|
February 27, 2001 BOS Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR Background: On December 6, 1994, BOS approved a major subdivision, tentative map and coastal permit for the 71-lot Harbor View Subdivision, known as Romancia. Condition 48 requires the developer to transfer the 1.22 acre lot 71 to Burbank Housing Dev. Corp. to develop 14 units of affordable rental housing. The Commission cannot secure the $327,500 until the developer gets BOS approval of the Final Maps and Affordable Housing Agreement, records those documents and transfers lot 71 to BHDC. However, on December 5, 2000 BOS approved extension of the subdivision tentative map approval to September 9, 2001. Alternative: Results of Non-Approval: BHDC would be
unable to obtain reimbursement of these eligible costs until
CDBG loan closes. The loan cannot close until the developer
has obtained approval of the subdivision's Final Maps and
Affordable Housing Agreement. On December 5, 2000 the
developer requested an extension. BOS agreed. 3. Conflict of Interest Code of the Community Development
Commission The following Background information seems to apply to all of the above.This is an example of Sonoma County Water Agency. Background: State law requires that each local agency adopt a conflict of interest code identifying 1) those positions in which officers or employers make decisions affecting government spending ("designated employees"), and 2) the types of personal interests which could be affected by those decisions ("disclosure categories.") State law also requires that at the close of each even numbered year each agency review its code and determine whether any changes should be made. In the fall of 2000 the County Clerk's Office requested that the Water Agency review its conflict of interest code and advise of any changes needed. Because of reorganization, it has added a new position to its code, that of Deputy Chief Engineer, Maintenance. Persons holding the position will be required to report all financial interests. County Counsel has advised that the Code as submitted appears to comply with the requirements of the Political Reform Act and recommends that the resolution approving the amendments be adopted. Staff affected by the amendments have been notified of their right to be heard on proposed amendments. Appendix A (Water Agency, example) All are in Category 1. All sources of income, investments, and business entities, and all interests in real property. Only investments in and sources of income from business entities and sources of income, which do business in the County, or have done business in the County within the past two years should be reported. [BW Question: Are campaign contributions included for the directors/supervisors, or other elected officials?] The Political Reform Act may be found at Government Code 81000 et seq. Government Code 87306.5 requires periodic review and update. Government Code 87306(a) requires each agency amend its Conflict of Interest Code when necessitated by changed circumstances. Members of the Board of Directors may submit copies of
Form 721 as filed with the Fair Political Practices
Commission. 7. Final Selection of Watershed Protection Proposals Adopt projects selected by the Russian River Watershed Project Evaluation Team for funding from the $1 million grant received by Sonoma County under Prop 13. And the winners are 2) Project: Water Quality Monitoring of Southern Laguna
Tributaries 3) Project: Russian River Watershed Cleanup Applicant: Russian River Watershed Cleanup Proposed Funding: $10,000 4) Project: Donnels Property Sediment Assessment &
Rehabilitation 5) Project: Restoration & Management of Willow Creek
Watershed 6) Project: Riparian Restoration and Environmental Education Applicant: Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Proposed Funding: $50,000 7) Project: Russian River at Asti: Bank Stabilization
& Revegetation 8) Project: Dragonfly Stream Enhancement Applicant: Doug
Gore 9) Project: Giant Reed Removal and Habitat Restoration Applicant: Circuit Rider Productions, Inc. Proposed Funding: $400,000 10) Project: Copeland Creek Restoration 11) Project: Lower Green Valley Creek Habitat Restoration Applicant: Forestville Chamber of Commerce Proposed Funding: $90,476 The Russian River Watershed Project Evaluation Team (Team) was formed to establish criteria, invite and evaluate proposals, and make recommendations to the Board regarding watershed restoration projects. The Team members are as follows: *Bob Anderson: Person Familiar with Russian River Economic Issues - Assigned by Assemblymember Wiggins *Fred Euphrat: Person familiar with RR Environmental Issues Assigned by Wiggins * Rue Furch: Person familiar with RR Public; Assigned by Wiggins *Bev Wasson: Local Ag Community; assigned by Wiggins *Lawrence Jaffe: Assemblymember Wiggins office; assigned by Wiggins *Bob Klamt: NCRWater Quality Control Board; assigned by SCWA *Bob Coey, DFG-Region 3; assigned by Water Agency *Bill Cox- Alternate, DFG-Region 3; SCWA *Miles Croom: National Marine Fisheries Service; SCWA *Sean White: Fisheries Biologist SCWA; assigned by SCWA Background: These projects will significantly impact the health of the RR Watershed by focusing the $1 million toward restoration efforts and leveraging $491,100 in matching funds from the applicants and other project participants. The projects will provide educational benefits for county residents and impact future efforts. The General Manager/Chief Engineer of the Water Agency
was directed to evaluate the grant contracting and
permitting processes to assist agencies and organizations
whose projects are selected but don't have the capacity to
contract with the State or to obtain all permits in
compliance with CEQA. The General Manager is to continue to
evaluate these processes and return to the Board to request
direction. INFORMATION SYSTEMS This information will be valuable to the Sheriff, the
Assessor, PRMD, Ag Preservation and Open Space, and various
other county departments. REGULAR CALENDAR Approve the MOU Authorize the Chairman to execute the MOU Background: MOU regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment Water Supply and Transmission System Project EIR is on file with the clerk. On December 7, 1999 the directors/BOS established that the capacity of the water transmission system is limited to 84 mgd due to temporary impairment. The water contractors and other water customers were directed to reach consensus regarding allocation of the 84 million gallons per day from June-September. The MOU allocation included the water contractors, the Town of Windsor, and Marin Municipal Water District. All approved except the Water Agency between June 2000 and February 2001. To be brief, significant components of the MOU include: 1) allocate water in the summer months while preserving delivery entitlements; 2) agreement for constructing water transmission system facilities; 3) measures that include water conservation, recycled water projects that offset potable water use and standby local peak month production capacity projects that reduce peak demand and a commitment for funding support by the Agency for such projects; 4) implement specific water conservation Best Management Practices to help reduce summer demands, including a schedule for metering and implementing commodity-based water billing in RP; 5) coordinate with agencies with planning and zoning powers as well as building regulatory powers for water supply planning and promotion of water efficiency tools; 6) agreement to transfer where feasible the surplus water customers to an appropriate water customer for service. Addendum to the Water Supply and Transmission System Project Environmental Impact Report, February 2001 The purpose of the Addendum is to evaluate whether a subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to CEQA before the Agency may enter into the MOU. The Agency supplies water to its customers under the Eleventh Amended Agreement. The environmental impacts were analyzed in the WSTSP EIR on December 15, 1998, and the 11th Amendment was executed on January 26, 2001. On December 7, 1999 the Agency's Board declared the transmission system was temporarily impaired during June, July, August and September and will be limited to 84 mgd until 2005. The amount should be 92 mgd. Environmental Analysis Substantial changes are proposed in the project requiring major revisions or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.... 2. Allocation of Supply 3. Prioritization of Transmission System Improvements The MOU requires the Agency to bring three specified planned facilities on line at the earliest possible date: Collector 6, Cotati- Kastania Pipeline and Eldridge-Madrone Pipeline.The last two will be analyzed in future environmental documents and #6 was analyzed in the WSTSP EIR. There will be no new significant impacts. 4. Funding for Local Recycled Water Projects and Standby
Supply Projects 5. Accelerated Conservation Requirements The 11th Amended Agreement requires Agency customers to implement the urban water conservation best management practices (BMPs). The effects have already been analyzed in the WSTSP EIR. The MOU sets a specific schedule when Rohnert Park must install water meters and implement metered billing. The parties are required to evaluate possible recycled water projects.An accelerated schedule is an administrative action and does not lead to any significant environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of the impacts. 6. Consultation with Planning Agencies 7. Transfer of Surplus Water Customers Change in Project Circumstances and New Information The lead agency determines that the project will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects. Or new information of substantial importance appears, which was not known and could not have been known in the previous EIR. Example: Chinook salmon was listed as endangered after the WSTSP EIR was certified. However, in anticipation of the listing, the WSTSP EIR analyzed the impacts on chinook salmon with providing increased water deliveries up to 101,000 acre-feet per year at an average rate of 149 mgd during the peak month. No adverse impacts were identified. Conclusion _______________________end |