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance surveys are not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations.
First Bargas (2022:22) and then Helix (2024:18-19) established an initial pool of special-status species considered for inclusion in their respective analyses of occurrence based on queries of CNDDB occurrence records. It is unclear to what spatial extent the CNDDB queries were made, but regardless this screening step is flawed. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site.
There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” And in its letter of 6 November 2020 to the County, CDFW writes, “Please note that CDFW’s CNDDB is not exhaustive in terms of the data it houses, nor is it an absence database. CDFW recommends that it be used as a starting point in gathering information about the potential presence of species within the general area of the Project site.” Bargas (2022), Helix (2024) and the DEIR misuse CNDDB.
CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer or permit reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since CNDDB’s inception. The lack of CNDDB records for species only recently assigned special status would have been due to insufficient time having elapsed since the assignments. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either. The DEIR’s analysis of special-status species occurrence likelihoods is fundamentally flawed.
22 The DEIR is also internally inconsistent in its occurrence likelihood determinations (Table 2). Bargas (2022) analyzes the occurrence potential of only 22 species of vertebrate wildlife, whereas Helix (2024) does so for 30 species and the DEIR does so for 36 species. Bargas, Helix and the DEIR agree that five species are unlikely to occur, and they agree on four species known or suspected to be present, but determinations of occurrence likelihood vary among the other species considered. Bargas’s determinations mostly comport with my analysis of occurrence records, although Bargas’s determination of low likelihood of giant gartersnake occurrence does not comport with its own finding of eDNA evidence of the snake right in the middle of the Specific Plan area. Helix determines 15 species will not occur or are not expected, yet three of these are assigned moderate potential by Bargas and I saw two of these species on the Specific Plan area on October 23
rd.
In my assessment of database review and site visit, 102 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the Specific Plan area to be analyzed for potential to occur at one time or another (Table 2). Of these 102 species, 31 (30%) have been documented on the Specific Plan area (I confirmed 17 of these), and 23 (22.5%) have been documented in databases within 1.5 miles of the Specific Plan area (‘Very close’), 20 (19.6%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 23 (22.5%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Three quarters (74) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Specific Plan area supports multiple special-status species of wildlife, and likely supports many more.
POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how the proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. In the following I describe three types of impacts likely to result from the project, and which need to be analyzed in a revised DEIR.
INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING HCPs
The DEIR fails to consider the need for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) to be reevaluated and new incidental take permits (ITPs) issued with a new conservation strategy. According to the DEIR (p. 7-37), “While the UWSP area is in the Natomas Basin, the County is not a participant in either the NBHCP or the MAP HCP.
Therefore, the applicant (and any future applicants for buildout of the UWSP area) is not eligible for the take coverage granted by USFWS and CDFW under the NBHCP or MAP HCP. The proposed UWSP is also outside of the planned development areas of the NBHCP and MAP HCP and potential impacts resulting from development allowed under the proposed UWSP were not considered in the NBHCP.” These conclusions, however, lack the analysis of whether the Specific Plan would require a reevaluation of the NBHCP. The 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement states, “…prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development…” 23 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in Bold identify species I detected.
Common name
Species name
Status
1 Occurrence potential
Bargas
2022
Helix 2024
DEIR
Data base
records,
Site visits
Conservancy fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
FE Absent Won’t occur Not expected In range
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT Low Won’t occur Low In region Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi FE Absent Won’t occur Not expected In region Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT Low Not expected /
Habitat present
Moderate In region
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Won’t occur Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Won’t occur Not expected In region Northwestern pond
turtle
Emys marmorata SSC High May occur /
Habitat present
Moderate Very close
Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT Low Present / Habitat present
High On site
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose
(Aleutian)
Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL Moderate Won’t occur Low Nearby
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC Very close Western grebe Aechmophorus
occidentalis
BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE Absent Won’t occur Not expected In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
24 Common name
Species name
Status
1 Occurrence potential
Bargas
2022
Helix 2024
DEIR
Data base
records,
Site visits
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Nearby
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis
canadensis
SSC3 In region
Greater sandhill crane Antigone canadensis
tabida
CT, FP Low In region
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Not expected Low In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius n. nivosus FT, SSC Absent Won’t occur Not expected In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Nearby
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC On site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site, ebird California least tern Sternula antillarum
browni
FE, CE, FP In region
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus WL Won’t occur Not expected On site American white pelican Pelacanus
erythrorhynchos
SSC1 Present High On site
25 Common name
Species name
Status
1 Occurrence potential
Bargas
2022
Helix 2024
DEIR
Data base
records,
Site visits
California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
FP In region
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Moderate Not expected / Habitat present
Moderate On site ebird
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Present Present On site White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Present High / Habitat present
High On site
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Present Present Present On site
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Present /
Habitat present
Present On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
CE, BGEPA,
BOP
Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Present High / Present High On site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Not expected Low Very close Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP On site
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP On site, eBird
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,
BOP
Moderate May occur /
Habitat present
Moderate On site
26 Common name
Species name
Status
1 Occurrence potential
Bargas
2022
Helix 2024
DEIR
Data base
records,
Site visits
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Nearby
Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Not expected Low Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Low On site
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP On site
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Won’t occur Not expected In region Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 High High / Habitat present
High Very close
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC On site
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Moderate Won’t occur Low Very close Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 May occur /
Habitat present
Moderate On site, eBird
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus
savannarum
SSC2 Won’t occur Low Nearby
27 Common name
Species name
Status
1 Occurrence potential
Bargas
2022
Helix 2024
DEIR
Data base
records,
Site visits
Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia
mailliardi
SSC3 High / Habitat
present
High On site
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus
affinis
SSC2 In range
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
SSC3 High May occur /
Habitat present
Moderate On site
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Moderate May occur / Habitat present
Moderate On site
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 High High On site Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris
noctivagans
WBWG:M Low Nearby
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Low Nearby
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
SSC, WBWG:H In range
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H May occur /
Habitat present
Moderate In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Won’t occur Not expected In region 28 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).
29 The need for a reevaluation of NBHCP’s conservation strategy was recognized by Leighann Moffitt, County Planning Director, in a 26 November 2019 letter to the County Supervisors regarding PLNP2018-00284. Initiation of the Upper Westside Specific Plan Process. The County’s letter cites United States District Judge David F. Levi’s 7 September 2005 warning that “The NBHCP anticipates that development by the City and Sutter will be limited to 15,517 acres – 8,050 acres within the City [of Sacramento] and 7,467 acres in Sutter County – and provides that approval of any development beyond this limit – whether by the City and Sutter or by other entities – will trigger reevaluation and possible amendment of the plan, and could result in suspension or revocation of the City and Sutter permits.” The letter goes on to conclude that “Staff recognizes that any new development in the Natomas Basin above the 17,500 acres already approved and permitted by the Natomas Basin and Metro Air Park HCPs will require careful coordination and consideration of existing approved developments, their mitigation strategies, and the regional conservation context.” Despite this recognition of the need for NBHCP reevaluation, it appears that no such reevaluation has occurred.
T
he need to reevaluate the NBHCP in the face of the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan is obvious considering the frontloading of development and the holding of only 5,185.78 acres of mitigation land in the Natomas Basin as of 2023 (see the Conservancy’s 2023 audit). The Upper Westside Specific Plan occurs within the Natomas Basin and it supports special-status species that are covered by the NBHCP’s ITP. The land of the Upper Westside Specific Plan therefore provides candidate mitigation opportunities for the NBHCP to meet its mitigation obligations.
T
he NBHCP’s conservation strategy was not formulated with the proposed Specific Plan in mind. There was no effects analysis inclusive of the Specific Plan when the NBHCP’s conservation strategy was planned out, nor does the DEIR provide the needed effects analysis inclusive of the Specific Plan’s development of 1,532 acres and the NBHCP- planned development of 17,500 acres. This is important because the Specific Plan would degrade the existing NBHCP’s conservation strategy. Indeed, ICF (2023:3-21; https://natomasbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2004-ggs-monitoring- report.pdf) posits, “The most significant corridors spanning the Basin from north to south are the primary drainages managed by Reclamation District 1000; these include … West Drainage Canal (including Fisherman’s Lake) ...” It is the West Drainage Canal that abuts the northern and eastern sides of the Specific Plan area. ICF (2024) identifies giant gartersnake habitat within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan would eliminate land that remains available for mitigation from within the Natomas Basin, and direct and indirect takings of giant gartersnake would impair the NBHCP’s conservation strategy for giant gartersnake, which according to ICF (2023) is “to create a system of reserves that contain both wetland and upland components that will support viable populations of Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas), and other species covered under the Plan.”
T
he requirements of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement must be taken seriously. As revealed by Biological Effectiveness Monitoring, there is no room for additional mistakes in the NBHCP’s conservation strategy. The covered species given highest priority in the NBHCP – giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk – are showing 30 signs of steady decline and of population stress, respectively. According to Biological Effectiveness Monitoring (ICF 2024: Figure 3-14), the probability of capture of giant gartersnakes in HCP reserves steadily declined from 2011 through 2022. Estimating a trend line through the mean probability of capture in Figure 3-14 reveals a 40% decline in only 11 years. Similarly, estimating a trend line to the mean number of monitored sites occupied by giant garter snake from 2011 through 2022 reveals a 43% decline in only 11 years (ICF 2024: Figure 3-15).
1 Because ICF (2024: Figure 3-15) did not fit a trend line to the change in indicators of giant gartersnake abundance, I fit a linear regression model to their data, specifically to the mean number of sites occupied by giant gartersnakes in the Natomas Basin (Figure 4). A model fit to the data is useful for prediction, so long as the prediction is not made too far beyond the scope of inference of the model. In this case, the model predicts that based on its current trend, giant gartersnake will be extirpated from the Natomas Basin by the year 2045, or 8 years short of the end of its permit period. It is possible, the linear pattern of decline will change. The rate of decline might slow should conditions improve for giant gartersnakes in the Natomas Basin. Alternatively, the rate of decline might accelerate if the species’ habitat is lost, degraded or further fragmented by development projects such as the proposed project.
Figure 4. Mean number
of sites occupied by giant
gartersnakes in the
Natomas Basin by year.
Data source: ICF (2024).
1 Examining the trend in relative abundance indicators since the start of monitoring in 2002 is not possible based on current reporting, because the metrics of abundance changed from density in 2002 - 2004 to capture probability and site occupancy in 2011-2022, and because no reports are posted for the years 2005 through 2010. Only use of a common metric would enable examination of the population trend of giant gartersnakes within the Natomas Basin from 2002 through the present.
Y = 3059.8479 – 1.4958X
r2 = 0.60, SE = 2.47
P = 0.0012
Year
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60Mean no. of sites occupied by giant gartersnakes
Predicted year of extirpation = 2045
31 According to Biological Effectiveness Monitoring (ICF 2024: Figure 4-7), the number of Swainson’s hawk nest sites increased steadily from 2001 through 2022, from 46 nest sites to 68 – a 48% increase. However, over the same period, the number of Swainson’s hawks fledged per successful nest declined steadily from an average of 1.79 in 1999 to
1.14 in 2022, which was a 36% decrease. These data are displayed along with a best-fit linear regression model in Figure 4-9 of ICF (2024). Projecting the linear regression model forward to 2028, the number of fledglings per successful nest is predicted to be half of what it was in 1999. According to the data, the average number of fledglings per successful nest four years from now will be only 50% of what it was 25 years ago, but nevertheless there will be more occupied territories (nest sites).
More revealing than the graphs in ICF (2024), the data collected via Biological Effectiveness Monitoring reveal an important functional relationship between Swainson’s hawk productivity and the number of successful nests within the Natomas Basin (Figure 5). Because the number of fledglings per successful nest varies much less interannually than does the number of successful nests, it is the latter that contributes most to the local Swainson’s hawk population. Even though the number of nest territories (nest sites) has increased through the period of monitoring (ICF 2024: Figure 4-7), the number of fledglings per nest site has not. This is because the annual number of successful nests relates negatively with the annual number of nests without success, especially after excluding data from the years 1999 and 2000, which are obvious outliers (Figure 6). (Data were likely collected using different methods in the outlier years.) Since the earliest years of the NBHCP, the annual number of nests without success have increased in the Natomas Basin, and have increased in variation between years (Figure 7). This increasing variation in the annual number of nests without success has resulted in increasingly greater variation in the annual number of successful nests and hence the annual variation in productivity.
Figure 5. Annual number of
Swainson’s hawk young raised to
fledging regressed on the annual
number of successful nests within the
Natomas Basin reveals a near-
constant 1.43 fledglings per
successful nest. Data source: ICF
(2024).
Y = -0.0008 + 1.4308X
r2 = 0.90, SE = 4.48
P < 0.00001
Successful nests
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Number of young reared to fledging
32 Figure 6. Annual number of Swainson’s hawk successful nests regressed on the annual number of nests without success within the Natomas Basin, including the years 1999 and 2000 (left graph) and excluding the years 1999 and 2000 (right graph).
Data source: ICF (2024).
Figure 7. Annual number of
Swainson’s hawk nests without
success by year. Data source: ICF
(2024).
The increased annual number of Swainson’s hawk nest sites reflects well on the NBHCP, but the functional relationship between the annual number of successful nests and the annual number of nests without success, and the less-varying number of fledglings per successful nest, indicate that the productive capacity of the NBHCP reserve lands has been reached, and that the number of successful nests can be suppressed by overcrowding of Swainson’s hawks of breeding age within the Natomas Basin. 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024
Year
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Number of nest sites without success
1999
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10
20 30
40 50
Number of nest sites without success
Successful nests
Number of nest sites without success
Successful nests
Y = 50.0079 – 0.8454X
r2 = 0.83, SE = 5.72
P < 0.00001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10
20 30
40 50
33 Swainson’s hawks maintain breeding territories, the integrity of which is more stable than is the availability of forage. In other words, even with surplus forage available on enhanced habitat, only so many breeding territories can be established within the available space to exploit the enhanced forage. With the number of breeding territories relatively fixed based on the available space, the more the number of nonbreeding adults crowded into that space, the fewer of the nest attempts will succeed because there will be a lesser share of forage to convert into fledglings. The Specific Plan would further crowd the remaining habitat in the Natomas Basin with more Swainson’s hawk refugees.
I note, however, that Fleishman et al. (2016), after tracking telemetered Swainson’s hawks throughout the Natomas Basin, came to a different conclusion. Fleishman et al. (2016) hypothesized that the availability of suitable nest substrate is the primary limiting factor of the Swainson’s hawk population in the Natomas Basin. My argument against their hypothesis is that the number of occupied territories continued to increase since Fleishman et al. (2016) published their hypothesis, and this increase would serve to indicate there was more available nest substrate than Fleishman et al. realized, at least within the Natomas Basin. The trends in Figures 5–7 suggest to me that lands available for foraging is more limiting within the Natomas Basine, and dispersing Swainson’s hawks are finding fewer opportunities for breeding outside the Natomas Basin. The Specific Plan would worsen this situation.
To more effectively conserve Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin, a change to the conservation strategy of the NBHCP might be warranted. Needed is more habitat within and without the Natomas Basin. Young Swainson’s hawks need to be able to find breeding opportunities outside their natal areas. However, Swainson’s hawks are rapidly losing breeding habitat in San Joaquin County and Yolo County, much of it to development and much of it to agricultural conversions to nut orchards and vineyards.
Furthermore, changes to more intensive agricultural practices and increased efforts to poison ground squirrels are diminishing forage across large portions of the areas used by Swainson’s hawks for decades.
In addition to giant gartersnake, multiple species covered by the NBHCP are showing signs of decline. According to ICF (2023), species on the decline from 2005 through 2022 include northern harrier, loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl. The trend of Pacific pond turtle is unknown because counts of turtles combine individuals of Pacific pond turtles and red-eared slider. It is also difficult to determine the trends of white- faced ibis and tricolored blackbird, partly due to inconsistent trends between metrics and partly due to lack of reported confidence intervals. I did not find any monitoring results for bank swallow, cackling goose, western spadefoot, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or multiple other species.
Complicating interpretation of the trends of the other covered species was the change in field methods, which shifted the seasonal weightings of survey results averaged per year.
All tracts within NBHCP reserves had been surveyed once per month through 2017, but afterwards the tracts were surveyed twice per month during April through June, once per month during July and August, never more during September through November, and – but only on tracts with rice fields and wetlands – monthly during December 34 through February (whether surveys were completed in March is unreported). Any species more detectable in spring would have been over-represented in the years following 2017 compared to the years 2005–2017. The same was true for any species partial to rice or wetlands in winter. For example, the graphed increases in white-faced ibis and tricolored blackbird were likely due to the change in field methods (see Figures 5-8 and 5-9 in ICF 2023).
Along with the other covered species, wildlife species not covered by the NBHCP were expected to benefit from the conservation of the two umbrella species – giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk. However, the effectiveness monitoring suggests declines of waterfowl as a group, neotropical migrants as a group, shorebirds as a group, and yellow-billed magpie. Again, without reported confidence intervals, some of the trends are difficult to ascertain. Overall, however, very little of the monitoring data indicates the NBHCP and MAPHCP are achieving their conservation objectives. The only covered species that has substantially benefitted from the mitigation measures of the NBHCP is Swainson’s hawk, and this species has benefitted to the maximum degree that it can unless and until more reserve land is acquired and converted to habitat within the Natomas Basin, or more breeding substrate and foraging habitat becomes av available in the Sacramento Valley outside the Natomas Basin.
Considering the foregoing, I concur with CDFW (6 November 2020 letter to Todd Smith, Sacramento County Planning, from Kelley Barker, California Department of Fish and Wildlife), where CDFW’s Kelley Barker writes “robust analysis of whether, in what way, and to what extent the Project may affect future implementation and the continued viability of the NBHCP and MAP HCP in the Natomas Basin is essential to the County’s informed review of the Project.” I entirely agree with Kelley Barker’s recommendations that the effects analysis should include the following:
Persistence of NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species in the Natomas Basin Impacts to established reserve land managed by the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC)
Reduction of available reserve land in the Natomas Basin under the NBHCP and MAP HCP (with appropriate buffers and setbacks as detailed in the NBHCP) Reduction of ability for TNBC to establish or enhance Covered Species range and habitats in the southern Natomas Basin.
Continued viability of the land uses in the Natomas Basin as detailed in the NBHCP and MAP HCP
Financial impacts to TNBC and feepayers under the NBHCP and MAP HCP, including the recent action by TNBC Board of Directors and the Sacramento City Council to address related ongoing financial challenges of continuing to implement the required conservation strategy in the Natomas Basin, and Cumulative impact of the Project, in combination with other development in the Natomas Basin approved since 2003 that is outside of the City of Sacramento and Sutter County’s permitted area under the NBHCP (e.g., levee improvements by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the Greenbriar project).
35 I reiterate that the requirement of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement that a project such as the Upper Westside Specific Plan triggers a reevaluation of the original NBHCP’s Plan and Permits.
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY REDUCED BY HABITAT LOSS
Development of the Specific Plan Area would contribute substantially to habitat loss and to habitat fragmentation, which together pose serious problems to wildlife in the region.
Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. Habitat fragmentation multiplies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species by isolating habitat patches from recruitment and by leaving some patches too small to support functionally important demographic units (Smallwood 2001, 2015). None of these impacts, however, are adequately addressed in the DEIR.
In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would be caused by the Specific Plan. One method would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. The alternative method is to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Two study sites in grassland- wetland-woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982). However, whereas these estimates might apply to portions of the Project site, they were acquired from far away. To acquire total nest densities closer to conditions in California, I surveyed two research sites through the breeding seasons of 2023 and 2024. I surveyed in grassland, woodlands, wetlands, and thickets of blackberry, elderberry, ornamentals and fig at the two sites in east Yolo County and in Rancho Cordova. I applied total nest density estimates from ground cover types in my studies that best matched the mapped ground cover types of the Specific Plan area (Table 3). Based on these acreages, I estimate the Specific Plan area supports 11,748 nest sites (Table 3).
However, the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as nest substrate is removed and foraging grounds graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the Upper Westside Specific Plan would be lost with the loss of nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species I asked my daughter, Noriko Smallwood, to review, I predict the project would cost California 16,330 nest attempts/year.
The average number of fledglings per nest attempt in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9.
Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the Specific Plan would prevent the production of 47,356 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 52,055 birds per year denied to California 36 from the build-out of the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The impact of these losses of avian productivity would be significant, but they are not considered in the DEIR.
Table 3. Estimated numbers of nests by ground cover vegetation types on the area of the Upper Westside Specific Plan.
Cover Acres
Nesting
density
No. of nests
(rounded) Source
Annual grassland 17.31 5.08 88 1
Deciduous orchard 4.38 14.38 63 2
Vineyard 17.23 7.19 124 3
Annual field crops 681.65 1.77 1,207 4
Grain and hay (alfalfa) 792.79 2.54 2,014 5
Pasture 17.91 3.81 68 6
Ruderal 285.5 5.08 1,450 7
Urban (rural) 258.18 21.25 5,486 8
Canals 45.08 0.00 0 9
Valley oak and Fremont cottonwood 35.66 28.79 1,027 10
Created wetlands 43.62 5.08 222 11
Total 2,199.00 11,748
1 K. S. Smallwood 2024 unpubl. data, Grassland/wetland complex in eastern Yolo County 2 K. S. Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, walnut orchard, Rancho Cordova 3 Best guess half the nest density of orchard (Smallwood 2023, unpublished data) 4 Assumed 25% the density as in grassland
5 Assumed 50% the density as in grassland
6 Assumed 75% the density as in grassland
7 Assumed equal density to grassland
8 K. S. Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, shrub thickets between orchard and adjacent neighborhood, including blackberries, blue elderberry and fig, Rancho Cordova 9 Best guess
10 K. S. Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, American River riparian, Rancho Cordova 11 Same as 1
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT IN THE REGION
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The DEIR devotes very little analysis to the question of whether the Specific Plan would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, limiting discussion to the Pacific Flyway’s role as a migration corridor for birds, and to the roles of canals and ditches in channeling movement of several special-status species. Other than mention of the ditches and canals, missing from the analysis is any consideration of wildlife movement within the region of the Specific Plan area. Birds fly through the local aerosphere of the Specific Plan area, and mammals walk across it.
37 Neither Bargas (2022) nor Helix (2024) implemented any sort of program of observation capable of characterizing movement patterns or determining how and to what degrees wildlife use the Specific Plan area for movement. No methods are described of how Bargas or Helix might have assessed the site in the field for its role in wildlife movement in the region. Other than speculation, there is no analysis. And in fact, I saw plenty of wildlife movement across the project site, mostly of birds headed north or south. I saw hundreds of blackbirds flying across the project site, including red- winged blackbirds, yellow-headed blackbirds and tricolored blackbirds. I saw hundreds of horned larks and American pipits flying across the site, as well as Canada geese, double-crested cormorants and white-faced ibises. The 119 species of wildlife detected by Bargas, Helix and myself would not have been on the Specific Plan area had their members not been able to move to it. The Specific Plan area is obviously important to wildlife movement in the region, and the project would obviously interfere with wildlife movement in the region.
Whether the Specific Plan area includes or is within a wildlife movement corridor is not the only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. In fact, a site such as the Specific Plan area is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the area for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).
The Specific Plan, due to its elimination of 1,532 acres of open space, would cut wildlife off from expansive stopover and staging opportunities in the Specific Plan area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. This impact would be significant, and as the project is currently proposed, it would be effectively unmitigated. In fact, the impact would be worse than usual should Phase 1 of the Specific Plan be sited in the middle of the Specific Plan area, or along the western edge of it. Such siting of Phase 1 would sever existing movement pathways, including of birds using the aerosphere (Photos 24 and 25) and of terrestrial animals moving along the ground (Photo 26). I saw nothing in the DEIR that would prevent this type of siting of Phase 1, resulting in habitat fragmentation.
38 Photos 24 and 25.
One of multiple flocks
of Canada goose flying
along the west side of
the Specific Plan area
(top), and one small
portion of a one of
multiple flocks of
yellow-headed
blackbirds flying north
along the west-central
aspect of the Specific
Plan area (right), 23
October 2024.
39 Photo 26. Three of four members of a coyote family on the Specific Plan area, 23 October 2024. I watched these coyotes travel north for at least 0.5 miles.
HOUSE CAT DEPREDATION
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the Upper Westside Specific Plan Area by residents of the proposed residential units.
This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017). Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The DEIR predicts there would be 25,578 new residents in the Specific Plan. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 11,254 new cats, which would kill 1,373,027 vertebrate wildlife per year. Many of the wildlife fatalities caused by house cats would be in neighboring open spaces.
House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (http://www.evotis.org/ toxoplasma-gondii- sea-otters/
).
Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the DEIR. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR with more meaningful review of
40 potential impacts to wildlife due to depredation by free-ranging house cats introduced by residents of the projects in the Specific Plan. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.
WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The Upper Westside Specific Plan would add 9,356 residential units to open space that is currently habitat to many birds. These new residences would present glass windows to birds attempting to use an essential portion of their habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the Upper Westside Specific Plan area, and I saw many birds using the aerosphere while I surveyed the site. Bird-window collision mortality is a potentially significant impact that warrants analysis.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed Project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- 41 window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during 42 migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Bird-window impact prediction
I have reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m
2 of glass per year could be calculated and
averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a site of a proposed new project.
I found no information on the extent of glass windows on the proposed new residential units. I therefore relied on another source for estimating the extent of glass windows in the Upper Westside Specific Plan. I have maintained a database of the extent of glass windows relative to the extents of floor space among other projects for which I have prepared expert testimony. For 25 recently proposed California residential projects, the ratio of m
2 of windows to ft2 of floor space was 0.017 (95% CI: 0.0088‒0.0253).
Assuming 2,000 sf per residential unit, the 9,356 residential units anticipated in the Upper Westside Specific Plan would total 18,712,000 sf, which multiplied against the ratio reported above would predict 318,104 m2 (95% CI: 164,666‒473,414 m2). Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 318,104 m2 of glass in the Upper Westside Specific Plan, I predict annual bird deaths of 23,253 (95% CI: 13,806‒ 32,701). I could update this prediction if I was to see more details about the Specific Plan. With or without more details, however, a bird-window collision mortality of this predicted magnitude would by highly significant. My analysis, updated or not, reveals that the impacts of bird-window collision mortality would be highly significant in the Upper Westside Specific Plan. This impact is not considered in the DEIR. The DEIR 43 needs to be revised with a more meaningful review of potential impacts to wildlife due to collisions with windows.
ROAD COLLISION MORTALITY
The DEIR fails to consider impacts on wildlife from road collision mortality. Project- generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project-generated traffic (Photos 27―30), including along roads far from the villages. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
Photo 27. A coyote
uses the crosswalk
to cross a street
and was fortunate
that one driver
showed the good
grace to stop for it,
2 February 2023.
Not all drivers stop,
nor do all animals
use the crosswalk.
Too often, animals
are injured or killed
when they attempt
to cross roads.
Increased traffic
volume increases
collision risk to
wildlife.
44 Photo 28. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 29. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.
Photo 30. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is
45 needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),
52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Animal-vehicle collision mortality prediction
The DEIR does not directly predict annual VMT, but at p. 23-8 it predicts 7,575 non- resident employees and 25,460 residents, and earlier it predicted daily VMT of 15.31 per employee and 14.34 per resident. Extended over the period of a year, these predictions would predict 175,590,422 annual VMT resulting from the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the above-predicted annual VMT would predict 96,214 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Even if the mortality is half this rate, it would be highly significant. Even if the mortality is a tenth of this rate, it would be highly significant.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic from and within the Upper Westside Specific Plan project area would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Given the predicted level of traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. However, these impacts are not considered in the DEIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The DEIR asserts that the Specific Plan, as well as all the other development projects within the DEIR’s defined geographic scope of cumulative impacts analysis, must meet the mitigation requirements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the Endangered Species Act, and other existing regulations, permits, and requirements. The DEIR concludes that the permanent loss of habitats to various special-status species of 46 wildlife would be potentially significant, but implies that compliance with existing regulations would minimize cumulative impacts. Because I had seen this same argument made in CEQA reviews prepared by many of California’s Cities and Counties, I decided to test it (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023).
To measure the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by development projects, and to measure cumulative impacts of development, Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All of the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We reported that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations.
The DEIR’s implication that existing regulations would minimize cumulative impacts is also largely inconsistent with the CEQA. According to the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DEIR does not explain how any of its cited laws or regulations would minimize the Specific Plan’s contributions to cumulative impacts.
The DEIR does cite its own mitigation measures as they might relate to cumulative impacts. However, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, weed surveys, and preconstruction surveys for wildlife are not going to prevent or even minimize the Specific Plan’s contributions to cumulative impacts. The DEIR includes no specific mitigation measure to avoid, minimize or compensate for the Specific Plan’s contributions to cumulative impacts.
MITIGATION
BR-1 Pre-construction Baseline Biological Resources Report Before the construction phase–specific development applications are deemed complete by the County, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Baseline Biological Resources Report 47 documenting current land cover, land use, plant and wildlife habitat, and the locations of potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, native and non-native trees, and any other biological resources needed to reach a conclusion regarding which of the following mitigation measures are required for the specific project phase.
The baseline biological resources report is the characterization of the biological portion of the existing environmental setting that is required by the CEQA. This measure is flawed, however, by shifting the timing of the characterization of the existing environmental setting from before the public circulation of the DEIR to after FEIR certification. The CEQA never intended the characterization of the existing environmental setting to be completed by preconstruction surveys. The methods and results of preconstruction surveys would not undergo public review, as even the formulation of the survey methods are deferred until after FEIR certificaiton.
Furthermore, preconstruction surveys do not carry anywhere close to the same probabilities of detections of plant and wildlife species as do surveys designed to characterize the environmental setting for the purpose of informing the public and decision-makers in an EIR. This measure is inconsistent with the CEQA’s primary objectives.
BR-2a Worker Environmental Awareness Program All project personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities will receive a comprehensive Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) presentation on the first day on a site prior to the initiation of construction provided by a qualified biologist. ...
I concur with the measure should the project go forward, but I must point out that its conservation benefits are far outweighed by the project’s potential impacts to wildlife.
BR-2a would do very little to avoid direct impacts, and would do nothing to avoid, minimize or compensate for losses of the productive capacity of the Specific Plan area to wildlife.
BR-2b Weed Control Plan Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant for each phase of the UWSP area development shall prepare a weed control plan for review and approval by the Environmental Coordinator. … shall only apply to UWSP properties that are within 100 feet of NBHCP and SAFCA reserve areas (e.g., the Alleghany Reserve and the Cummings Reserve) and the levee for the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) toe drain …
I concur with the measure should the project go forward, but I must point out that its conservation benefits are far outweighed by the project’s potential impacts to plants and wildlife. BR-2b would do very little to avoid, minimize or compensate for weed invasions of the areas targeted for protection, which are themselves very small relative to the extent of the Specific Plan area.
BR-2c Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Rare Plant Species Adequate measures shall be taken to avoid inadvertent take of Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) and other special-status plants by … conduct[ing] a properly timed special-status plant survey … [that] follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating 48 Impacts to Special Status Plan Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) ...
Measure BR-2c misrepresents the CDFW (2018) rare plant survey guidelines as a form of preconstruction survey. Preconstruction surveys are take-avoidance surveys, and as such they are a form of mitigation. The CDFW (2018) survey guidelines are intended to guide reconnaissance surveys for rare plants, and as such they are intended to support the characterization of the existing environmental setting as part of CEQA review. The DEIR misappropriates CDFW (2018).
BR-3 Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Impacts on Giant Garter Snake Project applicants shall obtain authorization for take of giant garter snake from USFWS and CDFW and implement all measures required therein to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to giant garter snake. In addition, … where construction activities will be conducted within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake habitat, project applicants shall:
• [Implement] BR-2a, “Worker Environmental Awareness
Program”); • Restrict construction activities to the giant garter snake active season; • Conduct pre-construction habitat surveys; • Dewater aquatic habitat prior to construction; • Conduct pre-construction surveys for giant garter snake presence; • Minimize vegetation clearing and avoid retained habitat; • Monitor ground- disturbing construction activities; and/or • Remove temporary fill and construction debris. To compensate for unavoidable permanent loss of aquatic giant garter snake habitat, project applicants shall either: (i) create, restore, or enhance, and preserve and manage suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat to provide giant garter snake habitat at a 1:1 or greater ratio (mitigation acreage to impact acreage), (ii) preserve and manage rice fields as habitat for giant garter snake at a 2:1 or greater ratio, and/or (iii) provide compensatory giant garter snake habitat of equal or greater ecological value as established in separate authorizations or permits by the USFWS and CDFW. Mitigation to compensate for losses of giant garter snake habitat may be fulfilled through a combination of these options, assuming minimum ratios are met.
These mitigation measures are described further below. • Secure Authorization from the USFWS and CDFW for the Incidental Take of Giant Garter Snake …
Unless take authorizations from CDFW or USFWS require compensatory mitigation of equal or greater ecological value to giant garter snake, compensatory mitigation shall be as follows. ♣ Compensatory mitigation shall be provided through creation, preservation, and management of suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat for giant garter snake; and/or preservation and management of rice fields or other suitable aquatic habitat, as habitat for giant garter snake. ♣ Mitigation sites shall be located outside of the Natomas Basin and in the American Basin Recovery Unit as defined in the Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 2017a. This mitigation may be provided through: • Purchase of credits from a CDFW- and USFWS-approved conservation bank; • Payment to an existing in-lieu fee program; • Creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management of suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat for giant garter snake; or • Preservation and management of existing giant garter snake habitat through 49 acquisition of fee-title or a conservation easement and funding for long-term management of giant garter snake habitat at a site. … • The selection of mitigation site(s) shall be approved by the County in coordination with CDFW and USFWS. • The form and content of the easement, and the amount of the endowment for long-term management, shall be acceptable to the County, CDFW, and USFWS, and the easement shall prohibit any activity that substantially impairs or diminishes the land’s capacity as suitable giant garter snake habitat and protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain giant garter snake habitat, in accordance with then-current water allocations and in coordination with USFWS. … For mitigation that creates, restores, or enhances suitable aquatic and associated upland giant garter snake habitat, a restoration plan shall be developed, approved by the USFWS, CDFW, and the County. ...
The NBHCP effectiveness monitoring (ICF 2024) shows that the measures of BR-3 are not working to conserve giant gartersnakes in the Natomas Basin. The giant gartersnake is disappearing from NBHCP Reserves, and at the present rate the species will be extirpated from the Natomas Basin by 2014. Given the current trend, it is unlikely the USFWS is going to approve the Specific Plan’s BR-3. BR-3 therefore presents only a speculative disposition of mitigation measures in lieu of any reevaluation of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy directed to giant gartersnake.
BR-4 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Northwestern Pond Turtle As recommended in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan or NBHCP, take of the northwestern pond turtle as a result of habitat destruction during construction activities, including the removal of irrigation ditches and drains, and during ditch and drain maintenance, will be minimized by the dewatering requirement described under BR-3. In addition: • For sites that contain northwestern pond turtle habitat, no more than 24 hours prior to start of construction activities (site preparation and/or grading), the project area shall be surveyed for the presence of northwestern pond turtle. ... • Clearing shall be confined to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities. …. If a live northwestern pond turtle is found during construction activities, the biological monitor shall immediately notify USFWS and CDFW. ... The biological monitor shall also report any northwestern pond turtle mortality within one working day to USFWS. Any project-related activity that results in northwestern pond turtle mortality shall cease so that this activity can be modified to the extent practicable to avoid future mortality. ...
Should the project go forward, this measure should be implemented. However, it does not avoid the reduction productive capacity of northwestern pond turtles that would result from habitat loss. Northwestern pond turtles require upland areas for nesting.
BR-5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds Mitigation Measure BR-5 applies to projects that include removal of trees or vegetation, tree trimming, or use of heavy equipment (e.g., earthwork, demolition).
50 Some bird species, including special-status species of some birds, are ground-nesters.
Examples include northern harrier and western snowy plover. BR-5 ignores these species.
BR-5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction nesting surveys during the avian nesting breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 31) within 7 days prior to construction. … If bird nests are found, an adequate no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest location and construction activities shall be restricted within the buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that any young birds have fledged and are able to leave the construction area. Required setback distances for the no-disturbance zone shall be established by the qualified biologist and may vary depending on species, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, and the birds’ sensitivity to disturbance. ...
This mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.
BR-5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds Any birds that begin nesting within the project area and survey buffers amid construction activities shall be assumed to be habituated to construction-related or similar noise and disturbance levels and no disturbance zones shall not be established around active nests in these cases; however, should birds nesting within the project area and survey buffers amid construction activities begin to show disturbance associated with construction activities, no-disturbance buffers shall be established as determined by the qualified wildlife biologist.
The more realistic assumption to apply to birds that begin nesting after construction activities begin is that the breeding birds are demonstrating strong nest site fidelity, which is common. This assumption can be supported by ample scientific evidence, whereas the DEIR’s assumption is merely convenient to the developer and the lead agency.
BR-5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds Any work that must occur within established no-disturbance buffers around active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse effects in response to project work within the buffer are observed and the biologist determines the activities are likely to compromise the nest’s success, work within the no-disturbance buffer shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged. If the qualified biologist determines that the activities are unlikely to compromise the nest’s success, work can continue.
This mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.
51 BR-6 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Western Burrowing Owl … A qualified biologist shall conduct focused burrowing owl surveys in suitable habitat in the area … in accordance … Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report), published March 7, 2012. … If nest sites are found, CDFW shall be contacted regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include on-site avoidance … or implementation of a relocation effort …Take avoidance surveys may also be conducted. … Where on-site avoidance is not possible, disturbance and/or destruction of occupied burrows shall be offset through development of suitable habitat on upland reserves. Such habitat shall include creation of new burrows with adequate foraging area (a minimum of 6.5 acres) or 300 feet radii around the newly created burrows. Additional habitat design and mitigation measures are described in the Staff Report.
The DEIR inaccurately characterizes breeding season detection surveys as a mitigation measure. CEFW (2012) clearly intends for these surveys to be completed in support of the preparation of the environmental review document, and not as a mitigation measure.
I must also point out that CDFW (2012) warns that burrowing owl relocations can be interpreted as a form of take. Furthermore, the DEIR identifies no candidate locations to where burrowing owls might be relocated.
Finally, following a unanimous vote of the California Fish and Game Commission, the burrowing owl is now a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. Burrowing owls have sharply declined in the Sacramento region, and are near extirpation (Miller 2024). It is imperative that the surveys be implemented as CDFW (2012) recommends, which is prior to the circulation of the DEIR.
BR-7a Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Swainson’s Hawk Project applicants for each construction phase shall avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on Swainson’s hawk … If construction activities will begin during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season …, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys in accordance with … Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000 ... If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found on or within 0.5 mile of the project footprint, a survey report shall be submitted to the County and CDFW, and an avoidance and minimization plan shall be developed and implemented ...
Should the Specific Plan go forward, I concur with BR-7a. However, BR-7a would not prevent the permanent loss of productive capacity caused by Swainson’s hawk habitat destruction. Nor would BR-7a shift the need to reevaluate the NBHCP conservation strategy. With the number of unsuccessful nests increasing in the Natomas Basin (Figure 7), the Upper Westside Specific Plan must trigger the reevaluation of the NBHCP conservation strategy.
BR-7b Compensate for Permanent Impacts on Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Compensation for the permanent loss of foraging habitat shall be determined for each development phase. … project applicants … shall compensate for permanent 52 loss of foraging habitat through the preservation of foraging habitat … at a ratio of at least 1:1 … Mitigation sites shall be located outside, and within 10 miles of, the Natomas Basin … through purchase of credits from a CDFW-approved conservation bank, or through protection of habitat, including acquisition of a conservation easement and funding long-term administration, monitoring, and enforcement of the easement. ….
A 1:1 mitigation ratio assures a 50% net loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat and of Swainson’s hawks. Additionally, BR-7b is flawed for not identifying where Swainson’s hawk habitat can be found and protected within 10 miles of the Natomas Basin. Failing to show where Swainson’s hawk habitat can be protected within 10 miles of the Natomas Basin calls into question whether 1,538 acres of Swainson’s hawk habitat can be found and protected.
BR-8 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Pallid Bat A qualified biologist who is experienced with bat surveying techniques (including auditory sampling methods), behavior, roosting habitat, and identification of local bat species shall be consulted prior to building or bridge demolition, building relocation activities, or tree work to conduct a pre-construction habitat assessment of the project area (focusing on buildings to be demolished or relocated) to characterize potential bat habitat and identify potentially active roost sites. … The following measures shall be implemented should potential roosting habitat or potentially active bat roosts be identified …: … initial bridge or building demolition, relocation, and any tree work (trimming or removal) shall occur when bats are active … to the extent feasible. … If seasonal avoidance of potential roosting habitat is infeasible, the qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of potential bat roost sites identified during the initial habitat assessment no more than 14 days prior to bridge or building demolition or relocation, or any tree trimming or removal. ...
There was no reason not to survey for bat activity and bat roost sites prior to the public circulation of the DEIR. Instead, the DEIR defers the surveys until after EIR certification, which is after the time when the public and decision-makers needed an accurate characterization of the wildlife community, disclosure of potential project impacts to bats, and the survey-informed formulation of mitigation measures.
Moreover, the measure fails to avoid or compensate for reduced productive capacity of bats that would result from habitat destruction.
BR-9a Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle A pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction-related ground disturbance. If such a survey determines that valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat is present, … the County shall require … to avoid and minimize take of individuals: … a 100-foot wide avoidance buffer ...
Compensatory mitigation for adverse effects may include the transplanting of elderberry shrubs during the dormant season … to an area protected in perpetuity as well as required additional elderberry and associated native plantings as approved by the USFWS. … If elderberry plants cannot be avoided, or if project activities will result 53 in the death of stems or the entire shrub, they shall be transplanted during the dormant season … to an area protected in perpetuity and approved by the USFWS. … Replacement seedling plants will be provided at a ratio of 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 depending on the extent of valley elderberry longhorn beetle utilization of the plants moved or lost.
An 1,800-square-foot area will be provided for each transplanted elderberry shrub or every five elderberry seedling plants.
In my experience, translocations of VELB-inhabited elderberry shrubs tend to fail to provide habitat to VELB (Morrison et al. 2002). The measure translocations and plants new elderberry shrubs, but not necessarily where they can support VELB. The measure also includes no monitoring of the outcome directly related to VELB, and there are no consequences for failures of translocated or planted elderberry shrubs to support VELB.
Wildlife Movement: The following measures are listed as supposed mitigation of potential project impacts to wildlife movement in the region:
BR-2a Worker Environmental Awareness Program – See Impact BR-2: Special Status Plant Species.
BR-3 Compensate for Permanent Impacts to Giant Garter Snake Habitat – See Impact BR-3: Giant Garter Snake.
BR-5 Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds – See Impact BR-5: Special Status Bird Species (Other Than Burrowing Owl and Swainson’s Hawk), Birds Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Nesting Raptors.
None of these measures would avoid, minimize or compensate for project impacts to wildlife movement in the region. None of these measures nor any other measures can mitigate such impacts without there first being some understanding of how wildlife move within and beyond the Specific Plan area.
BR-14 Conflict with Natomas Basin Hcp and Metro Air Park HCP Mitigation Measures BR-1 and BR-10a through BR-10c … would contribute to protection of species covered under the NBHCP and MAP HCP.
As I commented on most of these mitigation measures above, BR-1 through BR-10 cannot eliminate the interference of the Specific Plan with the NBHCP. The geographic scope of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy is the entire Natomas Basin. As County Staff (Todd Smith) wrote to Scott Johnson, Senior Planner, City of Sacramento on 4 April 2022, “In the Natomas Basin, any future development not covered by an existing Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must obtain take authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The NBHCP along with the MAP HCP require that a total of 8,750 acres of mitigation be located within Natomas Basin and the mitigation must adhere to specific requirements of the HCP. The HCPs provide a conservation strategy for the protection of 22 covered species, and their implementation has been underway for over 20 years.” (Airport South Industrial Project Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (Project P21-017).) The County must know that BR-14 is inadequate. 54 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Construction Phasing: Should the Specific Plan go forward, construction phasing should begin with land nearest existing residential or commercial uses, and it should proceed sequentially from there. The way I read the DEIR, the developer can decide at any time prior to initial construction to construct Phase 1 anywhere within the Specific Plan area. Siting Phase 1 in the middle of the Specific Plan area, or farthest to the west toward the River would disrupt wildlife movement across the Specific Plan area, and if another economic crisis was to arrive, Phase 1 could be stranded for many years or even permanently. Siting Phase 1 far from existing development would also increase wildlife- automobile collision mortality as residents drive rural roads between their homes and the City, intersecting wildlife attempting to travel across roads on the only open spaces that remain. Already, there exists considerable commuter traffic on San Juan Road, as commuters seek shortcuts around the crowded arterial roads and highways. And already there are animals dead on the road – I found a road-killed desert cottontail and raccoon on the Specific Plan area.
Preconstruction Surveys: Following the completion of protocol-level detection surveys to inform a revised DEIR, take-avoidance surveys should be performed for special-status species and breeding birds prior to construction. For the most part, these surveys are already required by the DEIR, but they need to follow properly implemented detection surveys for the purpose of informing the DEIR. Whereas Bargas (2022) performed detection surveys for giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk, its surveys are up to five years old, and therefore are outdated and should be repeated. Lastly, a report of preconstruction surveys and their outcomes should be prepared and made available to the public.
Habitat Loss: If the Specific Plan goes forward, compensatory mitigation is warranted for the acres of habitat that would be lost. At minimum, an equal area of open space should be protected in perpetuity close to any new developments.
Substantial upland buffers are needed to protect wetland areas. I recommended at least 600 feet of clearance between the wetland features and the nearest impervious surface.
Buffered areas should be restored to natural vegetation cover appropriate to the area.
Pest Control: The Specific Plan should commit to no use of rodenticides and avicides.
It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside commercial buildings and residential units.
House Cats: If the Specific Plan goes forward, homeowners should not be allowed to let their cats range free. A fund should be established for long-term management of house cats in the Specific Plan. Management could include public education about the environmental effects of outdoor and free-ranging cats. It could also include a program to spade and neuter cats, especially free-ranging cats. It could also involve some removals of feral cats.
55 Minimize Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the Project goes forward, it should adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird- collision hazards as well as many visual examples.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).
Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).
Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision mortality to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor newly constructed buildings or homes for fatalities.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by regional road traffic generated by the Specific Plan. I suggest that this mitigation be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. 56 Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles and windows and by depredation attempts by house cats and dogs.
Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Bargas. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment: Upper Westside Specific Plan, Sacramento County, California. Report to Upper Westside LLC.
Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
57 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI
10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-
00557-080203
Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.
Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D. 58 W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.
C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.
Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Fleishman, E, J. Anderson, B. G. Dickson, D. Krolick, J. A. Estep, R. L. Anderson, C. S.
Elphick, D. S. Dobkin, and D. A. Bell. 2016. Space Use by Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni ) in the Natomas Basin, California. Collabra, 2(1): 5, pp. 1–12, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236.
https://doi.org/10.28947/
hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371
59 Helix. 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment Report. Report to Robert Thomas, Upper Westside LLC, Sacramento, California.
ICF. 2023. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Final. (ICF 104332.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.
ICF. 2024. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Final. (ICF 104332.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms2380
60 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1
Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0224164
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. 61 Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.
Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.
Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057
Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.
Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.
Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562
https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.4562
62 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.
Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
63 Y
ahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Y
oung, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
SACRA
MENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCo)
POLICIES, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR LAFCo
ADOPT
ED SEPTEMBER 5, 1990
AMEND
MENTS APPROVED APRIL 3, 2024
ORIGINAL 1990 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is
with extreme pleasure that I circulate for formal use the recently adopted Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission's Policies and Procedures and Guidelines. From the inception of the project --to develop a policy document that would guide the public, staff and Commission through a complex and sometimes controversial LAFCo process --a number of individuals have offered valuable insight to the betterment of the Sacramento LAFCo and have taken an active part in the evolution of this report.
In Januar
y of 1989, the Sacramento LAFCo contracted with the firm of Peat Marwick Main & Company to help develop Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for the Sacramento LAFCo. Jim Carney, Bob O'Neill and Jeff Myers of Peat Marwick Main & Company did an outstanding job creating a baseline review and early drafts for the development of the Policies, Procedures and Guidelines. Ron Bass and Earl Nelson of Jones & Stokes made outstanding contributions by answering environmental questions as they were encountered in the many drafts. A Regional Advisory Committee (please see Appendix K) also offered a different perspective and well appreciated critique of the policy document. The Regional Advisory Committee represented various points of view: cities, regional government, the building industry, open space and farmland, special districts within Sacramento County, and alternative forms of local government (incorporation and city-county consolidation).
In Februa
ry 1990, the Commission retained Marc Mihaly of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, in order that he might work with Commission Counsel Barry Steiner to further refine and finalize the document. Marc Mihaly and Barry Steiner were of invaluable assistance in fine- tuning and finalizing the Policies, Procedures and Guidelines. Sacramento County Planning and Public Works staff as well as Gary Cassady and Russell Fehr of the Administration and Finance Agency also provided critical review from the County's point of view. Al Freitas, Environmental Coordinator, County of Sacramento, provided in -depth review and critique from a policy and environmental perspective. Finally, County Executive Brian Richter early on noted the importance of such a document and wholeheartedly encouraged its preparation. Thanks to Brian and the Board of Supervisors for the support and making the funding possible.
To each of
these participants, a sincere thank you for your thoughtful participation. From the Sacramento LAFCo, the Commission is to be commended for pursuing and supporting a task no other LAFCo has chosen to undertake. Special thanks to Barbara Graichen, Former Assistant Executive Officer, who worked with extreme diligence on the project, and Marilyn Flemmer, Commission Clerk, who was given the thankless task of insuring that it was ready to be published.
In addition to the careful examination which each of the Commissioners devoted to this project, the deepest debt of gratitude for the quality of this project is due Commissioner Roseanne Chamberlain who worked with uninterrupted perseverance and commitment to achieve its completion. I am happy to have worked with each of these participants. My sincere thanks to each and every one of you.
John O'Far
rell
Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
I - xii
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
A. THE PURPOSE OF THESE POLICIES, STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
B. THE LEGISLATURE'S CREATION OF LAFCos . . . . . . . I-1
C. THE LEGISLATURE'S POLICY DIRECTION TO LAFCo . . . .I-2
D. THE SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED LAFCo JURISDICTION . . .I-2
E. THE LAFCo COMMISSION: ITS COMPOSITION AND
LEGISLATIVE CHARGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3
F. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE SACRAMENTO LAFCo’s
POLICIES, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . I-4
II. DESCRIPTION OF LAFCo’s DECISION-MAKING . . . . . . . I-1
A. APPLICATION AND EVALUATION AND HEARING PROCESS . .II-1
B. LAFCo HEARING AND DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . .II-1
C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONDUCTING AUTHORITY . . . II-1
D. LAFCo COMPLETION OF ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . II-2
III. LAFCo GENERAL POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1
IV. GENERAL STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1
A. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-1
B. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
PLANS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-2
C. BOUNDARIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3
D. REVENUE NEUTRALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4
E. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . .IV-5
F. APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT TO CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION
AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-6
G. EFFICIENT SERVICES AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT . . . .IV-9
H. NEED FOR SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9
I. STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION TO AND THE DETACHMENT
FROM ALL AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10
J. DETERMINATION OF COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-13
V. SPECIFIC STANDARDS BY TYPE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . V-1
A. ANNEXATIONS TO CITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-1
B. ANNEXATIONS TO DISTRICTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .V-2
C. DETACHMENTS FROM CITIES AND DISTRICTS . . . . . . .V-2
D. INCORPORATIONS AND DISINCORPORATIONS . . . . . . . V-2
E. DISTRICT FORMATIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS . . . . . . . V-3
F. CITY CONSOLIDATION, DISTRICT CONSOLIDATIONS, AND
MERGER OF A DISTRICT INTO A CITY . . . . . . . . . V-7
G. REORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8
H. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8
I. AMENDMENTS TO SPHERES OF INFLUENCE . . . . . . . .V-11
J. RECONSIDERATION OF LAFCo DECISIONS . . . . . . . .V-12
K. CITY PROTESTS OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACTS (Gov't
Code Section 51243.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13
VI. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS. . . . . . . . . .VI-1
A. APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .VI-1
1. Pre-Filing Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-1
2. Actions Required by Applicant . . . . . . . . VI-1
B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL APPLICANTS . . . . . VI-2
1. Initiation: Petition or Resolution . . . . . .VI-2
2. A Map and a Description of the Boundaries of
the Subject Territory. . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-2
3. Data and Information Required by the LAFCo . .VI-3
Additional Data and Information Required by
the Executive officer. . . . . . . . . . . . .VI-4
4. Processing and Petition Checking Fees . . . . VI-4
C. CHECKLIST FOR APPLICANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Sample of LAFCo Petition Form
Appendix B - Sample Metes and Bounds Legal Description Appendix C - Sample Maps
Appendix D - Schedule of Fees
Appendix E - Guidelines for Evaluating Incorporation Proposals Appendix F - Party Disclosure Form
Appendix G - Sample Certificate of Completion
Appendix H - Procedures for the Preparation and Processing of Environmental Documents
Appendix I - Financial Information Required to be submitted with Incorporation Proposal Applications
Appendix J - Computation of the Gann Limitation
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This glossary presents a listing of key terms that are used in the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission's Policies, Standards and Procedures Manual.
While these Policies are specific to Sacramento LAFCo, it is adopted to implement the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code sections 56000 et eq. ) (hereinafter “CKH”) consistent with State legislative findings and declarations regarding orderly growth and development. These Policies and definitions are to be interpreted and applied consistent with CKH, as it may be amended from time to time. However, where not inconsistent with CKH these Policies may provide further local Sacramento LAFCo policies and requirements.
Term Definition
Agricultural Lands Agricultural lands are lands currently used for the purpose of producing an agricultural
commodity for commercial purposes, land left
fallow under a crop rotational program, or land
enrolled in an agricultural subsidy or set-aside
program.
Affected Population Affected population are those persons who inhabit or will inhabit a specific area that will
directly or indirectly be impacted by an action.
Annexation Annexation is the inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district.
Application Application is the material submitted to LAFCo that initiates a LAFCo review process.
Area of Interest Area of Interest is the geographic area beyond the Sphere of influence of a local agency in
which land use decisions or other
governmental actions of the County impact
directly or indirectly upon the local agency or in
which urbanization may be anticipated in the
intermediate or long-range planning horizons.
CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act
contained in the Public Resources Code,
sections 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA
Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3, Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Categorical Exemption Categorical exemption is a provision within CEQA that, absent unusual circumstances or
exceptions, permits specified projects that
have no potential impact on the environment to
proceed and waives environmental review. It
has been determined not to have a significant
impact on the environment and shall be
exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Certificate of Completion Certificate of Completion is the document prepared by the executive officer and recorded
with the county recorder that confirms the final
successful completion of a change of
organization or reorganization.
Certificate of Filing Certificate of Filing is the document issued by the executive officer that confirms an
application for a change of organization or
reorganization has met submission
requirements and is accepted for filing.
Change of Organization Change of organization are any of the following, as defined in Government Code
56021:
(a) A city incorporation.
(b) A district formation.
(c) An annexation to a city.
(d) An annexation to a district.
(e) A detachment from a city.
(f) A detachment from a district.
(g) A disincorporation of a city.
(h) A district dissolution.
(i) A consolidation of cities.
(j) A consolidation of districts
(k) A merger of a city and a district.
(l) Establishment of a subsidiary district.
(m) The exercise of new or different functions
or classes of services, or divestiture of
the power to provide particular functions
or classes of services, within all or part of
the jurisdictional boundaries of a special
district.
City City means the City of Sacramento, Folsom,
Isleton, Galt, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove,
Rancho Cordova or any new city created
pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act
and other California laws.
Commission Commission is the Sacramento Local Agency
Formation Commission.
Conditional Approval Conditional approval is approval given by LAFCo that is subject to the completion of
certain actions prior or subsequent to the
recordation of the Certificate of Completion.
Conducting Authority Conducting authority is the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, when
Sacramento LAFCo is the commission of the
principal county, or Sacramento LAFCo's
executive officer when authorized by the
Sacramento LAFCo, when exercising its
responsibility to conduct protest proceedings
following approval by the commission of a
change of organization or reorganization.
Consolidation Consolidation is the uniting or joining of two or more cities located in the same county into a
single new successor city or two or more
districts into a single new successor district.
Detachment Detachment is the deannexation, exclusion,
deletion, or removal from a city or district of any
portion of the territory of that city or district.
Direct costs Direct costs are the costs stemming
immediately from an action or a proposal
before LAFCo, including but not limited to the
cost of direct labor and direct materials.
Disincorporation Disincorporation is the dissolution,
extinguishment, and termination of the
existence of a city and the cessation of its
corporate powers, except for the purpose of
winding up the affairs of the city.
Dissolution Dissolution is the disincorporation,
extinguishment, and termination of the
existence of a district and the cessation of all
its corporate powers, except for the purpose of
winding up the affairs of the district.
District or Special District (a) District or special district is an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or
special act, for the local performance of
governmental or proprietary functions within
limited boundaries, as defined in Government
Code 56036.
(b) District or special district includes a
county service area, but excludes all the
following:
(1) The state.
(2) A county.
(3) A city.
(4) A school district or a community college
district.
(5) An assessment district or special
assessment district.
(6) An improvement district.
(7) A community facilities district formed
pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community
Facilities Act of 1982, Chapter 2.5
commencing with Section 53311) of Part
1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
(8) A permanent road division formed
pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with
Section 1160) of Chapter 4 of Division 2
of the Streets and Highways Code.
(9) An air pollution control district or an air
quality maintenance district.
(10) A zone for any special district.
Duplication of Services Duplication of services is the result that occurs when more than one governmental agency
provides the same service to a specific area.
Environmental Impact Report EIR or Environmental Impact Report is a detailed statement prepared under CEQA
describing and analyzing the significant
environmental effects of a project and
discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the
effects. The contents of an EIR are discussed
in Article 9, commencing with Section 15120 of
the State CEQA Guidelines. The term EIR may
mean either a draft or a final EIR depending on
the context.
Environmental Justice Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races,
cultures, incomes, and national origins, with
respect to the location of public facilities and
the provision of public services, to ensure a
healthy environment for all people such that the
effects of pollution are not disproportionately
borne by any particular populations or
communities.
Environmental Review Environmental review is the process set forth in CEQA that involves an assessment of potential
environmental effects impacts of an action.
Executive Officer Executive Officer is the person appointed by a commission pursuant to Section 56384.
Formation Formation is the creation of a district.
Grazing Land Grazing land is the land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through
management, is suitable for grazing or
browsing of livestock.
Incorporation Incorporation is formation, creation, and establishment of a city 'with corporate powers.
Any area proposed for incorporation as a new
city shall have at least 500 registered voters
residing within the affected area at the time
commission proceedings are initiated.
Indirect Costs Indirect costs are the agencywide, general management cost of the activities for the
direction and control of the agency as a whole.
Indirect costs include, but are not necessarily
limited to, administrative activities necessary
for the general operation of the agency, such
as accounting, budgeting, payroll preparation,
personnel services, purchasing, and
centralized data processing.
Initial Study Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency to determine whether an
EIR or a Negative Declaration must be
prepared or to identify the significant
environmental effects to be analyzed in an
EIR.
Initiate or Initiation Initiate or initiation is the acceptance for filing and the issuance of a Certificate of Filing by the
executive officer.
Joint Powers Agreement Joint Powers Agreement is a separate legal entity resulting from an agreement between two
or more public agencies to provide a united
activity, operation, or organization.
Landowner or Owner of Land L andowner or owner of land can all of the following:
(a) Any person shown as the owner of land
on the last equalized assessment roll
except where that person is no longer
the owner. Where that person is no
longer the owner, the landowner or
owner of land is any person entitled to
be shown as owner of land on the next
assessment roll.
(b) Where land is subject to a recorded
written agreement of sale, any person
shown in the agreement as purchaser.
(c) Any public agency owning land other
than highways, rights-of-way,
easements, waterways, or canals.
Landowner-Voter Landowner-voter is any person entitled to vote in a landowner-voter district, or the legal
representative of that person or, in the case of
an election, the proxy of that person.
Landowner-Voter District Landowner-voter district is a district whose principal act. provides that owners of land
within the district are entitled to vote upon the
election of district officers, the incurring of
bonded indebtedness, or any other district
matter.
Lead Agency Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project, including complying with
CEQA.
Legal Representative Legal representative is an officer of a corporation, partnership, or limited liability
company duly authorized to sign for, and on
behalf of, the entity. Legal representative also
includes a guardian, conservator, executor,
administrator, trustee or other person holding
property in a trust capacity under appointment
of a court, when authorized by an order of the
court.
Legislative Body Legislative body is the governing board of a city, district, or county.
Local Agency Local agency is a city, county or district.
Marginal Costs Marginal costs are those additional costs incurred by an agency that are associated with
an action or a proposal before LAFCo.
Municipal Service Review Municipal Service Review is a study conducted by the commission documenting and analyzing
the services in a particular geographic region or
jurisdictional area pursuant to the requirements
of Government Code Section 56430 and
Sacramento LAFCo's adopted local policy as
permitted pursuant to subsection (a)(7) of
section 56430.
Merger Merger is the termination of the existence of a
district when the responsibility for the functions,
services, assets, and liabilities of that district
are assumed by a city.
Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated negative declaration is a negative declaration prepared for a project when the
initial study has identified potentially significant
effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by, or
agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the
public agency that the project, as revised, may
have a significant effect on the environment.
Negative Declaration Negative Declaration is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons
that a proposed project, not exempt from
CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the
environment and therefore does not require the
preparation of an EIR.
Notice Notice means any matter authorized or
required by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act
and/or CEQA to be published, posted, or
mailed.
Open Space Open space is any parcel or area of land or
water which is substantially unimproved and
devoted to open space use, as defined in
Section 65560 of the Government Code.
Out of Agency Service Agreement Cities and special districts are required to obtain LAFCo's approval prior to entering into
contracts with private individuals or
organizations to provide services outside of the
agency's boundaries as defined in Government
Code 56133, 56133.5 and 56134.
Plan for Services A plan for services within the affected territory submitted with an application for a change of
organization or reorganization that is consistent
with the requirements of Government Code
Section 56653.
Prezoning Prezoning is the adoption of an anticipated
zoning category prior to annexation to be
effective subsequent to annexation.
Prime Agricultural Land Prime agricultural land is an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels,
which has not been developed for a use other
than an agricultural use and which meets any
of the following qualifications, as defined in
Government Code 56064:
(a) Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating
as class I or class II in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use
capability classification, whether or not land is
actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is
feasible.
(b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through
100 Storie Index Rating.
(c) Land that supports livestock used for the
production of food and fiber and that has an
annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least
one animal unit per acre as defined by the
United States Department of Agriculture in the
National Range and Pasture Handbook,
Revision 1, December 2003.
(d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing
trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period of less than five years and
that will return during the commercial bearing
period on an annual basis from the production
of unprocessed agricultural plant production not
less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre.
(e) Land that has returned from the
production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual gross value of not less than
four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three
of the previous five calendar years.
Proceeding Proceeding, proceeding for a change of
organization, or proceeding for a reorganization
are proceedings taken by the conducting
authority for a proposed change of organization
or reorganization pursuant to Part 4,
commencing with Section 57000 of the
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
Proponent Proponent is any person intending to circulate, or cause the circulation of, any petition.
Property Tax Exchange Property tax exchange agreement is the agreement reached between the county and
cities or special districts that transfer property
tax revenues to the agency assuming service
responsibilities.
Proposal Proposal is the desired change of organization or reorganization initiated by a petition or by
resolution of application of a legislative body or
school district for which a certificate of filing has
been issued, as defined in Government Code
56069.
Protest Protest is opposition filed by petition of affected landowners and/or voters regarding a proposal
which includes their properties.
Registered Voter Registered voter means any elector registered under, and pursuant to, the Elections Code.
Registered Voter District Registered voter district means a district whose principal act provides that registered voters
residing within the district: are entitled to vote
for the election of district officers, incurring of
bonded indebtedness, or any other district
matter.
Reor
ganization Reorganization is two or more changes of
organization initiated in a single proposal.
Res
ponsible Agency Responsible Agency is a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for
which a Lead Agency is preparing or has
prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For
the purposes of CEQA, the term “Responsible
Agency” includes all public agencies other than
the Lead Agency which have discretionary
approval power over the project.
Rev
enue Neutrality Revenue neutrality is a similar exchange of both revenue and responsibility for service
delivery among the county, the proposed city,
and other subject agencies as defined in
Government Code 56815.
Spec
ial Assessment District Special assessment district is an area fixed, established, and formed by a city, county,
district, or the state, pursuant to general law,
special act, or charter, that is specially
benefited by, and assessed, or to be assessed,
to pay the costs and expenses of, acquiring
any lands or rights-of-way, acquiring or
constructing any public improvements,
maintaining or operating any public
improvement, for lighting any public street,
highway, or place.
Spher
e of Influence Sphere of Influence is a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area
of a local agency, as determined by the
commission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Thi
s chapter provides background information regarding the purpose of the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCo’s) policies, standards and procedures. It also discusses the legislature's intent and direction to the LAFCo, the LAFCo’s jurisdiction, and its composition and responsibilities.
A. THE PURPOSE OF THESE POLICIES, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES The L
AFCo is charged with applying the policies and provisions of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act to its decisions regarding, among other things, annexations, incorporations, reorganizations, other changes of government organization, to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of Sacramento County and its communities, as indicated in Government Code Section 56301. These standards have been adopted pursuant to the authority contained in the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act to assist in carrying out its provisions. Specifically, these standards are designed to:
• Gi
ve applicants for changes of organization guidance as to the information the LAFCo needs to make appropriate determinations concerning their applications;
• Pr
ovide applicants for changes of organization with explicit guidance as to the criteria the LAFCo will utilize in approving, disapproving, amending, or conditionally approving applications for changes of organization; • Ens
ure consistency in the LAFCo’s decision-making;
• Fac
ilitate communication among local agencies in the region; • Pr
ovide elected officials, governmental staff, and members of the general public information and notice as to the standards and procedures that the LAFCo will utilize in evaluating applications; and
• Mi
nimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts of growth.
B. THE LEGISLATURE’S CREATION OF LAFCos
LAF
Cos are intra- local agencies that were created by state legislation to ensure that changes in governmental organization occur in a manner that provides efficient and quality services and preserves open space land resources. The creation of LAFCos was a legislative response to actions by local jurisdictions in the 1940s and 1950s that incorporated or annexed large, irregular portions of land in a manner that resulted in irrational urban boundaries and "stranded" population without efficient services or with no services at all. In 1963, the Legislature established Local Agency Formation Commissions in each county and gave them regulatory authority over local agency boundary changes.
Additional legislation in the 1960s.extended LAFCo authority, and in the 1970s the Legislature recognized the connection between decisions concerning governmental organization and the issues of urban sprawl and loss of prime agricultural land. I n response to these concerns, LAFCos were charged with implementing changes in governmental organization in a manner that preserved agricultural and open space land resources, as well as provided for efficient delivery of services. The Legislature and the courts have also required LAFCos to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it applies to LAFCo actions.
C. THE LEGISLATURE'S POLICY DIRECTION TO LAFCo
The Legislature has charged the LAFCo with carrying out changes in governmental organization to promote specified legislative policies now codified in the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 . The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act commences with Section 56000 of the Government Code, and the reader is referred especially to Sections 56001, 56300, 56301, 56375, 56377 and 56668. These sections contain the following major policy elements:
• The LAFCo is charged with encouraging orderly growth and development while discouraging urban sprawl;
• The LAFCo is responsible for encouraging the logical formation and determination of boundaries;
• The LAFCo is tasked with encouraging the efficient provision of government services; and
• The LAFCo is required to exercise its authority to guide development away from open space and prime agricultural land uses unless such actions would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development.
D. THE SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED LAFCo JURISDICTION
LAFCo’s have the specific authority to review:
• Annexations to, or detachments from cities or districts; • The formation or dissolution of districts;
• The incorporation or disincorporation of cities;
• The consolidation or merger of cities or districts;
• The establishment of subsidiary districts;
• The extension of out of agency service powers;
• The exercise of new or different functions or classes of services, or divestiture of the power to provide particular functions or classes of services, within all or part of the jurisdictional boundaries of a special district; and,
• The development of, and amendments to, Spheres of' Influence with the utilization of Municipal Service Reviews.
To carry out the legislative policies identified above, LAFCo has the power to approve or disapprove applications, or to impose reasonable conditions on approval. However, the LAFCo may not exercise direct land use authority. The California Supreme Court explains this unusual combination of power to deny coupled with no power to impose conditions to solve the same policy issue. It said the prohibition on imposing conditions regarding land use.
"Merely insures that final zoning decisions are made by the local agencies concerned. It certainly does nothing to detract from the power of a LAFCO to disapprove an annexation if it finds that it violates the detailed criteria that a LAFCo must consider such factors are now in Section 56668.”
Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 284. Thus, for example, LAFCo may disapprove an application for an annexation to a city because it would create an area that is difficult to serve, or because it would cause the premature development of agricultural land.
However, the LAFCo could not carry out the same policies by requiring land to be rezoned from residential to agricultural use, or by other direct exercise of land use authority through the zoning or subdivision process.
E. THE LAFCo COMMISSION: ITS COMPOSITION AND LEGISLATIVE CHARGE
LAFCos are intra-local agencies created by the Legislature to implement policies that the Legislature determined must be addressed with a county-wide perspective. The Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act established this intra-local mandate for the LAFCos in two ways:
1. The Legislature's policy mandates are county-wide in perspective; and
2. The Commission's composition is representative of the governmental agencies in the County by providing for city, county and public membership.
Special districts may also be seated on LAFCo at the discretion of the Commission and if certain conditions are met.
Sacramento LAFCo Commissioners are selected from the groups most affected by its decision: the public, cities, the County and special districts. The Sacramento LAFCo is composed of seven members, each of whom serve four-year terms. These members are:
1. Two appointed by the board of supervisors from their own membership. The board of supervisors shall appoint a third supervisor who shall serve as an alternate member of the commission. The alternate member may serve and vote in place of any supervisor on the commission who is absent or who disqualifies himself or herself from participating in a meeting of the commission. If the office of the regular county member becomes vacant, the alternate member may serve and vote in place of the former regular county member until the appointment and qualification of a regular county member to fill the vacancy.
2. One appointed by the City of Sacramento who is a member of the city council, appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. The mayor shall also appoint, subject to confirmation by the council, an alternate member who is a member of the city council. The alternate member may serve and vote in place of the regular city member if the city member is absent or disqualifies himself or herself from participating in a meeting of the commission. If the office of the regular city member becomes vacant, the alternate member may serve and vote in place of the former regular city member until the appointment and qualification of a regular city member to fill the vacancy.
3. One appointed by the cities in the county, who is a mayor or council member appointed by the city selection committee. The city selection committee shall also appoint one alternate member who shall also be a mayor or council member and shall be appointed and serve pursuant to Section 56335. The city selection committee is encouraged to appoint members to fairly represent the diversity of the cities in the county, with respect to population and geography.
4. Two presiding officers or members of legislative bodies of independent special districts appointed by the independent special district selection committee pursuant to Section 56332. The independent special district selection committee shall also appoint one alternate member who shall be a presiding officer or member of the legislative body of an independent special district and shall be appointed and serve pursuant to Section 56332.
The independent special district selection committee is encouraged to appoint members to fairly represent the diversity of the independent special districts in the county, with respect to population and geography.
5. One representing the general public, appointed by the other six members of the commission. The commission may also appoint an alternate public member who may serve and vote in the place of the regular public member if the regular public member is absent or disqualifies himself or herself from participating in a meeting of the commission. If the office of the regular public member becomes vacant, the alternate member may serve and vote in place of the former regular public member until the appointment and qualification of a regular public member to fill the vacancy.
Through the particular interests and expertise that each member brings to LAFCo, LAFCo has both the local and county -wide perspective necessary to implement the policies of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act. Decisions relating to the most efficient form of local government and the preservation of agricultural land inherently involve the balancing of potentially competing interests of jurisdictions because applications for change of organization may invol ve the interests of the County, a city, and one or more special districts. In addition, such determinations usually affect the public at large because of various options for the delivery of services. The legislative charge to LAF Co Commissioners is to bring their experience and perspectives to bear in a manner that carries out the best policy from a county - wide perspective. Commissioners are not selected to represent or to cast the vote of their appointing agencies, but rather ar e expected to bring the unique perspectives of their appointing agencies, or the public, to decisions which carry out the county- wide mandate of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
It is for this reason that the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act specifically authorizes members of the LAFCo to vote on issues which may affect their jurisdictions. Since these members are appointed to carry out objective policies concerning county-wide issues, it is assumed that their participation will benefit the debate rather than prejudice the decision.
F. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE SACRAMENTO LAFCo’s POLICIES,
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
Sacr
amento LAFCo adopts these policies, standards, and procedures pursuant to specific authority in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act as part of LAFCo's authority to carry out its responsibilities and duties.
CHAPTER II
DESCRIPTION OF LAFCO'S DECISION-MAKING
II. DESCRIPTION OF LAFCO’S DECISION-MAKING
This chapter contains a brief description of the LAFCo hearing and evaluation process and describes post-approval steps taken by the LAFCo and by the conducting authority.
A more complete description is continued in Appendix L to this document.
A. APPLICATION AND EVALUATION AND HEARING PROCESS
The filing of an application includes any of the following:
(a) A resolution of application or petition initiating a change of organization or reorganization with supporting documentation as required by the commission or executive officer.
(b) A request for a sphere of influence amendment or update pursuant to Section 56425.
(c) A request by a city or district for commission approval of an extension of services outside the agency's jurisdictional boundaries pursuant to Section 56133.
(d) A request by a public agency for commission approval of an extension of fire protection services outside the agency's jurisdictional boundaries pursuant to Section 56134.
The Executive Officer either accepts the application as complete or informs the applicant of additional necessary material. Environmental documents may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After the application is accepted as complete, and the fee determined and paid (see Appendix D), notice is given to affected individuals and agencies.
The Executive Officer reviews the application, prepares a staff report, and furnishes copies to affected local agencies and persons designated in the application. Additional material may be requested of the applicant by the Executive Officer during this process.
The Executive Officer prepares a staff report that evaluates the application based on the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act and these LAFCo policies and standards. The Executive Officer will provide public notice as required by CKH and post such notice of public hearings and Commission meetings on the Commission website.
B. LAFCo HEARING AND DECISION
The Commission may amend an application to affect proposed boundaries or conditions, or both. LAFCo hears the application. The applicant, affected agencies and the public may testify. LAFCo then approves, conditions or denies the applications for change of organization or reorganization.
After LAFCo Commission action, any person may file within thirty days a request for reconsideration, which the Commission may approve or deny with or without conditions after appropriate notice and hearing. Decisions by the Commission are final, and no person can make a further request for a substantially similar change for a period of at least one year.
C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONDUCTING AUTHORITY
After an approval of an application of a change of organization or reorganization, to LAFCo, as defined in Government Code 56029 and consistent with Government Section 57000 et seq., the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, when Sacramento LAFCo is the commission of the principal county, or Sacramento LAFCo's Executive Officer, when authorized by the Sacramento LAFCo, will hold the conducting authority protest hearing at which public testimony, or written protests, if applicable, are received.
The Conducting Authority hearing is subject to the same noticing requirements as the application’s approval hearing. T he Commission may wave the Conducting Authority hearing, as allowed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
D. LAFCo COMPLETION OF ACTIONS
After action by the Conducting Authority, the LAFCo Executive O fficer prepares and records a Certificate of Completion, and the action is then deemed completed.
CHAPTER III
LAFCO GENERAL POLICIES
III. LAFCO GENERAL POLICIES
This
chapter contains the general policies that will apply to all LAFCo considerations of application for changes of organization or reorganization and Sphere of Influence determinations. These policies are general in nature. In certain situations, the application of one policy may conflict with the application of another; in that case, the LAFCo will exercise its discretion to balance policies in a manner consistent with the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act and the standards contained in this document.
1. The LA
FCo will encourage participation in its decision-making process. LAFCo will contact Community members through Community Councils, give published notice, and, where LAFCo determines appropriate, give mailed notice to the owners of property within 500 feet of a project site.
2. The LA
FCo will encourage communication on actions among the County, cities and special districts.
3. The L
AFCo will favorably consider proposals that result in the provision of urban services in densely developed and populated areas.
4. The LA
FCo will favorably consider proposals that will provide urban services in areas with high growth potential rather than in areas with limited potential for future growth.
5. The CE
QA requires that LAFCo assess the environmental consequences of its actions and decisions and take actions to avoid or minimize a projects adverse environmental impacts, if feasible, or approve a project despite significant effects because it finds that overriding considerations exist. To comply with CEQA, the LAFCo will take one or more of the following actions:
a. At i
ts discretion, approve a project without changes if environmental impacts are determined to be insignificant through an Exemption or Initial Study; b. Requir
e an applicant to modify a project;
c. Est
ablish mitigating measures as a condition of its approval of the proposal; d. Deny t
he proposal because of unacceptable adverse environmental impacts;
e. Approv
e a project despite its significant effects by making findings of overriding considerations.
6. LAFC
o will favorably consider those applications that do not shift the cost for services and infrastructure benefits to other service areas.
7. LAFC
o will favorably consider those applications that improve the balance between jobs and housing.
8. The LAFCo encourages the use of service providers that are governed by officials elected by the citizens.
9. Communi
ty needs are met most efficiently and effectively by governmental agencies which:
• are alrea
dy in existence;
• are capable of coordinating service delivery over a relatively large area;
• provide more than one type of service to the territory which they serve.
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL STANDARDS
IV. GENERAL STANDARDS
This chapter presents the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) general standards for the evaluation of proposals and the actions of the Commission. The LAFCo will use these general standards in conjunction with applicable general policies and specific standards as part of its decision- making process. The LAFC o may make exceptions to these general standards if it determines that such exceptions: are necessary due to unique circumstances; are required to resolve conflicts between general and specific standards; result in improved quality or lower cost of service available; or there exists no feasible or logical alternative.
A. SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
1. LAFCo will approve an application for a change of organization or reorganization only if the proposal is consistent with an approved Spheres of Influence plan for the affected agency or agencies. Spheres of Influence will not generally be amended concurrently with an action of an application. Spheres of Influence amendments will ordinarily take longer to process than applications for a change of organization or reorganization. Agencies are encouraged to keep their Spheres of Influence plans up to date so that individual applications for changes of organization or reorganization are not burdened with Spheres of Influence amendment requirements. Amendments to Spheres of Influence occasioned by individual applications for changes of organization or reorganization which would render the Spheres of Influence internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the other policies or standards herein will not be approved.
2. Spheres of Influence are the primary planning tool for LAFCo. To update spheres of influence, agencies must have an updated Municipal Service Review which meets the standards as set forth in Government Code Section 56430.
3. The LAFCo will require that any agency requesting a Sphere of Influence change through LAFCo must have an updated Municipal Service Review. The LAFCo will approve a proposal only if the proposed service provider is the most efficient provider of services with an acceptable cost, as demonstrated in the provider's Municipal Service Review.
B. COMFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS
1. LAFCo will approve changes of organization or reorganization only if the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and relevant Specific Plans of the applicable planning jurisdiction.
2. For purposes of this standard, the applicable planning jurisdiction is as follows:
a. For annexations to a city, the applicable jurisdiction is the city to which annexation is proposed;
b. For applications for annexation to or detachment from a district all of whose territory lies within an adopted Spheres of Influence of a city, the General Plans of the city;
c. For an application for annexation to a special district for lands outside an adopted city Spheres of Influence, the Sacramento County General Plan;
d. For an application for annexation or detachment from a district whose territory lies in both the city and county, the General Plan of the city unless the project lies outside of the city's Sphere of Influence; and
e. For applications for incorporations, this standard is inapplicable.
3. For purposes of this standard, the proposal shall be deemed consistent if the proposed use is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and text, the applicable General Plan is legally adequate and internally consistent and the anticipated types of services to be provided are appropriate to the land use designated for the area.
4. The governing body of the applicable planning jurisdiction shall recommend by resolution whether the proposal meets all applicable consistency requirements of state law, including internal consistency. LAFCo shall retain discretion to determine consistency pursuant to its jurisdiction to approve, disapprove or condition changes of organization or reorganization and may require additional information if necessary.
C. BOUNDARIES
1. LAFCo will not accept as complete any application for a proposal unless it includes boundaries that are definite, certain and fully described.
2. The LAFCo will approve only applications with boundaries that do the following:
a. Seek to correct where relevant illogical boundaries within the affected agency's Spheres of Influence;
b. Provide for a mixture of revenue producing and non- or limited- revenue producing properties; and
c. Follow where relevant natural or man- made features and include logical service areas.
3. The LAFCo will not approve applications with boundaries which:
a. Split neighborhoods or divide an existing identifiable community, commercial district, or other area having a social or economic identity;
b. Result in islands, corridors or peninsulas of incorporated or unincorporated territory or otherwise cause or further the distortion of existing boundaries;
c. Are drawn for the exclusive purpose of encompassing revenue- producing territories;
d. Create areas for which it is difficult to provide services;
e. Split parcels.
4. LAFCo will make exceptions to the requirements of this standard only if the exception:
a. Is rendered necessary due to unique circumstances;
b. Results in improved quality or lower cost of service available to the affected parties; and
c. There exists no feasible and logical alternative.
D. REVENUE NEUTRALITY
1. LAFCo will approve a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization only if the Commission finds that the proposal is revenue neutral at the time that the proposal comes before the Commission. A proposal is deemed revenue neutral if:
a. The proposal ensures that the amount of revenue transferred from an agency or agencies currently providing service in the subject territory to the proposed service-providing agency equals the expense which the current service provider bears in providing the services to be transferred.
b. In the event the expense to the current service provider exceeds the amount of revenue transferred, the current service provider and new service providing agency agree to revenue transfer provisions to compensate for the imbalance. Such provisions may include, but are not limited to tax - sharing, lump-sum payments and payments over a fixed period of time.
c. Where revenue neutrality is not possible because of the requirements of state law or these standards, LAFCo shall impose all feasible conditions available to reduce any revenue imbalance, or it may deny the proposal.
d. A property tax exchange agreement has been reached pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code by the agencies participating in the change of organization or reorganization as required by law.
e. Appendix E of the LAFCo’s policies and standards provides additional information related to the financial guidelines for evaluating incorporation proposals.
E. AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION
LAFCo will exercise its powers to conserve agricultural land pursuant to the following standards.
1. LAFCo will approve a change of organization or reorganization which will result: in the conversion of prime agricultural land in open space use to other uses only if the Commission finds that the proposal will lead to the planned, orderly and efficient development of an area. For purposes of this standard, a proposal leads to the plan ned, orderly and efficient development of an area only if all of the following criteria are met:
a. The land subject to the change of organization or reorganization is contiguous to either lands developed with an urban use or lands which have received all. discretionary approvals for urban development.
b. The proposed development of the subject lands is consistent with the Spheres, of Influence Plan, including the Municipal Service Review of the affected agency or agencies.
c. Development of all or a substantial portion of the subject land is likely to occur within five years. In the case of very large developments, annexation should be phased wherever feasible. If the Commission finds phasing infeasible for specific reasons, it may approve annexation if all or a substantial portion of the subject land is likely to develop within a reasonable period of time.
d. Insufficient vacant non -prime lands exist within the applicable Spheres of Influence that are planned, accessible and developable for the same general type of use.
e. The proposal will have no significant adverse effect on the physical and economic integrity of other agricultural lands. In making this determination, LAFCo will consider the following factors:
(1) The agricultural significance of the subject and adjacent areas relative to other agricultural. lands in the region.
(2) The use of the subject and the adjacent areas.
(3) Whether public facilities related to the proposal would be sized or situated so as to facilitate the conversion of adjacent or nearby agricultural land, or will be extended through or adjacent to, any other agricultural lands which lie between the project site and existing facilities.
(4) Whether natural or main- made barriers serve to buffer adjacent or nearby agricultural land from the effects of the proposed development.
(5) Applicable provisions; of the General Plan open space and land use elements, applicable growth-management policies, or other statutory provisions designed to protect agriculture.
2. LAFCo will not make the affirmative findings that the proposed development of the subject lands is consistent with the Spheres of Influence in the absence of an approved Spheres of Influence Plan. LAFCo will not make the affirmative findings that insufficient vacant non-prime land exists within the Spheres of Influence Plan unless the applicable jurisdiction has:
a. Identified within its Spheres of Influence all "prime agricultural land" as defined herein.
b. Enacted measures to preserve prime agricultural land identified within its Spheres of Influence for agricultural use.
c. Adopted as part of its General Plan specific measures to facilitate and encourage in- fill development as an alternative to the development of agricultural lands.
3. The LAFCo will comment upon, whenever feasible, Notices of Preparation for Environmental Impact Reports or projects which involve the development of large tracts of open space and agricultural land and that are not scheduled for urbanization within a f ive-year- period. Potential adverse impacts related to the loss of open space or agricultural land also will be commented upon by LAFCo.
4. LAFCo’s analysis for changes of organization or reorganization or sphere of influence amendments related to territory subject to Williamson Act contracts shall be consistent with Government Code Sections 56426 et seq.
F. APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO
CHANGES OF ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION AND SPHERES OF
INFLUENCE
The following standards will apply to LAFCo’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in reviewing requests for changes of organization or reorganization and spheres of influence. Appendix H provides more detailed information on LAFCo’s specific procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental documents. In meeting CEQA requirements, LAFCo may take one of two roles: Lead Agency, or Responsible Agency.
Lead Agency
1. In general, LAFCo will function as a Lead Agency in situations where:
a. LAFCo is the first agency in time to act;
b. the primary decision relates to a change of organization or reorganization or sphere of influence;
c. the applicant agency is unable to act as the Lead Agency; or
d. there are no underlying land use approvals involved.
Typically, LAFCo will act as Lead Agency in reviewing Spheres of Influence Plans, city incorporations or city annexations where no pre- zoning has been undertaken by the city prior to LAFCo approval.
Responsible Agency
LAFCo will act as a Responsible Agency in all other situations. Typically, LAFCo is a Responsible Agency in reviewing an application for annexation to a city where pre- zoning has occurred.
1. LAFCo shall use its authority to comment on an Initial Study, a Notice of Preparation or an EIR to ensure that CEQA documentation prepared by another agency on a project which LAFCo will review complies with standard number 3 listed below. If the Lead Agency fails to notify LAFCo through a Notice of Intent or a Notice of Preparation or provide substantially equivalent notification, LAFCo may assume the lead agency role (CEQA Guidelines sections 15052, 15096).
Applicants for projects which will require LAFCo approval are encouraged to consult with LAFCo early in the application process and independently notify LAFCo of the initiation of environmental review.
Executive Officer Duties
2. When acting as a Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency, t he Executive Officer shall have the authority to prepare or cause to be prepared the appropriate environmental documentation. LAFCo will not act upon any proposal for a change of organization or reorganization until environmental documentation has been completed which adequately addresses the requirements of CEQA and CKH. The Executive Officer of LAFCo shall serve as LAFCo's Environmental Coordinator and shall make an environmental determination per the requirements of CEQA.
LAFCo Significance Standards and Environmental Topics
3. In preparing or reviewing an Initial Study for a project subject to LAFCo review as a lead agency or a responsible agency, LAFCo will generally consider the project to have the potential to significantly affect the environment if one or more of the following situations exists:
a. Any of the circumstances referred to in Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines exist.
b. If buildout of the project may result in the capacity of any public service or facility being exceeded or substantially affected. For purposes of this provision, public facilities or services include, but are not limited to: sewage disposal, water service, flood control facilities, drainage facilities, law enforcement, fire protection, school, parks, libraries, gas and electric service and solid waste disposal. A public service or facility shall be considered "substantially affected" if the additional demand generated by the project would result in the facility or service exceeding 110 percent of its design capacity, or 120 percent of the available capacity.
c. If the project would physically divide an existing community or other area having identifiable social and economic homogeneity.
d. If the project is inconsistent with the applicable Spheres of Influence and no amendment is applied for.
e. If the project has substantial growth- inducing potential because it would result in:
(1) extending a major roadway into an undeveloped area;
(2) extending a sewer trunk line to a substantial area not currently served;
(3) extending water service to a substantial area not currently served;
(4) providing electric service to a substantial area not currently served;
(5) providing or requiring flood control or other public facility which will protect the public safety so as to permit new development in an area substantially larger than the proposed project;
(6) providing any other public service or facility to a substantial area which could not grow without such service; and
(7) encouraging or fostering growth in a substantial area.
f. If the project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in significant cumulative environmental impacts.
g. If the project would result in substantial noncontiguous urban development.
h. If the project would conflict with the open space goals and policies of a community.
5. An EIR completed on a project subject to LAFCo review shall contain a discussion of the following topics:
a. County-wide or cumulative impacts which concern LAFCo.
b. Where the EIR identifies significant effects, a description of the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The range of alternatives to be cons idered shall include, at a minimum, the "no -action" alternative, alternative boundary locations, and a discussion of using other agencies to provide the facility or service proposed to be provided as a result of the proposed change of organization or reorganization.
6. A CE
QA document completed on a project subject to LAFCo review shall contain a discussion of the following environmental topics that are required by Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act:
a. Agri
culture, including an evaluation pursuant to the significant standards set forth in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
b. Open
space as defined by California Government Code, Sections 65560 – 65570.
G. EFFICIENT SERVICES AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
The LA
FCo has determined that community needs for efficient services and orderly development are generally met most effectively by proposals which:
1. Corr
ect a threat to the public health and safety;
2. Consol
idate the activities of public agencies in order to obtain economies from the provision of consolidated services;
3. Consol
idate services and service providers if such consolidations enhance the efficiency and quality of service (see I.5.a. below); and
4. Rest
ructure agency boundaries and service areas to provide more logical, effective, and efficient local government services.
H. NEED FOR SERVICES
The LA
FCo will determine that a need for service exists if either of the following situations is present:
1. The grow
th rate and density pattern indicate that the subject area will be developed for urban use within five years; or
2. The su
bject territory has been pre- zoned, is designated for urban uses in the appropriate land use authority's General Plan and development at the site is not inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan;
I. STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION TO AND THE DETACHMENT FROM ALL
AGENCIES
These s
tandards govern LAFCo determinations regarding annexations and detachments to and from all agencies.
1. An application to LAFC o for an annexation or detachment requires the submittal of an application form, supporting documentation, and fees, as set forth in Chapter II of LAFCo's policies, standards and procedures. In addition, the application shall be accompanied by a response to the applicable standards set forth in this section.
On or after January 1, 1992, no application for an annexation proposed by an agency shall be accepted as complete by LAFCo in the absence of a Spheres of Influence and Municipal Service Review for that a gency approved by LAFCo as provided in the LAFCo standards.
2. The annexation or detachment must be consistent with the General Policies and General Standards in Chapters III and IV.
3. The annexation or detachment must be consistent with the Spheres of Influence boundary. The land subject to annexation shall lie within the existing Spheres of Influence boundary of the annexing city or district.
4. The annexation must be consistent with the applicable Municipal Service Reviews.
An annexation or detachment shall be approved only if the services element of the Spheres of Influence Plan of the affected agency or agencies demonstrates that adequate services will be provided within the time frame needed by the inhabitants of the annexed or detached area. Proposed annexations for land areas that lie outside of the current and next five- year increments of projected service delivery in the services element are presumed not to comply with this standard unless the applicant clearly establishes that special and unique circumstances exist which ensure the provision of quality services during the applicable time frame for the affected area consistent with the other standards.
5. The annexation must provide the lowest cost and highest quality of urban services for the affected population, LAFCo will approve an annexation or detachment only if the commission determines that the annexing agency possesses the capability to provide the most efficient delivery of applicable urban services for the affected population,
a. For purposes of this standard, the most efficient services are those which are provided at the most optimum combination of service cost and service level. In the case of providers with similar service costs, the provider with higher service levels shall be deemed more efficient. In the case of providers of similar service levels, the provider at the lowest cost shall be deemed more efficient. In comparing the providers of adequate but low-cost services, with high-quality, high-cost services, the commission shall retain discretion to determine the optimum efficiency based on compliance with the other provisions of the standards.
b. For purposes of this standard, "affected population" means (1) the population which inhabits or will inhabit the area to be annexed; (2) the population currently served by a service provider operating in the area proposed to be annexed; (3) inhabitants of potential alternative service providers; and (4) in the case of a detachment, the inhabitants of both the area detached and those remaining in the area currently served by the service providers.
c. In evaluating the capability of an annexing agency or of alternative agencies, to provide the required service, LAFCo shall utilize the service elements of the proposed annexing entity, current service providers, and potential alternative service providers. In addition, LAFCo shall take into account the following factors:
(1) Physical accessibility of the territory to the agency's service provision resources; for example, is the agency the provider of sewer services which is located closest to the subject territory?;
(2) The agency's possession of or ability to acquire resources necessary to provide the needed service; for example, an agency may be judged unable to acquire water rights necessary to provide the water services needed by a territory proposed for annexation;
(3) The agency's historic service provision effectiveness and efficiency; for example, an agency may be judged an inefficient service provider if it has a previously documented history of service disruptions, accidents, safety hazards, excessive complaints , non -compliance with CEQA, illegal activities or excess costs/charges; and
(4) The appropriateness of the agency's organizational structure to meeting service needs.
d. LAFCo shall determine the most efficient overall service provider or combination of providers.
6. Applications to annex unincorporated islands will be approved by the LAFCo Commission. Annexations to annex lands mostly surrounded or within a Spheres of Influence which otherwise correct illogical distortion of boundaries will be approved unless they would violate another provision of these standards.
7. Annexation of cities shall reflect logical allocations of existing roads and rights -of- way.
8. Annexation boundaries shall be adjusted to maximize the amount of developed urban land inside a city's Spheres of Influence Plan which is annexed to the city.
9. An annexation or attachment shall not be approved merely to facilitate the delivery of one or a few services to the detriment of the delivery of a larger number of services or services more basic to public health and welfare.
10. The LAFCo will not approve city annexation requests for territory that is not pre- zoned.
11. The LAFCo Commission shall take one of the following three actions on an application for annexation or detachment:
a. Approve the application if it has found the change to result in the most efficient delivery of services for the affected population and complies with other applicable standards;
b. Approve the application on the condition that the applicant agree to actions necessary to maximize -the efficiency of urban services. These may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Waiver of detachment from an existing service provider or, in the alternative, appropriate detachment fees;
(2) Entering into a Joint Powers Agreement with another service provider.
c. Deny the annexation on the grounds that a more efficient combination of services for the affected population may be provided by either existing or a combination of new and existing service providers.
In the event of such a denial, LAFCo may present to the applicant, the conducting agency, and affected service providers, a statement of the reasons for denial, and recommendations for actions necessary to ensure the most efficient form of urban services delivery to the affected population.
J. DETERMINATION OF COSTS
1. Service cost identification and measurement for purposes of determining revenue impacts and for purposes of assessing financial feasibility should be based on the actual cost of service provided. If actual costs cannot reasonably be identified and measured, costs should be allocated based upon the measure which most accurately reflects the level of service received. Specific service examples are identified in Appendix E. The LAFCo will rely upon current service providers to estimate service costs, so lon g as costs are estimated in compliance with these standards.
2. When calculating property tax revenues to be transferred in the case of an incorporation or the formation of a district, the LAFCo must identify the proportion of County Property Tax Revenue to County General Purpose Revenue, as well as the portion of the cost of services which is funded through general purpose revenue, as described in Appendix I.
3. The information provided by the State Board of Equalization will determine the amount of sales tax revenue and state subventions generated within the subject territory as part of the determination of financial impact.
4. The LAFCo will consider factors to minimize financial impacts by any of the following means:
a. Waiver of detachment from an existing service provider, or alternatively, a fund exchange agreement in compensation for the potential adverse impact caused by such detachment;
b. Agreement between the applicant and an agency to annex the subject territory to a different service provider;
c. A Joint Powers Agreement with another service provider;
d. Modification of the proposal (e.g., changed boundaries) which eliminates the harmful impact, or reduces the harmful impact to an acceptable level; or
e. Tax sharing, lump-sum payments, payments over a fixed period of time.
CHAPTER V
SPECIFIC STANDARDS BY TYPE OF ACTION
V. SPECIFIC STANDARDS BY TYPE OF ACTION
The Sacramento Local Agency Formation commission has adopted specific standards for its actions to ensure that it renders fair and consistent decisions in accordance with State law. The LAFCo will use these specific standards, as well as the applicable policies and general standards, during its decision- making process. The LAFCo may make exceptions to these specific standards if it determines that such exceptions: are necessary due to unique circumstances; are necessary due to conflicts between general and specific standards; result in improved quality or lower cost of service available; or there exists no feasible or logical alternative.
A. ANNEXATIONS TO CITIES
1. LAFCo will utilize Spheres of Influence through application of the following standards:
a. The LAFCo will approve an application for annexation only if the proposal conforms to and lies wholly within the approved Spheres of Influence boundary for the affected agency;
b. The LAFCo generally will not allow Spheres of Influence to be amended concurrently with annexation proposals;
c. The LAFCo will favorably consider proposals that are a part of an orderly, phased annexation program by an agency for territory within its; Sphere of Influence;
d. An annexation must be consistent with a city's Sphere of Influence Plan; and
e. The LAFCo encourages the annexation to each city of all islands of unincorporated territory and all substantially surrounded unincorporated areas located within the city's Sphere of Influence.
2. The LAFCo will not approve proposals in which boundaries are not contiguous with the existing boundaries of the city to which the territory will be annexed, unless the area meets all of the following requirements:
a. Does not exceed 300 acres;
b. Is owned by a city;
c. Is used for municipal purposes at the time commission proceedings are initiated; and
d. Is located within the same county as the city.
3. The LAFCo will favorably consider proposals to annex streets where adjacent municipal lands will generate additional traffic and where there are isolated sections of county road that will result from an annexation proposal.
Cities shall annex a roadway portion when 50 percent of the property on either or both sides of the street is within the city.
4. The LAFCo will favorably consider annexations with boundary lines located so that all streets and right-of-way will be placed within the same city as the properties which either abut thereon or for the benefit of which such streets and right-of-way are intended.
5. An annexation may not result in islands of incorporated or unincorporated territory or otherwise cause or further the distortion of existing boundaries unless findings are made that annexation as proposed is necessary for orderly growth, and cannot be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. Annexations of territory must be contiguous to the annexing city or district. Territory is not contiguous if its only connection is a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide.
6. The LAFCo opposes extension of services by a city without annexation unless such extension is by contract with another governmental entity or a private utility or as otherwise in compliance with Government Code section 56133.
B. ANNEXATIONS TO DISTRICTS
1. The LAFCo will favorably consider proposals for districts to annex all developed urban land inside their Sphere of Influence and will ordinarily approve such proposals unless the residents and owners of the property being annexed demonstrate that such areas should not be annexed.
2. Updated Plan for Services, as defined in the policies, standards and procedures must be available before LAFCo will approve a proposal initiated by the district.
3. The LAFCo opposes extension of services by a district without annexation unless such extension is by contract with another governmental entity or a private utility or as otherwise in compliance with Government Code section 56133.
C. DETACHMENTS FROM CITIES AND DISTRICTS
1. The LAFCo shall not approve the detachment of territory from a high-quality service provider unless the following can be demonstrated:
a. The detachment is necessary to ensure delivery of services essential to the public health and safety;
b. The successor provider supplies services of equal or higher quality; and
c. The detachment does not significantly reduce the efficiency of service delivery to the remaining inhabitants of the current service provider's territory from which the detachment will occur.
2. The service plans of special districts which lie within a city's Sphere of Influence should provide for orderly detachment of territory from the district or merger of the district as district territory is annexed to the city.
3. The LAFCo will consider detachments in areas which require organized public service if another service provider is capable and willing to provide the service(s).
4. The LAFCo will not approve a detachment from a city or special district which conflicts with the adopted Sphere of Influence Plan of the agency from which detachment is sought.
5. Detachment from a city or special district shall not relieve the landowners within the detaching territory from existing obligations for bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness under similar security instrument incurred previously by the city or district to provide service to the detaching applicant unless the following apply:
a. The relief from indebtedness is part of a revenue exchange agreement applying to the detachment; or
b. The service benefits previously received by the applicant can be readily assumed by another landowner within the district who is willing to assume the financial responsibility in exchange for the added services.
D. INCORPORATIONS AND DISINCORPORATIONS
1. LAFCo will approve an incorporation or disincorporation only if it finds that the proposal complies with the general policies and standards applicable to all changes of organization or reorganization.
2. LAFCo will approve a proposal for incorporation only if the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated a significant unmet need for services or need for improved services within the territory for which incorporation is proposed. In determining whether an unmet need for services or improved services exists, the Commission will base its determination on:
a. Current levels of service in the area to be incorporated;
b. Existing and projected growth rate and density patterns in the area to be annexed; and
c. The Sphere of Influence Plans for the jurisdictions currently providing services to the area.
3. The LAFCo Commission shall approve a proposal for incorporation only if it finds that incorporation will result in an entity with the capability to provide the most efficient forms of urban services to the affected population.
4. The LAFCo will not approve a proposal for an incorporation unless the incorporation proponents can demonstrate that the proposed city will be able to fund municipal services and remain financially solvent.
5. The LAFCo requires that an applicant for incorporation prepare a financial feasibility study as specified in Appendix E and Appendix I. The applicant shall provide the required information and evaluation that will be reviewed by the LAFCo staff for accuracy and content.
6. An applicant for an incorporation may request a review of the financial feasibility studies pursuant to the provision of state law.
a. Time and Form of Request . A request for review of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis, pursuant to Government Code Section 56801 et seq, must be made, in writing, no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the notice of release of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis by the Executive Officer by publication pursuant to Section 56153 of the Government Code. The request must specify in writing the element or elements of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis that the State Controller is requested to review and the reasons the Controller is requested to review them.
b. Deposit Required. The person requesting such review shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred in such review. They shall deposit with the Executive Officer, at the time the request is filed, in the form of a cashier's check, the amount estimated by the Executive Officer, to be necessary to cover the cost of the State Controller's review. This estimate of costs shall include, but not be limited to, the estimated charge by the State Controller, LAFCo staff costs, and costs for any LAFCo consultants required to assist the Controller in his review. No request shall be valid unless accompanied by the deposit specified in this rule. Should the Controllers review support the reason(s) for the challenge, LAFCo shall be liable for all costs incurred by the Commission in connection with the incorporation other than the Controller's charge.
The deposit shall be deposited in the County Treasury and all costs shall be paid from it. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of the State Controller's report, the Executive Officer shall refund any amount remaining after all costs have been paid. In the event that the amount is in excess of the deposit, the interested filing party shall be liable for the balance.
7. The proposed incorporation must not have significant adverse social and economic impacts upon any particular communities or groups in the incorporating area or affected unincorporated area.
8. Incorporation proposals which split special districts will not be approved unless the resulting service providers can be shown to be the most logical, efficient and cost -effective organizational structure for service delivery, without severe financial impacts on the special district.
9. The LAFCo will require, as part of the incorporation application, a draft Sphere of Influence Plan for a proposed city.
10. The LAFCo will require a Plan for Services and a Sphere of Influence Plan as part of the application requirement for an incorporation proposal.
11. The LAFCo will not approve an incorporation unless:
a. applicable general plans, specific plans or area plans based on realistic population and growth projections demonstrate the need for urbanization of the affected area, and
b. the areas proposed for incorporation should be urbanized or should be planned for urbanization within the next five years.
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) do not apply if LAFCo determines the proposal is structured to ensure the long- term preservation of open space or agricultural lands.
12. Current law requires the transfer to a newly incorporated city of all situs sales tax revenue from the city's territory, as well as property tax revenue based upon statutory formula. Consequently, in most incorporations, the net revenue effect will substantially favor the new city at the County's expense.
LAFCo will deny a proposal which does not contain agreement(s) that compensates for this lack of revenue neutrality.
13. Prime agricultural land which is not designated for urbanization within the next five years of the date of the receipt of the application shall not be included in any incorporation approval unless the LAFCo determines that the proposal is structured to ensure the long- term preservation of open space or agricultural lands.
14. LAFCo will approve a proposal for disincorporation of a city only if it determines that the applicant for disincorporation has demonstrated that the services offered are unnecessary or that the services can be provided more efficiently by another agenc y or provider. A plan for alternative service provision must be provided. If alternative service providers exist, they must agree to provide the services.
15. If a city becomes insolvent or is unable to provide services, then the LAFCo will consider the approval of an application for disincorporation. If services are required, the LAFCo will consider the provision of services by another provider.
16. If a city becomes insolvent or is unable to provide services, then the LAFCo will consider consolidation with a solvent and capable service provider.
E. DISTRICT FORMATIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS
1. The LAFCo will encourage special district formations in areas that demonstrate a need for unmet or improved level of services due to the inadequate level or quality of services currently being provided.
2. The LAFCo will require that all applicants for the formation of a special district prepare a Municipal Service Review of the Sphere of Influence Plan.
3. The LAFCo will require that all applicants for the formation of a special district develop a definite Sphere of Influence map, plan and boundaries.
4. The LAFCo will not approve any district formation application that is not consistent with the General and Specific Plans of all affected land use authorities.
5. The LAFCo will not approve district formations when the Municipal Service Review developed by applicants for district formations conflict with the Municipal Service Review of other agencies unless high quality, more efficient service provision will occur.
6. When considering applicants for district formation, the LAFCo will ensure that no special interest group is given the status of being a governmental agency.
7. The LAFCo will not approve an application for district formation unless the applicant can demonstrate it can fund the services it intends to provide.
8. If a district becomes insolvent or is unable to provide services then the LAFCo may approve consolidation 'with a solvent and capable district.
F. CITY CONSOLIDATION, DISTRICT CONSOLIDATIONS, AND MERGER OF A
DISTRICT INTO A CITY
1. For the purposes of the LAFCo’s policies and standards, a consolidation of cities or districts will be treated as an incorporation or a district formation.
Generally, the merger of a district into a city will be treated as if it were the formation of a dependent district. Standards for incorporation and district formation are, therefore, applicable to consolidations, mergers, and reorganizations that include consolidations and mergers.
2. Based upon submitted Plan for Service, Municipal Service Review and any other data provided, the LAFCo will determine whether the cities' or districts' organizations and operations can feasibly be combined. The LAFCo will give particular attention to the following:
a. Employment contracts, policies and human resource issues;
b. Specified plans for combination of top managers, roles and responsibilities and for staffing key positions; and
c. Plans and safeguards to ensure uniform and consistent service quality throughout the newly consolidated or merged jurisdiction.
G. REORGANIZATION
The LAFCo will evaluate each component organizational change which makes up a reorganization proposal independently. In so doing, the LAFCo will follow the standards presented below.
1. LAFCo will strive to ensure that each separate territory included in the proposal, as well as affected neighboring residents, tenants, and landowners, receive services of an acceptable quality from the most efficient and effective service provider after the reorganization is complete.
2. The service quality, efficiency, and effectiveness available prior to reorganization shall constitute a benchmark for determining significant adverse effects upon an interested party. The LAFCo will approve a proposal for reorganization which results in significant adverse effects only if effective mitigating measures are included in the proposal.
H. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS
A Sphere of Influence Plan is a plan for the probable, ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. This section of the LAFCo Policies and Standards sets forth the required contents of a Sphere of Influence Plan, the procedures for submittal and approval of Sphere of Influence Plans and amendments thereto, and the use of Sphere of Influence Plans in LAFCo determinations.
1. The Sphere of Influence Plan for all governmental agencies within the LAFCo jurisdiction shall contain the following:
a. A map defining the probable ultimate boundary of its service area;
b. A statement of the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands;
c. The pres
ent and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
d. The pr
esent capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide; e. The exi
stence of any relevant social or economic communities of interest in the area; and
f. Wit
h respect to all cities, sewer districts, water districts, community service districts, drainage districts, and multi-purpose districts within the jurisdiction of Sacramento LAFCo, a Municipal Service Review as defined in paragraph H.2. below other agencies may prepare a Municipal Service Review.
2. A Munic
ipal Service Review shall contain the following:
a. A proj
ection of the geographic extension of service capabilities during the next 20 years denominated in 5- year increments. In the case of cities, a. shorter time frame may be appropriate if the applicable general plan has a shorter planning period.
b. Proj
ected level of service capabilities in the same time frames and geographical areas.
c. Act
ual and projected costs of services to consumers. This shall include a statement of actual and projected allocation of the cost of services between existing and new residents.
d. The Mu
nicipal Service Review shall contain sufficient information concerning current and projected capital programs, revenues, costs, rate structures and financing, and other information necessary to support the projected service capabilities and areas set forth in the Municipal Service Review.
e. Consi
stent with §56430a(7), t he Municipal Service Review shall provide information on how effectively an agency or district maintains communication with its customers.
3. LAFC
o may, at its discretion, designate a geographic, area beyond the Sphere of Influence as an Area of Interest to the local agency. An Area of Interest is a geographic area beyond the Sphere of Influence in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of the County impact directly or indirectly upon the local agency. For example, a development project outside the limits or Sphere of Influence of a local agency may result in that local agency providing services or adjusting its planning assumptions.
4. LAFC
o will adopt, amend, or revise Sphere of Influence Plans after a public hearing and pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 56427 and 56428 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. Sphere of Influence Plans shall be revised as necessary, but in all cases at least every five years.
5. All cit
ies, sewer districts, water districts, fire districts, recreation and park districts, reclamation districts, cemetery districts, community service districts and multi-purpose districts shall have a Municipal Service Review approved by LAFCo upon determination of a sphere, the Commission shall adopt that sphere, and shall review and update, as necessary, the adopted sphere not less than every five years. Copies of the proposed Municipal Service Reviews shall be submitted to the County, to adjacent jurisdictions, and adjacent service providers.
6. LAFC
o shall accept and adopt a Municipal Service Review or other Sphere of Influence Plan revisions if the Sphere of Influence Plan as amended contains all of the components required by these standards; that the projections of areas and levels of service contained therein are accurate, adequate and complete; and the Sphere of Influence Plan complies with CEQA. If LAFCo rejects a proposed Sphere of Influence amendment or proposed Municipal Service Review, the Commission shall state the reasons therefor, direct staff to provide assistance on requests to correct deficiencies, and upon re-submittal promptly reconsider the amendment or element.
7. LAFC
o shall approve a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization only if the proposal is consistent with the Sphere of Influence Plan.
8. LAF
Co shall specifically utilize the Municipal Service Review in evaluating:
a. Propos
als to annex territories to cities where urban services are or may be provided by urban services special districts;
b. Appli
cations to annex or detach territories to or from a special services district;
c. Appli
cations for boundary changes between or among special
districts, or the formation of new special districts to service areas in territory currently served by another service provider; d. Appli
cations for consolidation of districts; and
e. Other
changes or organization or reorganization where appropriate.
9. Sphere of
Influence Plans shall be internally consistent.
10. In the c
ase of a Sphere of Influence Plan which contains a Municipal Service Review, if the evidence demonstrates that an agency is unable to provide an adequate level of service within a portion of its ultimate service area boundaries, the Sphere of Influence Plan shall be amended pursuant to the procedures for periodic review such that the ultimate service boundaries are consistent with the Municipal Service Review . If the Municipal Service Review projections demonstrate an adequate level of service beyond the ultimate service boundary, the Sphere of Influence Plan may be amended accordingly.
I. AMENDMENTS TO SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
1. The LAFCo will generally treat a proposed amendment to an agency's Sphere of Influence similarly to an application for approval of a Sphere of Influence. The LAFCo’s policies will be applied to applications for amendment to a Sphere of Influence as if it were an annexation planned for the mid- to long-range future. For that reason, each of the following sets of policies will apply to applications for amendments to Spheres of Influence:
a. General policies;
b. Specific policies and standards for annexations to cities and special districts; and
c. Specific policies and standards or amendments to Spheres of Influence.
2. The Sphere of Influence Municipal Service Review must be current before additions to a Sphere of Influence will be approved by LAFCo.
3. The Sphere of Influence amendments shall precede applications for annexations.
4. Amendment proposals must be consistent with an updated Sphere of Influence and/or Municipal Service Review.
5. An applicant for amendment to a Sphere of Influence must demonstrate a projected need or lack of need for service.
6. Amendment proposals involving Sphere expansion which contain prime agricultural land will not be approved by the LAFCo if there is sufficient alternative land available for annexation within the existing Sphere of Influence.
7. A phased plan for annexation of Sphere of Influence territory should be included in the Sphere of Influence proposal.
8. No amendments to a Sphere of Influence Plan will be approved unless a Municipal Service Review of the Sphere of Influence Plan exists that has been prepared by a local agency and adopted by LAFCo if required.
9. The LAFCo will deny proposals that would result in significant unmitigable adverse effects upon other service recipients or other agencies serving the affected area unless the approval is conditioned to avoid such impacts.
10. The LAFCo will approve a proposed amendment to a Sphere of Influence only if the subject agency will be the most logical and prospectively most efficient provider of services to the subject territory.
J. RECONSIDERATION OF LAFCo DECISIONS
1. The LAFCo will accept written requests for reconsideration of a Commission resolution from any person or affected agency within 30 days of the LAFCo’s adoption of a resolution making determination and prior to the completion of the Conducting Authority's proceedings, so long as such person or agency exhausts its administrative remedies by fully participating in LAFCo’s proceedings, including, but not limited to, commenting in writing on the application during public hearing.
2. The written request for reconsideration should precisely and specifically describe the basis for the request. The only requests for reconsideration that the LAFCo will approve are as follows:
a. Compelling new evidence exists, including significant and previously unavailable evidence that might alter the LAFCo’s decision;
b. There are elements which were previously overlooked, or have changed, such as the repeal of an applicable federal, state or local law that might alter LAFCo’s decision; and
c. Item(s) of procedure are challenged.
3. If the written request is timely, the Executive Officer will schedule the matter for the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting for which notice can be given, at which time staff will present the request.
4. The Commission will consider the request and approve or deny the request for reconsideration without further notice or hearing, or continue the matter.
5. The Commission's determination upon these matters is final.
K. C ITY PROTESTS OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACTS (Gov’t Code Section 51243.5)
1. The LAFCo may sustain a protest by a city of the county entering into a Williamson Act contract if both the following are true:
a. The city's general plan designates the territory proposal to be under contract for urbanization within a reasonable period of time;
b. A reasonable quantity of the city's total territory of sufficient quality has been set aside as open space/agricultural land and is designated as such in the city's general plan and relevant specific plans or community plans.
2. The LAFCo may sustain the protest if one or more of the following is true:
a. No active agricultural use of the land is feasible within six or more calendar years of the 10-year term of the contract;
b. The territory which is under contract has boundaries which would force imminent urban development to be illogical or make it difficult to serve.
c. The land does not meet the definition of prime agricultural land per the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
L. SERVICE OUTSIDE OF AGENCY BOUNDARIES (Gov’t Code Section 56133 & 56134)
1. Government Code 56133(b) Policy and Procedure: The Commission shall consider any proposals for an out -of-agency service extension, either pursuant to Government Code Section 56133(b), if a future change of organization or reorganization is anticipated, or pursuant to Government Code Section 56133(c), if the Commission finds that there is an existing or impending threat to public health or safety of the residents of the affected territory.
If a request pursuant to Government Code Section 56133 is filed by a party other than the city of district which would provide the service, the affected city or district must provide a written endorsement indicating its willingness to provide the service if the Commission approves the request.
The Commission shall also consider any requests to be exempt from the requirement to obtain LAFCO approval of an out -of-agency service extension, pursuant to Government Code Section 56133(e).
a. Procedure: Requests to authorize an Outside Service Agreement shall be filed with the Executive Officer. For requests filed under 56133(c), the agency should include documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected residents, such as a failing well or septic system. All requests will be reviewed by staff for completeness and placed on the next feasible agenda for Commission consideration per 56133(d). Emergency connections may be authorized by the Executive Officer and reviewed by the Commission at the next regularly scheduled LAFCO meeting. Requests shall identify any assurances that the Outside Service Agreement would not induce growth or result in the premature conversion of agricultural or open space lands to urban use.
Other information that may be requested includes maps, a plan for service, fees and the appropriate environmental document (Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption).
As a condition of approval, the Commission may require the completion of the annexation within a specified time frame.
b. Exemptions: Agencies requesting their contracts to be exempt from Commission consideration and approval per Government Code Section 56133(e) shall provide to the Executive Officer a written description of the service arrangement and any other supporting documentation of the contractual arrangement. The Executive Officer may make a determination on the exemption or may make a recommendation to the Commission for a Commission determination on the exemption. The Executive Officer shall endeavor to review the m aterials as quickly as possible and make a determination or recommendation on the exemption, to be provided based upon one or more of the following:
• Except for agencies subject to Government Code §56134, contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public agencies where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider are exempt.
• Contracts or agreements for the transfer of non- potable or non- treated water, and for provision of surplus water to agricultural lands for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries are not subject to LAFCO review.
• Service extensions providing surplus water to any project that will support or induce development require written approval from the Commission.
• Extra-territorial services provided by agencies prior to January 1, 2001, are not subject to LAFCO review.
The Executive Officer will notify the Commission of the granted exemption at the next Commission meeting.
2. Government Code 56134 Policy and Procedure: The Commission shall consider any proposals for an out -of-agency service extension for fire protection contracts consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 56134.
3. Reconsideration: Government Code Sections 56133 and 56134 provide that requests for reconsideration may be made by the applicant. It is the policy of the Commission to also consider requests for reconsideration filed by any person or affected agency. Reconsideration shall be subject to the procedures and requirements established in Government Code Section 56895, except as provided herein.
CHAPTER VI
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS
VI. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS
The procedures provide general instructions for all applicants, including a detailed description of required proposal contents. This chapter also contains an easy reference checklist of the components required for a complete application.
A. APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY
1. Pre-Filing Conference
Prior to filing an application, it is suggested that the applicants schedule a pre- filing conference with the LAFCo staff to determine the level of detail needed in the application, and to help ensure that the proposal will comply with the LAFCo's standards and policies.
2. Actions Required by Applicant
Before an application is accepted, the applicant must:
a. Complete the LAFCo application form;
b. File a petition or a legislative resolution that meets the legal criteria described below in the Instructions for Applicants section;
c. Include a statement of the nature of the proposal;
d. Provide maps and, where required by the Executive Officer, a metes and bounds legal boundary description;
e. Submit environmental documents if the LAFCo is not Lead Agency under CEQA, or if the LAFCo is Lead Agency, submit information as required under the LAFCo's environmental guidelines to facilitate the completion of the appropriate environmental review per the requirements of CEQA.
f. Make specific responses to each applicable LAFCo standard and submit data and information necessary to support those responses. The minimum required data and information is described in the General and Specific Instructions section of this manual;
g. A project-specific Plan for Service
h. Provide names and addresses of three contact persons (officers of a local agency applicant, or chief petitioners); and
i. Pay the applicable processing and petition checking fees.
An application will only be accepted as complete if it contains the data described above, and is presented in the format specified in the General and Specific Instructions. The LAFCo evaluation and hearing process will not begin until all required components of the application have been submitted and all fees, including environmental review costs, have been paid.
B. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL APPLICANTS
1. Initiation: Petition or Resolution
a. A proposal can only be initiated through a petition or through legislative resolution. An application initiated through a petition must contain the required number of signatures specified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
An application by resolution only may be initiated by the legislative body of any affected local agency.
b. The petition which is signed, or the resolution which is adopted, must:
(1) State that the proposal is made pursuant to Part 3 of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56700 of the Government Code;
(2) Set forth a description of the boundaries of the affected territory accompanied by a map showing the boundaries. When required by the Executive Officer, the boundary description must be a metes and bounds description. A sample description is provided in Appendix B.
The map shall be prepared using the format, symbols and features of the sample maps provided in Appendix C.
(3) Set forth any proposed terms and conditions.
(4) If the application is a petition, state whether the petition is signed by registered voters or owners of land.
(5) Designate contact persons, setting forth their names and mailing addresses. In the case of application by petition, these persons will be identified as the Chief Petitioners. In the case of application by resolution, these persons should be officers of the agency which adopted the resolution.
2. A Map and a Description of the Boundaries of the Subject Territory
The LAFCo will verify the legal description provided in the petition or resolution. The legal description and any maps will be examined for consistency. Any inconsistency shall be corrected by the applicant prior to any hearing on the request.
3. Data and Information Required by the LAFCo
In accordance with this section 56652 of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act, the LAFCo requires that the following information be submitted:
a. Comprehensive Sphere of Influence Plans, including Municipal Service Reviews for the subject agency, if required, and for the subject territory, if these have not already been approved by and filed with the LAFCo.
b. A feasibility study, which specifies and analyzes any changes to service plans which would result from the proposed change of organization or reorganization. The LAFCo executive may waive this requirement.
c. Reference to the subject territory's inclusion, if any, in the General and/or any Specific Plans of the subject agency.
d. Reference to the subject territory's inclusion, if any, in the General and/or any Specific Plans of the County.
e. If extension of infrastructure or services to currently undeveloped areas will occur, the applicant must provide specific evidence of need for services, such as land use entitlement, building permits, articles of formation of an assessment district, or other indication of impending urbanization.
f. Terms or conditions of the proposal, including proposed mitigation of any expected adverse effects resulting from the proposal.
g. If the LAFCo is not the Lead Agency, the applicant must submit any environmental documents prepared by the Lead Agency. If the LAFCo is the Lead Agency the applicant must present:
(1) A description of environmental conditions in the project area including topography, agricultural land, classification, open space, environmental justice, vegetation, wildlife, land uses, traffic circulation patterns and major water courses and water bodies; and
(2) A description of how environmental conditions might change as a result of the project.
h. Data or information to support responses to the requirements of the applicable LAFCo adopted standards.
i. A Fair Political Practices Commission Party Disclosure form will be required.
Disclosures should be made for partners or other parties that hold partial interest in the property. The LAFCo Commission Clerk will provide instructions regarding the completion of this form. The form is included in Appendix F.
4. Additional Data and Information Required by the Executive Officer
a. The Executive Officer may require specific additional data or information of the applicant based upon pre- filing conferences, or based upon his or her review of the application after it is received but before a certificate of filing is issued.
b. An application may be determined incomplete and may not be accepted for filing if it lacks the data and information specified by the Executive Officer.
c. After the application is accepted for filing, the Executive officer may require additional data and information, and the LAFCo may not complete consideration of the application without data and information requested.
5. Processing and Petition Checking Fees
The LAFCo will not accept an application as complete and will not begin evaluation of an application until applicable processing and petition checking fees have been deposited with the Executive Officer. The schedule of applicable fees is attached as Appendix D.
C. CHECKLIST FOR APPLICANTS
To help the applicant ensure that their application is complete, and that the LAFCo will have sufficient data and information to make its determination, a summary checklist is provided on the following page.
SACRAMENTO LAFCo APPLICATION CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains a summary of the items that are required of applicants by the LAFCo for the completion of an application. This checklist is provided as a convenient summary for the applicant. Please refer to the appropriate section of LAFC o's Policies, Standards and, Procedures Manual regarding the individual policies and standards.
Item Completed
1. Pre-filing conference with LAFCo staff. □
2. A petition or legislative resolution of application initiating the proposal. □
3. A complete application form. □
4. Required maps as described in Appendix C and a metes and bounds legal description of the boundaries of the subject territory for each proposed change of organization. □
5. The following specific data and information:
a. Comprehensive Sphere of Influence Plans, including Municipal Service Reviews for the subject agency (agencies) and for the subject territory, if these have not already been filed with the LAFCo.
□
b. A Plan for Services, if appropriate, which specifies and analyzes any changes to service plans that would result from the proposed change of organization. □
c. Maps which indicate the General, and/or Specific Plans designations of any affected land use authority. The boundary of existing and proposed cities and districts should be shown on the map. □
d. Maps which show land use zones. □
e. If extension of infrastructure or services to currently unused areas will occur, specific evidence of need for services, such as land use entitlement, building permits, articles of formation of any assessment district, or other indication of impending urbanization. (Copies of staff reports from land use approvals facilitate application processing.) □ SACRAMENTO LAFCo APPLICATION CHECKLIST
(Continued)
Item Completed
f. Terms or conditions of the proposal, including proposed mitigation of any expected adverse impacts resulting from the proposal. □
g. If the LAFCo is not Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the applicant must submit draft environmental documents prepared by the Lead Agency. If the LAFCo is Lead Agency, the applicant must provide a description of current environmental conditions in the project area, and a description of how those conditions might change as a result of the project. □
h. A specific response to any other applicable LAFCo policy or standard as it applies to the proposal. □
i. A Fair Political Practices Commission Party Disclosure form. □
j. A map which outlines all parcels located within 500 feet of the project site.
The map should include parcel numbers. A mailing label should be provided for each parcel. □
k. Parcel page with the project site cross-referenced. □
l. If the site is located in the unincorporated area, a copy of the comprehensive land use zone (grid map) with the site cross- referenced. □
m. The State Board of Equalization fee. □
6. Any additional data and information, as may be required by the executive officer, pertaining to any of the matters or factors which may be considered by the commission. □
7. The applicable established processing fees and petition checking fees. □
8. The required deposit toward environment processing fees, □ if so required.
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE LAFCo PETITION FORM
SACRAMENTO AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR OFFCIAL USE ONLY Control No.
____________
( ) Annexation ( ) Reorganization ( ) Consolidation ( ) Detachment ( ) Formation ( )
Reconsideration
( ) Incorporation ( ) Dissolution ( )
Disincorporation
( ) Exercise of Latent Powers ( ) Sphere of Influence Evaluation/Update
( ) Other
___________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Be Completed by Applicant
1. SUBJECT PROPERTY: (For large areas, parcel book page numbers may be listed.)
Parcel No.(s):
_____________________________________________________________
Parcel Size:
______________________________________________________________
Name of Project:
__________________________________________________________
Address or Location:
_______________________________________________________
2. LEGAL OWNER/S OR CHIEF PETITIONER/S: (Include a maximum of three petitioners)
Address:
City: Zip Code: Phone:
CHIEF PETITIONER:
Address:
City: Zip Code: Phone:
3. APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE
Address:
City: Zip Code: Phone:
4. AUTHORITY TO FILE APPLICATION
( ) Ownership ( ) Power of Attorney* ( ) Contract to Purchase* ( ) Long Term Lease (20 years or more)* ( ) Petition ( ) Resolution of Application
* Attach evidence of authority or petition.
I hereby certify that the above information and accompanying documents are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and agree to pay any fees and expenses required to prepare necessary environmental documentation and planning studies to process this application. In addition, I hereby petition the Sacramento County local Agency Formation Commission for approval of a proposed change of organization or reorganization.
The undersigned hereby petition(s) the Local Agency Formation Commission of Sacramento County for approval of a proposed change of organization or reorganization, and stipulate(s) as follows:
1. This proposal is made pursuant to Part 3, Division 3, Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 56000. Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000).
2. The specific change(s) of organization proposed (i.e., annexation, detachment, reorganization, et cetera) is/are:
(List each request separately.)
3. The boundaries of the territory(ies) included in the proposal are as described in Exhibit(s) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
4. The territory(ies) included in the proposal is/are _____ inhabited (12 or more registered voters) ______uninhabited.
5. This proposal is/is not consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city and/or districts. ________
6. Justification for each application (Use extra sheets if necessary. A justification must be provided for each request.):
7. The persons signing this petition have signed as __________ Registered Voters _______ Owners of Land. (Check One.)
8. If the formation of a new district(s) is included in the proposal:
(a) The principal act(s) under which said district(s) is/are proposed to be formed is/are:
(b) The proposed name(s) of the new district(s) is/are:
(c) The boundaries of the proposed new district(s) are as described in Exhibit(s) _________, ________ heretofore incorporated herein.
9. If an incorporation is included in the proposal:
(a) The name proposed for the new city is:
(b) Provisions are requested for the appointment of:
(i) City Manager Yes No
(ii) City Clerk and City Treasurer Yes No
10. If the proposal includes consolidation of special districts, the proposed name of the consolidated district is:__________________________________________
Wherefore, petitioner(s) or owner(s) request(s) that proceedings be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 56000, et seq. of the Government Code and herewith affix signature(s) as follows:
Owner/Chief Petitioner (not to exceed three):
DATE PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE RESIDENCE ADDRESS
1. 2.
3. ______________________________________ __________________
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE DATE
* Note: Applications may not be accepted without signature of legal owner(s) or official agent(s) with Power of Attorney or Chief Petitioners. An incomplete application cannot be processed. Adopted LAFCO rules and procedures require that specific material be submitted in conjunction with the application. The required items are indicated on the attached instructions.
APPENDEX B
SAMPLE METES AND BOUNDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION PARCEL
FOR RIVER WEST DEVELOPMENTS
All that certain real property situate in Sacramento County, California described as follows:
PARCEL 1
The Northwest Quarter Section of 10, the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, and all of Section 15, all of the foregoing being in said Township 7 North, Range 6 East, of Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
PARCEL 2
The Southeast Quarter of Section 9 Township 7 North, Range 6 East MDB and M.
Excepting therefrom all that portion of said Southeast Quarter of Section 9 heretofore conveyed April 15, 1915, to Charles E. Mildred and others, trustees, recorded in Book 428 of Deeds, Page 196, of said Sacramento County Records, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the East Line of Section 16, Township 7 North Range 6 East which is 2,665.5 feet, more or less, North of the Southeast Corner of said Section 16 said point of beginning being 5 feet North of the Centerline of the Tangent of the Cent ral California Traction Company's Spur to the California Vineyards Company's Packing House proceed East; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes West 2,640 feet; more or less parallel to the tangent of the Central California Traction Company's Spur and 5 feet North thereof to a fence line marking the Westerly Boundary of the California Vineyard Company's Land; thence following the said fence line North 2,960 feet, more or less, to the center of an avenue in the vineyard; thence North 89 degrees 41 minutes East 2,640 feet, more or less, along the Centerline of said avenue to the East Line of said Section 9; thence following the Section Lines South 2,967 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning.
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE MAPS
APPENDIX C
MAPS
A. Maps - All maps must be folded to 8-1/2" x 11" size.
1. Ten copies (minimum size 24" x 30") of a map that is drawn to scale. (1” to –20’ for areas 5 acres or less; 1" to 50' for 5 to 50 acres; I" to 100' for parcels over 50 acres in size). The map shall show the exterior property lines of the subject property and the exterior property lines of all properties that are located within 500 feet of the subject parcel(s). In any case, the exterior property lines of the closest properties shall be included.
Other required information should be shown as follows:
a. Net and gross acreage.
b. The names of any special districts that currently provide service to the subject property. (This information can be obtained through the LAFCo office.)
c. A project name.
2. One copy of a map (minimum 24" x 30") that indicates the following:
a. The existing Land Use Categories (General Plan), Land Use Designation (Specific Plan) if available, and Land Use Zones for all properties, including those which are directly adjacent to the subject property(ies) (See Attachment A).
b. Any uses which are proposed by the applicant.
c. All streets, highways, railroads, streams, 100- year flood plains, drainage canals or other important physical features.
d. Any structures that are located on the subject property or within 50 feet of the subject parcels.
e. Existing drainage, utility, road and other easement.
3. One copy of each applicable Assessor's Parcel map, clearly marked with cross-hatching, is required to be submitted with the application. This map will be filed with the Recorder, Assessor and State Board of Equalization.
4. 8- 1/2" x 11" reductions of all submitted maps and exhibits. Draw all plans to engineering scale; show site dimension, north arrow and visual scale. Fold all maps to 8-1/2" x 11" size. Clearly mark the boundaries of the subject site.
4 pages of maps
APPENDIX D
SCHEDULE OF FEES
SACRAMENTO
FEE SCHEDULE
Fees
1. Annexation/Detachment 0-4.9 acres: $400
5-9.9 acres: $550
10-19.9 acres: $700
20-49.9 acres: $1,300
50-99.9 acres: $1,500
100-149.9acres: $1,600
150-199.9 acres: $1,700
200+ acres: $1,700
plus $1/per acre
2. Reorganization Sum of individual
applications
3. Consolidation $1,500
4. Formation $2,000
5. Dissolution $1,000
6. Reconsideration $250
7. Application for Latent Powers $500 plus $250 for each additional power
8. Studies Actual Cost
9. Petition Check 75 ¢ per sig
for 100% check
10. Incorporation $2,000 plus cost of
(plus feasibility studies) any studies
11. Disincorporation $2,000
12. Sphere of Influence Actual Cost
Revision $500 deposit
13. Environmental Review Fees
a. Professional staff rate/hour $40-$59
b. Environmental Coordinator rate/hour $75
c. Clerical staff rate/hour $24
d. Negative Declarations and Prior
documents Base Charge $165
e. Exemptions $65
ADDITIONAL FEES:
Agenda $10 per year
Recorder's Fee $10 per recording
APPENDIX E
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING INCORPORATION PROPOSALS
Appendix E
LAFCo GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING INCORPORATION PROPOSALS
This appendix provides specific guidance to applicants submitting incorporation proposals regarding the LAFCO's evaluation of those proposals. The appendix is divided into four sections, including sections concerning the proposed city's capability and effectiveness, its revenue impact on existing agencies, its financial feasibility and the efficiency of the proposed city.
A. CAPACITY AND EFFECTIVENESS
This section describes the application of LAFCo General Policy regarding incorporation proposals. The LAFCo seeks to ensure that the most effective service provider will serve any given territory, subject to other goals, including efficiency, minimal envir onmental damage, and minimal adverse social or economic effects upon neighboring territories and agencies. Though the effectiveness of a proposed city is difficult to assess, the LAFCo will compare the proposals effectiveness with that of the current service providers by reviewing the following indicators:
1. Thoroughness of the feasibility study and the Municipal Service Review of the Sphere of Influence Plan included in the proposal;
2. Planned realistic service provision capacity to provide acceptable quantity and quality of service as may be required by evidenced service needs; and
3. Proposed organization chart and operating plans.
The feasibility study and Municipal Service Review are particularly important, because their contents will allow the LAFCo to make a comparison of the proposed source of service provision capacity to the current source.
B. REVENUE IMPACT ON EXISTING AGENCIES
Sales tax revenues have historically funded most or all of the County services which could be assumed by the new city. These services include:
1. Public protection and traffic enforcement;
2. Animal control;
3. Local streets and roads;
4. Planning and community development;
5. Environmental impact section; and
6. Other municipal services.
Property tax revenue which is transferred to a new city is equal to more than one-third of the cost of services assumed. Based upon an analysis of Sacramento County's fiscal 1988/89 final budget, about 42 percent of general purpose revenue is made up of property tax revenue. That proportion is applied to the net cost of services transferred to determine the amount of property tax revenue to be transferred. Net cost of services is that part which is funded by general purpose revenues.
Because sales tax revenues have been sufficient to fund most municipal services, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requirement to transfer a part of property tax revenue to incorporating cities partially duplicates the requirement to transfer sales tax revenues.
When the County transfers municipal services to a new city, it must also transfer both the sales tax re venue that was sufficient to fund most of those services, and property tax revenue equal to more than one-third of the cost of those services. Essentially, the County must transfer one and one- third more revenue to a new city than is required to fund services that are being transferred.
This section describes the application of LAFCo General Policies to incorporation proposals. The LAFCo's policies require proposals to be revenue-neutral in their financial effect, or to include agreements that will achieve revenue- neutrality. To apply these policies, the LAFCo will review the reduced costs of current service providers and the revenue that existing service providers must transfer to the new city when it assumes service provision responsibility.
1. Measuring Costs
To measure costs, the LAFCo must determine the costs associated with a service, allocate costs to the subject territory, and identify the amount of costs. In measuring costs for the most recent complete fiscal year, the LAFCo will rely upon the most recent ly completed financial audit statements compiled by the County or the appropriate oversight agency. The LAFCo will ensure that costs are measured completely and accurately by using the following guidelines:
a. Cost Definition - Cost definition requires identification of the types of service concerned, and identification of cost categories.
(1) Types of Service - A new city must assume certain municipal services upon incorporation, including:
(a) Law Enforcement/Police Protection;
(b) Planning and Land Use Control;
(c) Engineering and City Street Construction and Maintenance; and
(d) Building Inspection.
A city may also agree with the current service provider(s) to assume responsibility for a variety of other services, such as:
(e) Animal Control;
(f) Cemeteries;
(g) Drainage;
(h) Fire Protection;
(i) Libraries;
(j) Parks and Recreation;
(k) Sewers;
(l) Solid Waste Disposal;
(m)Street Lighting; and
(n) Any other services which a city is legally permitted to provide.
(2) Cost Categories - Total costs, regardless of the particular service, should include:
(a) Wages, salaries, benefits, payroll taxes, training, and other employment related items;
(b) Office space, including rent, lease, allocated space costs, and utilities;
(c) Consumable equipment and supplies;
(d) Capital equipment, including rental, lease, or depreciation;
(e) Purchased services;
(f) Casualty and liability costs, including insurance premiums, self insurance reserve contributions; and
(g) Allocated agency administration and overhead.
Failure to include all of these items, or others which may be defined, in the calculation of cost reductions available to a cur -rent service provider would make the proposal appear less favorable to the existing service provider than it really is.
Though certain of the above costs are fixed in the short run and would not be saved if service is no longer provided by the current service provider, most of the costs become variable over time. That is, they can be eliminated, or depreciable.
assets can be redeployed to other uses or sold. For that reason, the above guidelines provide for the definition of long run marginal costs, the costs borne by the current service provider of providing the incremental units of service required by the subject territory.
b. Cost Allocations - The cost allocation must accurately and equitably assign indirect costs, and must accurately and equitably assign service costs to the subject territory on the basis of service level received.
Ideally, the actual cost of service provided should be used. Only if such costs cannot be identified as to amount, or identification is unusually burdensome, should another allocation method be chosen. Alternate allocation methods should be based upon the measure of work that most accurately reflects the level of service received. The following are examples of allocation methods that the LAFCo expects agencies to use in allocating costs to a territory for several major types of municipal services:
(1) Sheriff/Law Enforcement - actual cost, based upon workload analysis estimates of patrol, detective, and surveillance hours, arrests, and other measures of work in the territory to which costs can be assigned;
(2) Planning and Community Development - actual cost, based upon work load analysis estimates of costs for developing, updating, or implementing the community plan for the subject territory, costs for zoning the subject territory, and costs for any expected special studies;
(3) Public Works - cost per lane mile, or cost per other unit of effort; and
(4) General Government Administration, including Executive, Legislature, Legal Counsel, etc. - general government administrative cost per dollar of budget expenditure.
c. Cost Identification - The LAFCo is concerned with identifying the amount of cost that will remain the responsibility of the current service provider. The LAFCo will request and review cost calculations and supporting accounting records to ensure that all of the above defined costs have been included. The review will also ensure that, if possible, actual costs are identified, and if actual costs cannot be identified, that allocation methods used are related to service levels.
2. Transfer of Property Taxes
The Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act, in Section 56810 , provides that, if a new city will assume responsibility for all services provided by the current service provider, the new city or district shall receive all property tax revenue previously received by the current provider. Otherwise, the LAFCo must determine the part of property tax revenue to be transferred. Since the County is the current provider of services to the territory included in most proposed new cities, and since new cities legally cannot assume responsibility for all County services, the LAFCo will usually have to determine the partial property tax transfer amount.
a. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act requires the LAFCo to determine the amount of property tax transfer based upon the following formula:
Property Tax Property Tax Revenue
Transferred = X Net Cost of Services
Total General Purpose Revenue
For this formula, the County Auditor is required to determine the proportion of property tax revenue to total general purpose revenue for each affected local agency. The LAFCo is required to determine
… an amount equal to the total net cost to each affected local agency during the prior fiscal year of providing those services which the new jurisdiction will assume within the area subject to the proposal. For purposes of this paragraph, 'total net cost' means the total cost that was funded by general purpose revenues of the affected local agency…
General purpose revenue is defined by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act as:
[T)he total amount of revenue which an affected agency may use on a discretionary basis for any purpose, and [which] does not include any of the following:
(A) Revenue that, by statute, is required to be used for a specific purpose;
(B) Revenue from fees, charges, or assessments which are levied specifically to offset the cost of particular services and do not exceed the cost reasonably borne in providing these services; and
(C) Revenue received from the federal government that is required to be used for a specific purpose.
b. The LAFCo specifically interprets only the following County revenues to be general purpose revenues:
(1) Taxes - Current Property;
(2) Taxes Other than Current Property;
(3) Use of Money and Property;
(4) Miscellaneous Revenues; and
(5) Other Financing Sources.
c. The LAFCo specifically interprets the following revenues to be non-general purpose, or restricted, revenues:
(1) Licenses and Permits;
(2) Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties;
(3) Aid - State;
(4) Aid - Federal;
(5) Aid - Other; and
(6) Charges for Current Services.
d. As with total cost identification for purposes of comparison with total revenue transferred, the LAFCo will attempt to determine the actual part of service costs which are funded by general purpose revenues. In some cases, the entirety of service costs are funded through either general purpose or restricted revenue. For example, building inspection is funded through various construction permit charges, which are restricted revenues. In other cases, the service is funded partly through general purpose revenues, and partly through restricted revenues, but there is a clear delineation of the separate parts. For example, Planning and Community Development services rely partly on permits and charges for service, which are restricted revenues, and partly on general purpose revenues from the Unincorporated Area Services Fund.
If the LAFCo cannot identify which portion of services are funded by general purpose revenues, it will assume that the portion of the service funded by general purpose revenue is the same as the portion of general purpose revenues to total revenues within the smallest budget unit which funds the service. For example, animal control is currently provided by the County, and financed through the Unincorporated Area Services Fund. If a new city assumes the animal control function, the LAFCo may not be able to identify what part of the function in the subject territory is funded by general purpose revenues. In that case, if 80 percent of Unincorporated Area Services Fund revenue is made up of general purpose revenue, then the LAFCo will assume that 80 percent of animal control costs are made up of general purpose revenue.
3. Transfer of Sales Tax, Service Charge, User Fee, and Other Revenues
A new city has the authority to levy a sales tax. A city also will receive service charge and user fee revenue corresponding to the services it proposes to assume which are provided for charge or on a fee basis. The LAFCo will request that the State Board of Equalization determine the amount of sales tax revenue generated within the subject territory as part of the determination of financial impact. The LAFCo will rely upon current service providers for information regarding revenues generated by the subject territory via service charges and user fees. Similarly to service costs, the LAFCo will attempt to consider actual revenues from the subject territory. If actual revenues cannot be determined at reasonable cost, the LAFCo will consider revenues assigned to the territory using the allocation method most closely related to service levels.
4. Revenue Exchange Agreements
Though the LAFCo does not have the power to condition its approval of a proposal on a revenue exchange agreement, the LAFCo does have the power to deny proposals that have an unequal and harmful revenue impact. The LAFCo will therefore deny proposals that are not revenue neutral unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that the current revenue distribution is substantially inequitable and that the proposal will correct that inequity.
The LAFCo only will approve a proposal in which the costs borne by an existing service provider are not equal to the revenues transferred from the current provider to the incorporating city if the proposal includes a revenue exchange contract that resolves the inequity.
C. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
This section describes the application of LAFCo General Policy for Financial Feasibility to incorporation proposals. The LAFCo seeks to judge the initial and on- going financial viability of the proposed city. The LAFCo will determine prospective transitional and on- going revenues to be received by the new city. However, the LAFCo will rely substantially upon the applicant's feasibility study for estimates of transitional and on-going costs.
1. The costs detailed in the feasibility study must include all services that the city will assume. In addition, the feasibility study should include a projected three- year budget.
2. Additionally, the general government costs must be included, such as costs for the following functions:
a. City council/legislative;
b. City manager/administrative;
c. Treasurer/financial; and
d. Counsel/legal.
3. Costs detailed in the feasibility study for both transition and on-going operations must be included.
4. The LAFCo also will expect to see at least the following costs amongst the transition costs included in the feasibility study:
a. Necessary capital construction;
b. Recruiting and hiring;
c. Purchase of durable equipment and furnishings;
d. Hookup and connection costs;
e. Working capital for wages and benefits, lease/rent, consumable equipment and supplies, insurance, etc.; and
f. Legal and other professional fees.
If the LAFCo judges that any relevant costs have been excluded, or that any included costs appear to be substantially inaccurately estimated, the applicant may be required to resubmit a corrected feasibility study before the LAFCo takes action on the appli cation.
Appendix I presents a description of the financial information required to be submitted with incorporation proposal applications. In addition, Appendix J presents a methodology for computing the Gann limit for new entities resulting from an incorporation or a change in organization.
D. EFFICIENCY
This section describes the application of LAFCo General Policy regarding efficiency of services incorporation proposals. The LAFCo will attempt to determine if the proposal is the most efficient means of provision of acceptable quality services, or if another local agency or combination of local agencies is more efficient. In determining efficiency, the LAFCo is concerned with the net present value of total current and projected societal service costs.
The LAFCo will consider costs of service rather than simply considering an agency's charge or price because governmental agencies' costs and obligations are ultimately borne by their constituents and customers, regardless of the current price charged for service.
The LAFCo will consider the net present value of current and projected costs so that cost differences over time can be compared. For example, a city with limited water treatment capacity may be able to offer a lower monthly charge now, but may require a costly new plant in four years, while a district with ample capacity may charge a higher monthly charge now, but be cheaper in the long run since a new plant will not be needed for ten years.
The LAFCo will consider societal costs instead of only those costs borne by the agency, because some of the cost of service provision may not be borne by those who receive the service. For example, the LAFCo will consider the costs of pollution caused by a solid waste disposal agency, so that an agency with an inexpensive but heavily polluting dump will not necessarily be judged more efficient than an agency with a more expensive plant that is much cleaner.
APPENDIX F
PARTY DISCLOSURE FORM
Government Code Section 84308
PARTY DISCLOSURE FORM
Information Sheet
SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
This form must be completed by applicants for, or persons who are the subject of, any proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement of use pending before Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission.
Important Notice
Basic Provisions of Section 84308
I. You are prohibited from making a campaign contribution of $250 or more to any commissioner/board member, his or her alternate, or any candidate for such position. This prohibition begins on the date your application is filed or the proceeding is initiated, and the prohibition ends three months after a final decision is rendered by Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. In addition, no commissioner/board member, alternative, or candidate may solicit or accept a campaign contribution of $250 or mor e from you during this period.
These prohibitions also apply to your agents, and, if you are a closely held corporation, to your majority shareholders as well.
II. You must file the attached disclosure form and disclose whether you or your agent(s) have in the aggregate contributed $250 or more to any commissioner/board member, his or her alternative, or any candidate for the position during the 12 - month period preceding the filing of the application or the initiation of the proceeding.
III. If you or your agent have made a contribution to any commissioner/board member, alternate, or candidate during the 12 months preceding the decision on the application or preceding, that board member must disqualify himself or herself from the decision. However, disqualification is not required if the board member, alternate, or candidate returns the campaign contribution within 30 days of learning about both the contribution and the proceedings.
This form should be completed and filed with your application, or with the first written document you file or submit after the proceeding commences.
Prepared by: Legal Division
Fair Political Practices Commission
8/85
1. A proceeding involving "a license, permit, or other entitlement for use" includes all business, professional, trade and land use licenses and permits, and other entitlements for uses, including all entitlements for land use; all contracts (other than competitively bid, labor or personal employment contracts) and all franchises.
2. Your "agent" is someone who represents you in connection with a proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use. If an individual acting as an agent is acting in his or her capacity as an employee or member of a law, architectural, engineering, consulting firm, or similar business entity, both the business entity and the individual are "agents".
3. To determine whether a campaign contribution of $250 or more has been made by you, campaign contributions made by you within the preceding 12 months must be aggregated with those made by your agent within the preceding 12 months or the period of the agency, whichever is shorter. Campaign contributions made to different commissioners, their alternatives, or candidates are not aggregated.
This notice summarizes the major requirements of Government Code Section 84308 of the Political Reform Act and 2 Cal. Adm. Code Sections 18438.1 -18438.8. For more information, contact Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission -- County Counsel Barry Steiner at 440-5564, or the Fair Political Practices Commission, 428 J Street, Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 332-5901.
Party Disclosure Form SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
(Name of Board of Commission)
Party's Name: __________________________
Party's Address: __________________________
(Street)
__________________________
(City)
_____________________
(State) (Zip) (Phone)
Application Proceeding
Title and Number: _____________________
Board or Commission Member to whom you and/or your agent made campaign contributions in aggregation of $250 or more and dates of contributions:
Name of Member: _______
Names of Contributor (if other than Party):
Date(s): ___________________________________________________________
Amount: ___________________________________________
Name of Member: ____ __________
Name of Contributor (if other than Party): _____
Date(s): ___________________________________________________________
Amount: ___________________________________________________________
Name of Member: _______________________________________________________
Name of Contributor (if other than Party):
Date(s): ___________________________________________________________
Amount: ___________________________________________________________
Date: _____
Signature of Party and/or Agent
APPENDIX G
SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
PLEASE RETURN TO: Marilyn Ann Flemmer, Clerk Official Use Only
Sacramento LAFCO
1112 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 File Stamp
TO: Office Of The County Recovery
County Of Sacramento
P.O. Box 1206
Sacramento, California 95806
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 57200, this Certificate is issued by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Sacramento County, California.
1. The short-form designation, as determined by LAFCo, is:
__________HIGHLANDS HILLS REORGANIZATION (10-
90)___________________________
______________________________________________________________________ ______
2. The name of each districts or city involved in this change of organization of reorganization and the kind or type of change of organization ordered for each city or district are as follows:
City/District Type of Change of Organization
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District _________Annexation___
County Sanitation District No. 1 ______ _________Annexation________
________________________________ __________________________
_________________________________ __________________________
3. The above listed cities and/or districts are located within the following county(ies):
County of Sacramento______________________________________________
4. A description of the boundaries of the above cited change of organization or reorganization is shown on the attached map and legal description, marked Exhibit A and by reference incorporated herein.
5. The territory involved in this change of organization or reorganization is _________Uninhabited_________________________.
(Inhabited / Uninhabited)
6. This change of organization or reorganization has been approved subject to the following terms and conditions, if any:
See resolution, attached.___________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
7. The resolution ordering this change of organization or reorganization without election, or confirming an order for this change after confirmation by the voters, was adopted on: __ August 28, 1990________________________________
by Board of Directors of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District___.
I hereby certify that I have examined the above cited resolution, including any terms and conditions, and the map and legal description and have found these documents to be in compliance with LAFCo Resolution No. ____1054________
adopted on __August 1, 1990_______________________________________
DATED: ___October 17, 1990_____
__________________________________________
JOHN Y. O'FARRELL, Executive 0fficer
SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
CERTIFIED:
____________________________________
Marilyn Ann Flemmer
Commission Clerk
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. SR-1121
RESOLUTION ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
AND COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1
OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY HIGHLANDS HILLS
REORGANIZATION (LAFCo 10-90)
WHEREAS, County Sanitation District No. 1 of Sacramento County ("CSD No. 1") has heretofore requested that the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District ("Regional") institute proceedings for reorganization to annex, to Regional, the territory described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 1990, this Board adopted Resolution No. SR -1083, Resolution of Application by the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District Requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to Take Proceedings for Reorganization to Provide for the Annexation of Territory to Regional; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 1990, the Board of Directors of CSD No. 1 adopted its Resolution No. CD-0584, Resolution of Application by County Sanitation District No. 1 of Sacramento County requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to Take Proceedings for Reorganization to Provide for Annexation of Territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 1990, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. LAFC 1054 and thereby approved the requested annexation and designated this Board as the conducting authority for the reorganization;
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission by said Resolution No.
LAFC 1054 authorized this Board to conduct the requested annexation to both Regional and CSD No. I without notice, hearing, or election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. The Board hereby finds and determines that no other district is presently providing sanitary sewer service to the territory described in Exhibit A and that said territory will be benefited by the annexation.
Section 3. The Board hereby orders the annexation of the territory described in Exhibit A to Regional and to CSD No. 1 and orders the boundaries of Regional and CSD No. 1 to be changed to reflect the reorganization.
Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution together with the fees prescribed in Section 54902 of the Government Code, to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission.
ON A MOTION by Director _______________________, seconded by Director ________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the County of Sacramento, State of California, this ________ day of ______________, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
The foregoing is a correct copy of
a resolution adopted by the Board
of Directors, Sacramento County,
California
On ________________________
Dated ______________________
By _________________________
AYES: Directors, Collin, T. Johnson, Rudin, Smoley, Streng
NOES: Directors, None
ABSENT: Directors, Kipp, G. Johnson
ABTAIN: Directors, None
________________________________
Chairman of the Board of Directors
__________________________________
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and Ex-Officio Secretary to the
Board of Directors
LAFCo 10-90/3
8320 Stevenson Avenue
EXHIBIT "A"
All that portion of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 14, Township 7 North, Ranch 5 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, County of Sacramento, State of California described as follows:
The southerly 200 ft. of the northerly 230 ft. of the westerly 100 ft. of Lot 26 of Swisler Tract, as shown on that record map recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Sacramento County found in Record Map Book 10 at Page 17.
APPROVED
SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION
BY ___________________________
Commission Clerk
Assessor’s Map
115-11
APPENDIX H
PROCE
DURES FOR PREPARATION AND PROCESSING
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT A:
CEQA PROCESS FLOW CHART
EXHIBIT B:
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency) P.O. Box 3044, Ro om 113
Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
County Clerk
County of:
Project Title: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: ________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ___________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
□ Ministerial (Sec. 210B0(b)(1); 15268);
□ Declared Emergency (Sec. 2108D(b)(3); 15269(a));
□ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
□ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number:
□ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt·
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension:
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: Date: Title:
Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110. Public Resources Code Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.
EXHIBIT C:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE
CKLIST FORM
NOTE: The following is a sample form that may be tailored to satisfy individual agencies’ needs and project circumstances. It may be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantia l evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance.
1. Project title:
2. Lead agency name and address:
3. Contact person and phone number:
4. Project location:
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
6. General plan designation:
7. Zoning:
8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.):
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological
Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards &
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Click here to enter text.
Signature Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Signif icant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must descr ibe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation mea sures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. I n determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Departmen t of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
EXHIBIT D:
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) FOR THE
______(PROJECT NAME)______
To: Interested Persons
From: Lead Agency Title
Address Line 1
Address Line 2
Telephone Number
[email protected]
Contact: Responsible Person, Title
___________ is the Lead Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed ______(project name)________. ____(Lead Agency)_______ intends to adopt a Negative Declaration (ND) OR Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project.
The project site is located on ____(street setting)_____ in the (un)incorporated community of _________ in ___________ County as described in the attached ND (or) MND. __(Lead Agency)__ is considering ___(description of entitlement)___ to allow ______________________________________.
The proposed (ND) or (MND) is available for public review from _(hours)_ a.m. to _(hours)_ p.m., Monday through Friday, at the offices of the ______(Lead Agency)____ address listed above, and online at the _____(Lead Agency)____ website at:
www.LeadAgency.xxx
The public comment period on the ND (or) MND begins on __(Opening Date, 20xx)___ and closes on __(Closing Date, 20xx)___. Comments may be submitted to “[email protected]” and should include the phrase “_____(Project Name)___ ND (or) MND” in the subject line. The public hearing for the project is tentatively scheduled to be heard at _(hour)_ a.m. on ___(Date, 20xx)___ during a meeting of the ___(Lead Agency)___, located at _____(Street Address)___. The live broadcast of the meeting will be also available to the public via a link on the ___(Lead Agency)___ web page of the ___(Lead Agency)___ website:
www.LeadAgency.xxx
EXHIBIT E:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
EXHIBIT F:
NOTICE OF COMPLETION & ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL
Association of Environmental Professionals 2024 CEQA Guidelines Appendices
338
APPENDIX C
continued
APPENDIX G:
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
APPENDIX I
FINAINCIAL INFORMATION REQUIRED
TO BE SUBMITTEDWITH
INCORPORATION OF PROPOSAL APPLICATIONS
Appendix I
FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED
WITH INCORPORATION PROPOSAL APPLICATIONS
This appendix provides the formats for the financial analysis required by LAFCo for an incorporation proposal. Specifically, this appendix provides instructions and forms relating to the financial feasibility and impact of incorporation proposals for the incorporating city, the county, and special districts. The following sections provide the instruction for completing the nine exhibits contained in this appendix.
A. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT I - SUMMARY OF THE
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE INCORPORATING CITY
1. Total Annual Revenues - the total annual revenues for the base year, transition year, first full year and second full year are computed in Exhibit III. The information from the bottom line in Exhibit III should be transferred to the same line and column under total annual revenues in Exhibit 1.
2. Total Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs - the total annual operating and maintenance costs for the base year, transition year, first full year and second full year are computed in Exhibit II. The information from the bottom line in Exhibit II should be transferred to the same line and column under total annual operating and maintenance costs in Exhibit 1.
3. Difference - the difference in the total annual revenues and the total annual operating and maintenance cost for each of the years shown in Exhibit I is calculated by subtracting the total annual operating and maintenance cost in each year from the respective year's total annual revenues. The difference for each year, which may be a positive or negative amount, is entered on the bottom line of Exhibit I.
B. INSTRUCTION FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT H - SUMMARY OF THE
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE
INCORPORATING CITY
1. The base year amount for each function of services is the amount that was spent on that function of' services in the most recently available annual audited financial statements of the County or other appropriate government agency providing the services.
2. Where audited financial statements are not available to indicate a base year cost of services, supporting computations for an estimation of the base year cost should be provided.
EXHIBIT I
SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE
INCORPORATING CITY
Base Transition 1st Full 2nd
Full
Year Year Year Year
Total Annual Revenues $ $ $ $
Total Annual Operating
and Maintenance Costs ( ___) ( _ __) ( _ __) ( ___)
Difference $ $ $ $
EXHIBIT II
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE INCORPORATING CITY
Base Transition 1st Full 2nd Full
Function Year Year Year Year
__
Legislative and
General Government $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Financial and
Administrative Service $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Planning and
Land Use Regulation $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Engineering and
Building Inspection Services $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Facilities Maintenance $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Public Safety $__________ $_________ $_________
$________
Recreation and Leisure
Services $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Other Miscellaneous Services* $__________ $_________ $_________ $________
Total Annual Operating and
Maintenance Costs $__________ $ _________ $ _________ $ ________
* Note: Other Miscellaneous Services may include, but not be limited to, cemeteries, drainage, fire protection, libraries, sewers, solid waste disposal, and street lighting services.
3. A separate supporting cost computation sheet should be provided to show how the base year costs for each function of services was calculated. Specifically, the individual functions include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Legislative and General Government - includes the costs of a city manager, assistant city manager, city council, and other supporting staff and related;
(b) Financial and Administrative Services - includes the cost of the fiscal officer, the personnel officer, business services, administrative services and other supporting staff and related costs;
(c) Planning and Land Use Regulation - includes the cost of planning staff and permitting staff and related costs;
(d) Engineering and Buildings Inspection Services - includes the cost of engineering and construction services, including road construction, and building inspection services and related costs;
(e) Facilities Maintenance - includes the costs for personnel, equipment and supplies to maintain and upkeep existing facilities in the proposed new city;
(f) Public Safety - includes the costs for law enforcement services and animal control services and related costs;
(g) Recreation and Leisure Services - includes the costs of providing parks, recreation and other community leisure services; and
(h) Other Miscellaneous Services - includes but is not limited to, cemeteries, drainage, fire protection, libraries, sewers, solid waste disposal, and street lighting services.
4. The total operating and maintenance costs for the base year is calculated by adding the sum of the cost of each function of services.
5. The transition year cost for each function of services is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that service will be provided at a cost to the newly incorporating city divided by 12 months) times the base year cost for each service function. It is important to note that in some cases services will be provided to the newly incorporated city by an existing agency during a portion of the transition year at no or reduced costs to the newly incorporated city.
6. The first full year of costs for each function of services is computed by multiplying the base year amount for each function of services times an escalator amount to reflect the anticipated growth in the cost of services. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing the same or related services in the base year and the two prior fiscal years, as provided in the County of other appropriate agency's annual audited financial statements.
7. The second full year of cost for each function of services is computed by multiplying the first full year amount for each function of services times the escalator amount. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing the same or related services in the base year and the two prior fiscal years.
C. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT M - SUMMARY OF THE
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES FOR THE INCORPORATING CITY
1. The base year amount for each revenue category is the amount of revenue that the newly incorporating city is anticipated to receive based on the most recently available annual audited financial statements of the County or other appropriate government agency providing the service.
2. The base year amount of sales tax will be requested to be provided by the State Board of Equalization by LAFCo. If this differs from the base year amount estimated by the proponents of a proposed application for incorporation, the LAFCo will adjust the anticipated amount of base year sales tax.
3. The total annual revenues for the base year is calculated by adding the sum of the cost of each revenue category in the base year.
4. The transition year amount of revenue for each revenue category is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that revenue will be received by the newly incorporating city divided by 12 months) times the base year revenue for each revenue category. It is important to note that although some revenues are received by the newly incorporating city in arrears, such revenues accrue to the newly incorporating city and should be counted in the year that the revenues were earned.
5. The first full year of revenue for each revenue category is computed by multiplying the base year amount for each revenue category times an escalator amount to reflect the anticipated growth in revenues. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in revenues in each revenue category in the base year and the prior two fiscal years, as, reflected in the County or other appropriate agency's annual audited financial statements.
6. The second full year of revenue for each revenue category is computed by multiplying the first full year amount of revenue for each revenue category, times the escalator amount. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in revenues in each revenue category in the base year and the prior two fiscal years, as reflected in the County or other appropriate agency's annual audited financial statements.
EXHIBIT III
SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL
REVENUES FOR THE INCORPORATING CITY
Revenue Base Transition 1st Full 2nd Full
Category Year Year Year Year
Property Tax $ $ $ $
Sales and Use Tax $ $ $ $
Transit Occupancy Tax $ $ $ $
Franchise Fees $ $ $ $
Property Transfer Tax $ $ $ $
Homeowner's Property Tax $ $ $ $
Relief
Business Licenses $ $ $ $
Fines and Penalties $ $ $ $
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees $ $ $ $
Trailer Coach In-Lieu Fees $ $ $ $
Off-Highway Vehicle Fees $ $ $ $
Cigarette Tax $ $ $ $
Service Charges and Fees $ $ $ $
Interest Income $ $ $ $
Other Revenues $ $ $ $
Total Annual Revenues $ $ $ $
D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT IV - SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL "APACT OF THE INCORPORAT16N ON SACRAMENTO COUNTY
1. Total Annual 'Reductions in County Revenues - the total annual reductions in County revenues for the base year, transition year, first year, and second year full year are computed in Exhibit VI. The information from the bottom line in Exhibit VI, Section F should be transferred to the same line and column under total annual reductions in County revenues in Exhibit IV.
2. Total Annual Reductions in County Costs - the total annual reductions in County costs for the base year, transition year, first full year, and second full year are computed in Exhibit V. The respective information for the total annual reductions in County costs in each respective year in Exhibit V should be transferred to the appropriate line and column under total annual reductions in County costs in Exhibit IV.
3. Difference - the difference in the total annual reductions in County revenues and the total annual reductions in County costs for each of the years shown in Exhibit IV is calculated by subtracting the total annual reductions in County costs in each yea r from the respective year's total annual reductions in County revenues. The difference for each year, which generally will be a negative amount, is entered on the bottom line of Exhibit IV.
E. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHEBIT V - SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL
ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN COUNTY COSTS
1. The base year amount for each service to be transferred from the County is the amount that was spent on that service in the most recently available annual audited financial statements of the county.
2. The transition year cost for each service to be transferred from the County is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the cost of services will be paid for by the County divided by 12 months) times the base year cost for each service to be transferred from the County.
It is important to note that in some cases the County is still required to pay for the costs of certain services even though the revenues generated for such services are received by the newly incorporated city.
3. The first full year of the cost of each service to be transferred from the County is computed by multiplying the base year amount for each service times an escalator amount to reflect the anticipated growth in the cost of services. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing each service in the base year and the two prior fiscal years, as provided in the County's annual audited financial statements.
EXHIBIT IV
SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT
OF THE INCORPORATION ON SACRAMENTO COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________ _______________________
Base Transition 1st Full 2nd Full
Year Year Year Year___
Total Annual Reductions
in County Revenues $ $ $ $
Total Annual Reductions
in County Costs ( )( )( )( )
Difference $ $ $ $
______________________________________________________________________ _______________________
EXHIBIT V
SUMMARY OFFTHE TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTIONS
IN COUNTY COSTS
______________________________________________________________________ Service to be
Transferred from the Base Transition 1st Full 2nd
Full
_____County Year Year Year Year
Law Enforcement/
Police Protection $ $ $ $
Planning and Land
Use Control ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Engineering and
Building Inspection ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Street Maintenance
and Construction ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Animal Control ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Cemeteries ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Drainage ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Fire Protection ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Libraries ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Parks and Recreation ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Sewers ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Solid Waste Disposal ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Street Lighting ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Other ___________ ___________ ____________ ____________
Total Cost of
Services Transferred $ $ $ $
4. The second full year of the cost of each service to be transferred from the County is computed by multiplying the first full year amount for each service times the escalator amount. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing the service in the base year and the two prior fiscal years.
F. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT VI - SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL
ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN COUNTY REVENUES
Section A - Computation of Sacramento County's General Purpose Revenues
1. The base year amount for each revenue item is the amount that the County spent on each revenue item in the most recently available annual audited financial statements of the County. Section A lists which funds Sacramento County currently uses to identify funding sources for each revenue item.
2. The total general purpose revenue is calculated by adding the sum of the amounts for each revenue item in the base year.
Section B - Computation of the Property Tax Transfer Ratio
1. The property tax revenue for the County in the base year, as indicated on the County's most recently available annual audited financial statements, is entered on the appropriate line Section B.
2. The general Purpose revenue, as computed in Section A, is also entered on the appropriate line in Section B.
3. The ratio of property tax to general purpose revenue is computed by dividing the amount of property tax revenue by the amount of general purpose revenue. The resulting ratio of property tax to general purpose revenue is expressed as a percent.
Section C - Computation of the Service Costs to be Transferred
1. The base year cost of services to be transferred from the County is the same information that was computed in Exhibit V. Thus, the information from Exhibit V should be transferred to Section C of Exhibit VI.
Section D - Computation of the County's Property Tax Transfer
1. The ratio of property tax revenue to general purpose revenue, as computed in Section B of Exhibit VI, is entered on the appropriate line in Section D.
2. The cost of service costs to be transferred, as computed in Section C of Exhibit VI, is entered on the appropriate line in Section D.
EXHIBIT VI
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUALREDUCTIONS
IN COUNTY REVENUES
A. Computation of Sacramento County's General Purpose Revenues
Base Year
Revenue Item Amount
Secured Property Tax (Funds 1 & 13) $
Unsecured Property Tax (Funds I & 13) $
Sales and Use Tax (Fund 13) $
Franchises (Fund 13) $
Transient Occupancy Tax (Fund 1) $
Property Transfer Tax (Fund 1) $
Taxes-Aircraft (Fund 1) $
Taxes-Livestock (Fund 1) $
Taxes-Tax Sales (Funds 1 & 13) $
Vehicle Code Fine (Fund 1) $
Other Court Fines (Fund 1) $
Forfeitures and Penalties (Fund 1) $
Interest Income (Funds 1 & 13) $
Building Rental-Other (Fund 1) $
Ground Leases-Other (Fund 1) $
Recreational Concessions (Fund 1) $
Other Vending Devices (Fund 1) $
Cigarette Tax (Fund 1) $
Homeowner's Property Tax Relief (Funds I & 13) $
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu (Fund 1) $
Trailer Coach In-Lieu (Fund 1) $
Williamson Act Tax Relief (Fund 1) $
Sale of Personal Property (Fund 1) $
County Wide Cost Plan (Fund 1) $
Revenue-Other (Funds 1 & 13) $
Prior Year Revenues (Funds 1 & 13) $
Sales-Other (Fund 13) $
Total General Purpose Revenue $
EXHIBIT VI -continued-
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUALREDUCTIONS
IN COUNTY REVENUES
B. Computation of the Property Tax Transfer Ratio (Base Year)
Property Tax General Purpose Ratio of
Property Tax to
Revenue Revenue (as computed in A)
General Purpose Revenue
$_______________ + $________________ =
__________________
C. Computation of the Service Costs to be Transferred
Base Year
Service to be Transferred Cost of
_____from the County___ _ Service___
Law Enforcement/Police Protection $
Planning and Land Use Control $
Engineering and Building Inspection $
Street Maintenance and Construction $
Animal Control $
Cemeteries $
Drainage $
Fire Protection $
Libraries $
Parks and Recreation $
Sewers $
Solid Waste Disposal $
Street Lighting $
Other $
Total Cost of Services Transferred $
EXHIBIT VI -continued-
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUALREDUCTIONS
IN COUNTY REVENUES
D. Computation of the County's Property Tax Transfer (Base Year)
Ratio of Property Tax Revenue Cost of the Service
Amount of County
to General Purpose Revenue Costs to be Transferred
Property Tax Transfer* (as computed in B) (as
computed in C
$ _________________ x _______________ % = $_________________
* Note: Per AB 672 the full implementation of the property tax transfer will be phased in over a three-year period.
E. Computation of Sales and Use Tax Revenue Reduction to County
Base Year Sales and Use Tax Amount = $ ________________
Transition Year
Base Year Amount Portion of the Year Transition Year Amount
$______________ x _____________ % = $ ________________
First Full Year
First Full Year Amount Escalator First Full Year Amount
$______________ x _____________ % = $ ________________
Second Full Year
Second Full Year Amount Escalator Second Full Year Amount
$______________ x _____________ % = $ ________________
EXHIBIT VI
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUALREDUCTIONS
IN COUNTY REVENUES
-continued-
F. Computation of the Total Annual Reduction in County Revenues*
______________________________________________________________________ Base Transition 1st Full 2nd
Full
Year Year Year Year __
Property Tax Transfer $ $ $ $
Sales and Use Tax Reduction + + + +
Miscellaneous Revenues + + + +
Total Annual Reduction
in County Revenues $ $ $ $
______________________________________________________________________
* Note: For purposes of analysis, do not include appropriation for AB 672 implementation over a five-year period.
3. The amount of County property tax transfer in the base year is calculated by multiplying the ratio of property tax revenue to general purpose revenue times the cost of service costs to be transferred.
4. As the note in Section D indicates, AB 672 mandated that the full implementation of the property tax transfer will be phased in over a three-year period. For purposes of this analysis, no adjustment for this phase- in will be made in this exhibit. However, it is understood that the full amount of property tax transfer will take three years to be realized.
Section E - Computation of Sales and Use Tax Revenue Reduction to County
1. The base year sales and use tax amount is the estimated amount of sales and use tax that will be transferred to the newly incorporated city. The estimate will be based upon some percentage of the sales and use tax earned by the newly incorporating city according to the most recently available annual financial audit statements of the County and other relevant information.
2. The LAFCo staff will verify the estimated amount of sales tax to be transferred to the newly incorporating city by contacting the State Board of Equalization.
The LAFCo staff will adjust the estimate in the proposal for incorporation to be consistent with the sales tax information provided by the State Board of Equalization.
3. The transition year amount of sales and use tax to be transferred from the County to the newly incorporated city is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the newly incorporated city will be in existence divided by 12 months) times the base year sales and use tax amount. It is important to note that the sales and use tax is transferred to the newly incorporated city beginning with the effective date of the incorporation, even though the County may be responsible for paying for certain services during the entire transition year.
4. The first full year of the sales and use tax to be transferred from the county is computed by multiplying the base year amount of sales and use tax times an escalator factor to reflect the anticipated growth in the amount of sales and use tax. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in sales and use tax in the county during the base year and the two prior fiscal years, as provided in the county's annual audited financial statements.
5. The second full year of the sales and use tax to be transferred from the County is computed by multiplying the first full year amount of sales and use tax times an escalator factor. The escalator factor is based on the average annual growth in sales and use tax in the county during the base year and the two prior fiscal years.
Section F - Computation of the Total Annual Reduction in County Revenues
1. The property tax transfer amounts are completed as follows:
(a) The base year amount of property tax transfer, as computed in Exhibit VI, Section D, is entered on the appropriate line.
(b) The transition year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the newly incorporated city will be CP in operation divided by 12 months) times the base year property tax amount.
(c) The first full year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the base year with amount times an escalator factor to reflect the anticipated growth in property tax revenues in the base year and the two prior years.
(d) The second full year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the first full year property tax amount times the same escalator factor use to compute the first full year property tax amount.
2. The sales and use tax reduction amounts computed in Section E of Exhibit VI are entered onto the appropriate lines in Section F.
3. Any miscellaneous revenues reductions associated with a particular incorporation proposal should be computed on a separate supporting sheet and entered on the appropriate lines in Section F. These miscellaneous revenues should use similar methods to compute transition year, first full year, and second full year amounts.
4. The total annual reduction in county revenues is computed by adding the sum of the revenue amounts for each of the years, respectively.
G. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT VII - SUMMARY OF THE
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INCORPORATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT
1. Total Annual Reductions in Revenues - the total annual reductions in special district revenues for the base year, transition year, first full year, and second full year are computed in Exhibit IX. The information should be transferred to the appropriate line in Exhibit VII.
2. Total Annual Reductions in Costs - the total annual reductions in special district costs for the base year, first full year, and second full year are computed in Exhibit VIII. The respective information for the total annual reductions in costs in each year in Exhibit VIII should be transferred to the appropriate line in Exhibit VII.
EXHIBIT VII
SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
INCORPORATION ON A SPECIAL DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________ Base Transition 1st Full 2nd Full
Year ___ __Year __ ___Year__ ___Year__
Total Annual Reductions
in Revenues $ $ $ $
Total Annual Reductions
in Costs ( )( )( )( )
Difference $ $ $ $
______________________________________________________________________
3. Difference - the difference in the total annual reductions in revenues and the total annual reductions in costs for each of the years shown in Exhibit VII is calculated by subtracting the total annual reductions in costs from the total annual reductions in revenues. The difference may be a positive or negative number.
H. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT VM - SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTION IN A SPECIAL DISTRICT"S COSTS
1. The base year amount for each service to be transferred from a special district is the amount that was spent on that service in the most recently available annual audited financial statements of the district.
2. The transition year cost for each service to be transferred from the special district is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the cost of services will be paid for by the District divided by 12 months) times the base year cost for each service to be transferred from the District.
3. The first full year of the cost of each service to be transferred from the District is computed by multiplying the base year amount for each service times an escalator amount for each service to reflect the anticipated growth in the cost of services. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing each service in the base year and the two prior fiscal years, as provided in the District's annual audited financial statements.
4. The second full year of the cost of each service to be transferred from the District is computed by multiplying the first full year amount for each service times the escalator amount. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in the cost of providing the service in the base year and the two prior fiscal years.
I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING EXHIBIT IX - COMPUTATION OF THE
TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTION IN SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES
1. The property tax transfer amounts are completed as follows:
(a) The base year amount of property tax transferred is that portion of a special district's property tax revenue that will be transferred to the newly incorporated city. This amount should be estimated using the district's most recent annual audited financial statements.
(b) The transition year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the newly incorporated city will be in operation divided by 12 months) times the base year property tax amount.
EXHIBIT VIII
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTIONS IN A
SPECIAL DISTRICT'S COSTS
______________________________________________________________________ Base Year
Service to be Special District Transition 1st Full 2nd Full Transferred Cost of Service Year Year Year
Law Enforcement/
Police Protection $ $ $ $
Planning and Land
Use Control
Engineering and
Building Inspection
Street Maintenance and
Construction
Animal Control
Cemeteries
Drainage
Fire Protection
Libraries
Parks and Recreation
Sewers
Solid Waste Disposal
Street Lighting
Other
Total Cost of
Services Transferred $ $ $ $
EXHIBIT IX
COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REDUCTION IN
SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES
______________________________________________________________________ Base Transition 1st Full 2nd
Full
Year Year Year Year __
Property Tax Transfer $ $ $ $
Sales and Use Tax Reduction + + + +
Miscellaneous Revenues + + + +
Total Annual Reduction
in County Revenues $ $ $ $
______________________________________________________________________
* Note: For purposes of analysis, do not include appropriation for AB 672 implementation over a three-year period.
(c) The first full year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the base year amount times an escalator factor to reflect the anticipated growth in property tax revenues in the base year and the two prior years.
(d) The second full year property tax amount is computed by multiplying the first full year property tax amount times the same escalator factor use to compute the first full year property tax amount.
2. The user/fees/ service charges amounts are computed as follows:
(a) The base year amount of user fees/service charges is that portion of a special district's user fees/service charges that will be transferred to the newly incorporated city. This amount should be estimated using the district's most recent annual audited financial statements.
(b) The transition year user fees/service charges amount is computed by multiplying the portion of the year (i.e., the number of months that the newly incorporated city will be in operation divided by 12 months) times the base year user fees/service charges.
(c) The first full year user fees/service charges amount is computed by multiplying the base year amount times an escalator factor to reflect the anticipated growth in user fees/service charges. The escalator amount is based on the average annual growth in user fees/service charges in the base year and the two prior years.
(d) The second full year user fees/service charges amount is computed by multiplying the first full year user fee/service charges times the same escalator factor used to compute the first full year user fees/service charges.
3. Any other revenues reductions associated with a particular incorporation proposal should be computed on a separate supporting sheet and entered on the appropriate lines in Exhibit IX. These other revenues should use similar methods to computer transition year, first full year, and second full year amounts.
4. The total annual reduction in revenues is computed by adding the sum of the revenue amounts for each of the years, respectively.
APPENDIX I
COMPUTATION OF THE GANN LIMITATION
Appendix J
CALCUL
ATION OF THE GANN LIMITATION
Thi
s appendix provides guidance to local government agencies in the calculation of the appropriation limit required by Proposition 4, the Gann Initiative, that was approved by the voters in 1979.
A. BACKGROUND REGARDING THE GANN LIMITATION
Pr
oposition 4 imposed an appropriation limit on state and local government agencies in California. Beginning with fiscal year 1980- 81, the state's and each local government's appropriations will be limited to the fiscal year 1978- 78 appropriations, plus increases according to a formula based on population growth and increases in the cost of living, or the growth of personal income, whichever is less.
Pr
oposition 4 did not identify responsibility for determining the Gann limitation for local government agencies, however, since a limit must be established for any proposed agency, the LAFCo will ensure that a Gann limit is calculated for each agency that has an action come before LAFCo.
B. ADJUSTMENTS TO EXISTING APPROPRIATION LIMITS
Pr
oposition 4 includes provision for the adjustment of appropriation limits for existing agencies. Specifically, Section 3A of the initiative states:
In t
he event that the financial responsibility of providing services is transferred, in whole or in part, whether by annexation, incorporation, or otherwise, from one entity of government to another, then for the year in which such transfer becomes effective the appropriations limit of the transferee entity shall be increased by such reasonable amount as the said entities shall mutually agree and the appropriations limit of the transferor entity shall be decreased by the same amount.
LAF
Co staff will participate with the involved agencies in the negotiation of any adjusted appropriations limits. Any changes in these limits should reflect prior appropriations for these agencies, changes in population growth and increases in cost of living, or the growth of personal income, whichever is less.
C. ESTABLISHING A NEW APPROPRIATION LIMIT
The l
anguage of Proposition 4 did not provide a clear method for establishing the appropriation limit of a new agency proposed for formation. However, Section 4 of Proposition 4 allows a new agency to establish an appropriation limit through an election. Specifically, this Section states:
The ap
propriation limit imposed on any new or existing entity of government by this Article may be established or changed by the electors of such entity, subject to and in conformity with constitutional and statutory voting requirements. The duration of any such change shall be as determined by said electors but shall in no event exceed four years from the most recent vote of said electors creating or continuing such change.
LAF
Co staff will participate with the involved parties in the creation of any new agency of government based upon the anticipated budget of the new agency.
However, the appropriations limit of the new agency may be established or changed by the electors of such entity consistent with existing law.
APPENDIX K
MEM
BERS OF THE REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPENDIX L
DE
SCRIPTION OF LAFCo’s DECISION-MAKING
Thi
s chapter contains a general chronology of events during the LAFCo hearing and evaluation process, and it describes post-approval steps taken by the LAFCo and by the Conducting Authority.
A. THE LAFCo EVALUATION AND HEARING PROCESS
Thi
s section describes the steps the LAFCo and its staff will take to ensure that proposals comply with LAFCo standards and policies.
1. Receipt and Acceptance of Applications
a. Ex
cept where LAFCo is the lead agency under CEQA, the Executive Officer will determine within 30 days of receiving an application whether the applicant has provided the appropriate materials. (1) I
f an application is determined not to be complete, the Executive Officer will inform the applicant, specifying those parts of the application which are incomplete and the manner which they can be made complete. An application which is not complete will not be accepted for filing.
(2) No appl
ication shall be deemed complete for processing
purposes until the appropriate environmental documents have been prepared.
b. Af
ter accepting an application for filing, the LAFCo will provide mailed notice to affected agencies, to agencies or individuals requesting notice, and to subject agencies of the proposal's description and the territory it affects. The notice shall state that a copy of any comments on the application, or other submittals to LAFCo must be accompanied by proof of mailing a copy to the applicant. The Executive Officer may not issue a Certificate of Filing until at least 20 days after mailing such notice.
c. If
the environmental documents required in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been prepared, the environmental documents should be included with the application. If the LAFCO is the Lead Agency under CEQA, the LAFCo must cause environmental documents to be prepared before the application will be accepted for filing.
d. Whe
n an application is accepted as complete, including the environmental documents, the Executive Officer shall issue a Certificate of Filing to the applicant and file it with the County Clerk, unless a 20-day notice and waiting period is required by law.
Certain exceptions will be made to these procedures as provided for in Section 56828 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act.
2. Staff Report Preparation
a. The Executive Officer shall review each application and shall prepare a report on the application that includes recommendations to LAFCo.
The report shall be completed not less than five days prior to the date specified in the Notice of Hearing.
b. If the Executive officer requires additional information to complete his or her evaluation of the proposal, he or she will notify the applicant.
The applicant may submit a response within 30 days of receiving such notice, which may include an amendment to the application. The amendment should state the reason, or reasons, for the amendment and provide evidence regarding how the amendments would correct problems identified by the Executive officer. The Executive Officer will then review the amendment to deter- mine if the changes address or correct the problem identified.
c. Upon completion, the Executive Officer shall furnish copies of the report to:
(1) Officers, entities, or persons designated in each application;
(2) Each local agency, including the County, whose boundaries, service responsibilities, revenue authorities, or Sphere of Influence would be changed by the proposal or
recommendation;
(3) Each local agency, group, or person that has filed a request for a report with the Executive officer;
(4) The LAFCo Executive officer of any other affected county when a portion of a district is or will be located in that other county;
(5) Each affected city, including the city Manager and City Councilperson in whose district the project site is located; and
(6) The Board of Supervisor member, or members, representing the district in which the project site is located.
The report shall evaluate the application and make recommendations based upon an application of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act and LAFCO policies and standards to information and data provided in the application, and to other related information and data that the LAFCo may gather.
3. Property Tax Exchange
If the proposal includes an incorporation or the formation of a district, the Commission shall determine the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged by the affected local agencies, pursuant to Section 56842 of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act. As part of that determination, the commission will:
(a) Estimate the total amount of sales tax revenue and user fees, service charges and other revenue transferred, but this total shall not include those revenues excluded by Section 56842(c)(1)(A)and(B);
(b) Estimate the value of any agreements included in the proposal which may be designed to compensate for fiscal inequities;
(c) Estimate the cost to the current service provider of performing those services which will be transferred to the new city or district if the proposal is approved;
(d) Based upon the above calculations and estimations, the Commission will determine the fiscal effect of the proposal. Appendix D contains more detailed guidelines for determining the fiscal impact of applications for incorporation.
4. Commission Hearing of the Proposal
a. Following the issuance of the Certificate of Filing, the Executive Officer shall set the proposal for a public hearing before the Commission on a date not more than 90 days after the issuance of the Certificate of Filing.
b. Except as specified in Sections 56837 and 56838 of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act, the Commission shall not make any
determinations upon any proposal, plan of reorganization, or report and recommendation of a reorganization committee until after a public hearing has been held on that proposal, plan, or report and recommendation.
c. The hearing date will be included as part of the Certificate of Filing.
The hearing date will be further publicized, in accordance with Sections 56834 and 56835 of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act. In summary, such notice shall include:
(1) Publication at least 15 days prior to the hearing date in one or more newspapers of general circulation within affected
territories or agencies;
(2) Notice posted at least 15 days prior to the hearing date on or near the doors of the meeting room of the legislative body or commission or upon any official bulletin board used for posting public notices pertaining to the legislative body or commission; and
(3) Mailed notice, first class, postage prepaid, at least 15 days prior to the hearing date to:
(a) each affected local agency;
(b) the chief petitioners, if any;
(c) each person who has filed a written request for special notice with the Executive officer;
(d) each city within three miles of the subject territory's boundaries, if the proposal is for an annexation or
detachment, or for a reorganization which includes the
formation of a new district;
(e) the County, if the proposal includes incorporation of a new city or formation of a new district;
(f) the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection, if the proposal includes formation of or annexation of territory to a fire protection district formed pursuant to the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 and part or all of the area has been classified as a state responsibility area;
(g) all owners of parcels which are located within 500 feet of the project site if so designated by the LAFCo; and
(h) when required by law.
d. The hearing shall be held on the date, and at the place and time specified in the various notices. The hearing may be continued from time to time, but not more than 70 days after the originally scheduled hearing date.
e. At the hearing, the Commission shall receive any oral or written protests, objections, or evidence which shall be made, presented, or filed, and consider the report of the Executive Officer.
5. Commission Actions
a. The LAFCo has the power to review and approve or disapprove, with or without amendment, wholly, in part or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, with limited exceptions described in Section 56375 and 56839 and elsewhere in the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act.
b. LAFCo may amend an application to affect proposed boundaries, and LAFCo may approve a proposal with a variety of conditions, which are limited to:
(1) Payment of a fixed or determinable amount of funds for acquisition of any agency's real or personal property;
(2) Levying, or fixing, and collecting taxes, assessments, ser-vice charges, rentals and/or rates for the purpose of funding any payment required by condition (1);
(3) Local Agency acceptance of liability for repayment of any authorized or outstanding bonds, contracts, or other
obligations, including such revenue measures as may be
appropriate to fund those liabilities;
(4) The formation of a new improvement district, or the annexation or detachment of territory to, or from, any existing improvement district;
(5) The incurring of new indebtedness by, or on behalf of, all or any part of any local agency, including territory being annexed to any local agency.
(1) The issuance and sale of any bonds by a local agency or by that agency's designated successor;
(2) The acquisition, improvement, disposition, sale, transfer, or division of any property, real or personal;
(3) The disposition, transfer, or division of any monies or funds, including cash and any receivables;
(9) The fixing and establishment of priority of use, or right of use, of water, or capacity rights in any public improvement or facilities, or of any other real or personal property;
(10) The establishment, continuation, termination, transfer, consolidation, or separation of any office, department or board or any function of an office, department or board only if authorized by the principal act;
(11) The employment, transfer, or discharge of employees, the continuation, modification, or termination of existing
employment contracts, civil service rights, seniority rights, retirement rights, and other employees benefits and rights;
(12) The designation of a city, district or county as the successor to any local agency that is dissolved as a result of any change of organization or reorganization;
(13) The designation of the method of selection and/or the number of members of the legislative body of a district if the proceedings include a consolidation or formation of a new district, and the method of selection and/or number of those members is specified in the principal act;
(14) The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings on a proposal made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act;
(15) Any terms or conditions required or authorized by the principal act with respect to any change of organization or
reorganization;
(16) The continuation or provision of any service provided at that time, or previously authorized to be provided by an official act of the local agency;
(17) The levying of assessments, including the imposition of a fee pursuant to Sections 50029 or 66484.3 of the Government Code, or the approval by the voters of general or special taxes;
(18) The continuation of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment, or tax by a successor local agency; and
(19) The transfer of authority and responsibility for the administration, levying, and collecting of special tax and assessment districts;
c. The Commission, in order to coordinate multiple proposals for the same geographical areas may, as a condition of its approval, hold further action in abeyance for up to 6 months until all proposals are ready for hearing, require that elections for diff erent proposals be held on the same date, before, or after the date of any other election regarding a change of organization or reorganization.
d. Finally, the Commission may require that voters consider questions of annexation and district reorganization, or questions of incorporation and district reorganization at the same time, through use of a single ballot question.
5. Reconsideration
a. Any person or affected agency may file, within 30 days of a resolution's adoption, a written request with the Executive Officer requesting amendments to or reconsideration of any resolution adopted by the Commission making determinations.
b. After complying with notice and hearing requirements described in Section 56895 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the Commission may approve or deny with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, the request.
c. The determination of the Commission shall be final and conclusive.
No person or agency shall make any further request for the same change or a substantially similar change for a period of one year, as determined by the Commission.
d. Specific reconsideration requirements are described in the standards section of the LAFCo’s policies, standards and procedures.
B. POST-LAFCo APPROVAL PROCESS
This Section describes the usual procedures generally followed by a conducting authority. However, each conducting authority complies with the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act in its own way, and is not required to follow those policies in this section that interpret the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act. The conducting authority, determined pursuant to Section 56029 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, means the legislative body of an affected city, district, or the County that is authorized by the Commission to conduct proceedings to complete action on the proposal. The conducting Authority will hold a hearing or a meeting to provide the public with an opportunity to voice approval or disapproval, in writing or orally, of a proposal.
However, primarily its role is to receive written protest from those authorized to do so.
1. The Conducting Authority’s Hearing
(a) Within 35 days after the LAFCo’s approval of a proposal, the conducting authority shall set the proposal for hearing, giving notice of the date set. The date for the hearing shall be not less than 15 or more than 60 days after the notice is given.
(b) The conducting authority may establish a schedule of processing fees and require the deposit of such fees before further action is taken.
(c) At the hearing, the conducting authority shall hear and receive any oral or written protests, objections, or evidence which is made, presented, or filed.
2. Written Protest
(a) Any owner of land or any registered voter within inhabited territory proposed to be annexed, detached, incorporated, disincorporated, consolidated, merged, formed into a county service area or subsidiary district, or dissolved, may file a written protest against the proposed change of organization or reorganization.
(b) Based upon written protests filed and not withdrawn before the close of the conducting authority’s hearing, no more than 30 days after the conclusion of its hearing, the conducting authori8ty shall adopt a resolution which provides for one of the following actions:
(1) Terminate proceedings, nullifying the proposal, if a majority protest exists, which means:
(a) I n the case of uninhabited territory, written protests have been filed by landowners owning 50 percent or
more of the assessed value of the land within the
territory;
(b) In the case of an inhabited territory, written protests have been filed by 50 percent or more of registered
voters; and
(c) In the case of a district of landowner voters, written protests have been filed by landowners holding 50
percent or more of the voting power of the voters
entitled to vote as a result of owning land within the
district.
(2) Order the change of organization or reorganization, subject to confirmation by election within the affected territory if:
(a) For annexations, detachments or formations of County Service Areas only:
(1) In the case of inhabited territory, written protests have been filed by at least 25 percent of the
registered voters residing within the territory;
(2) In the case of inhabited territory, written protests have been filed by at least 25 percent of the
number of owners of land who also own at least
25 percent of the assessed value of land within
the affected territory;
(3) In the case of a district where land owners are
voting, written protests have been filed by at
least 25 percent of the number of owners of land
who also own at least 25 percent of the
assessed value of land within the affected
territory;
(4) In the case of a district where land owners are
voting, written protests have been filed by at
least 25 percent of the voting power of the voters
entitled to vote as a result of owning land within
the district; or
(b) In the case of a proposed change which includes a
dissolution, disincorporation, incorporation,
establishment of a subsidiary district, consolidation, or merger, an election is required regardless of the
number of protests, unless more than 50% have
protested as outlined above, or unless the special rules in paragraph (3) below waiving elections apply.
(3) Order the change of organization or reorganization without electoral confirmation, if either:
(a) for annexations, detachments, or formations of County service areas only, less than 25% protest is received;
(b) in the same cases listed in subsection (2)(b) above, only if the special rules in sections 57081, 57083,
57087 or 57089 apply.
C. If proceedings are terminated by the conducting authority because a majority protest or after a majority of electors do not confirm the change of organization or reorganization, no substantially similar proposal may be filed with the LAFCo within two years after the conducting authority’s resolution to terminate proceedings per Section 57090 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The LAFCo may waive the waiting period if it finds that the requirement is detrimental to the public interest.
3. Election
a. A conducting authority ’s resolution which calls for an election must comply with the requirements of section 57100 et seq. of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Act.
All matters pertaining to elections must be coordinated with the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters. The conduct of the election must also be consistent with the recommendations of the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters.
b. The election shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 57100 through 57179 of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The requirements of these sections include:
(1) The votes needed to confirm a change of organization or reorganization are generally in sections 51740 through 51743.
(2) The election shall take place within the territory to be consolidated, incorporated, disincorporated, formed into a district, or dissolved.
(3) Elections for annexations, detachments, mergers and subsidiary districts involve votes either in the changed territory and the remaining territory of the district or city, or in the changed territory only, depending on statutory requirements (section 57103(b), (d) and (e)).
(4) I
f the proposal would annex to a city territory with a population and assessed value of land equal to or exceeding 50 percent of the city's, an election must be held within both the territory to be annexed and the city.
c. If
the majority of votes cast in an election confirm the proposal, the conducting authority shall adopt a resolution confirming the order of the change of organization or reorganization.
C. LAFCo Completion of Actions
1. The LA
FCo Executive officer shall prepare and record a certificate of Completion after the conducting authority adopts a resolution ordering a change of organization or reorganization without election, or after the conducting authority confirms an order for a change after confirmation by the voters, unless the conducting authority's resolution is not in compliance with the boundaries, modifications and conditions specified by the LAFCo.
2. The E
xecutive Officer shall record a certified copy of the Certificate of Completion with the County recorder and file a copy with the clerk of the legislative body of each local agency subject to the change.
3. The E
xecutive officer shall file the Certificate of completion, resolutions, legal descriptions, and parcel maps with the following:
(a) T
he Board of Equalization;
(b) The
County Assessor;
(c) The C
ounty Auditor; and
(d) The S
ecretary of State, if the LAFCo action involves a city.
4. Upon
the execution of the certificate of completion by the Executive officer, the action is deemed completed.