|
July 25, 2000 BOS Meeting
Notes: 38. Outdoor Rec Plan July 25, 2000 BOS Meeting Notes Chairman Reilly called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. The Special Districts Consent Calendar: Items 1 - 4. Record 5-0 [BW Comment: Those items were 1) Financing of Forestville Advanced Wastewater Treatment Project; 2) Airport-Larkfield- Wikiup Sanitation Zone Storage and Reclamation Facilities; 3) Entry Agreement between SCWA and Santa Rosa; 4) Notice of completion for Ralphine Tank No. 2, protective coating replacement.] Supervisor Kelley: On Item 17: [Lavell Road Pedestrian Path Project] There's a comment in the background that one of the developments out there as a condition of occupancy needs this road path. Well, this path's been on our capital improvement plan for a long time. The board's aware of the hearing on the necessity. That appeal is coming to the board some time in the fall. I just want to make the comment that it's not our action here, does not predetermine our action on the appeal. And on Item 28, Novato Narrows Policy Advisory Committee: I hope this isn't just sitting around, but actually make this project get along faster, also help in encouraging Caltrans to make some headway in getting the Novato Narrows Project completed. Chair: I'm sure with Supervisors Smith and Kerns there'll be a minimum of sitting around. Supervisors Kerns and Smith: Absolutely! Chair: Any questions on Item 30? [Integrated Development Code Contract] Record 5-0 on Consent Calendar. Supervisor Kelley: On honoring the Seghesio Family in the Wine Industry for four generations. I'll be presenting that to them in about 10 days. Chair: Special Districts Regular Calendar Item 33: Sonoma County Water Agency: Airport-Larkfield-Wikiup Sanitation Zone Irrigation Intertie Staff: Deputy Chief Engineer of the SC Water Agency, Mark Wahler: The treated wastewater pipeline follows an existing agency easement. The agency is asking for three resolutions: Resolution of necessity for Acquisition of Easement Rights by Eminent Domain; Resolution authorizing execution of easement agreements and grant deeds and authorizing payment for deeds Resolution accepting lowest responsible bid for construction and authorizing execution of contract for Airport-Larkfield-Wikiup Sanitation Zone Irrigation Intertie The first, resolution by necessity is needed. The first two property owners have signed agreements. The third owner rejected a final offer yesterday. The agency will continue to negotiate. The agency is recommending passage of all three resolutions. Chair: Is there any public testimony on this item? Record 5-0. Supervisor Kelley: Mr. Chairman, while I was talking about other things, I neglected to tell you to record no on No. 6. [needle exchange] Chairman Reilly: Record no on Number 6 for Supervisor Kelley, please. That thing's going to be coming up every two weeks forever. Can't we have some sort of minute order? The clerk will take care of that for you, Supervisor. Chair: That brings us to 34. engineering services for delivery of recycled water for ag use. Pam Jeane, Acting Deputy Chief Engineer for Operations: What we have before you is an agreement for delivery of recycled water for agricultural use and Wagner & Bonsignore for engineering services. The water would originate from the Geysers Pipeline Project. Their technical memo will be completed in March 2000. They also discussed a non-profit corporation that was set up in the Alexander Valley and Russian River areas to promote that use. Citizens for Sustainable Agriculture is the name of that organization. We have a technical committee set up. We'll be working toward identifying technical issues, contractual issues as well as doing a model water supply project. Based on findings we will be able to determine if the project is feasible. In addition Wagner and Bonsignore will be doing a water supply analysis limiting it to those properties that have been identified in that appropriation at this point, which is about 6500 acres of properties of varying size. We are asking you to approve the agreement as well as giving Randy the authority to make change orders of $25,000. Supervisor Kelley: A quick comment: I think this is another example of the agencies and this board's ongoing commitment to work with the agricultural community as well as sanitation districts that we oversee and that the Board of Public Utilities in Santa Rosa oversees, and that is to get reclaimed water into the agricultural areas where it can be beneficial. I know that in talking to those that are involved with this, it's been long-suffering to continue to work on this, but with this firm I really believe that we'll make this happen. People see reclaimed water used in the Greater Alexander Valley area and be a model in other areas of the county, so I concur with staff's recommendation. Pam Jeane: I just want to add that the city of Santa Rosa has been very involved. They're very supportive of this. They've helped us a lot and we are planning on going to their Board of Public Utilities with an informational item next week. The Coalition will be representing that part of the project. Chair: Are they cooperative to the point of some cost-sharing on this project? Pam Jeane: That's part of this scope of work is to identify how you would __?__ these costs. The Geysers Pipeline has been sized to the bottom of the hill to actually __?__ the capacity for agricultural reuse. The city spent quite a bit of money to do that. Chairman Reilly: So this is primarily the distribution system? Pam Jeane: And operational agreement. That's going to be a big deal. Supervisor Smith: In addition to what Supervisor Kelley had to say and he's absolutely right as are you about the commitment of Santa Rosa. The larger question is the availability of the water itself. I wanted to mention many of the farmers up in Alexander Valley spent a great deal of time and in fact outside of Alexander Valley negotiating with the city, and I don't know if Bob Anderson is here today but you want growers who help pull together a group of people as the natural place to be right now, is to set aside these funds so we can get moving and as Paul said to get some water in Alexander Valley, be a real exciting opportunity. Chair: Thanks, Supervisor, and Bob Anderson is always here. Supervisor Smith: Sometimes he just blends in with the seats. Chair: Any further discussion or comments? Then without objection, record 5-0. Chairman Reilly: This is Water Agency's day: 35. Russian River watershed activities request for proposals (RFP) Randy Poole, Water Agency: Before you is the result of several years of work whereby you were able to have something Pat Wiggins put into the water bond, a million dollars for the County of Sonoma to work on watershed issues. What you have before you is the process we're proposing to utilize with the assemblywoman on how to distribute the funds. We're developing criteria before we put out an RFP. We'll then have the appointments that we'll be working very closely with Pat Wiggins on, a committee to evaluate those proposals and bring them back to the board. We have 120 days to actually do that work. With your concurrence, we would like to start that process, and we hope we have proposals that make sense to spend a million dollars for watershed restoration type projects. Chairman Reilly: Mr. Jaffe, any comments? [BW NOTE: Lawrence Jaffe assists Pat Wiggins.] Chair: We certainly appreciate her assistance in getting these dollars and applying them to community projects in the watershed. I wonder if it would disrupt the timing if the board had time to look at the criteria being put out. Supervisor Kelley: You might want to get a response back on the timing from the assemblywoman's office before we create some hurdle that prevents that money from being used. Chair: With that modification, let's go with 5 ayes on that.
This is an item that was carried over from our consideration of the acquisition plan specifically related to designations on Taylor and Sonoma Mountain by staff. I think they're fairly clear. Supervisor Kerns, do you have a... Supervisor Kerns: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this agenda item in here today in that when the acquisition plan was discussed last week, I was on vacation. The area that I'm most specifically concerned with is the west side of Sonoma Mountain which is in my district. I would request today that that area of Sonoma Mountain be placed in priority greenbelt. If you look at the definition it says highly visible open space and agricultural land with outstanding scenic qualities. Sonoma Mountain certainly fits that as well as land adjacent to scenic lands and scenic corridors which act as gateways to Sonoma County. A portion is in priority greenbelt, and the rest of it was placed in expanded greenbelt. My feeling is that the whole side of the mountain should be in priority greenbelt. It overlooks the gateways to Sonoma County. It's a treasure that we need to preserve. I think Sonoma Mountain can become a symbol of what the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District represents. So with that, I would request that it be placed in priority greenbelt. I would also like to mention Sonoma Mountain Trail that we had discussed before when we were discussing the outdoor recreation plan. It was placed on the map. I would just request that this board would at least recognize that the trail over Sonoma Mountain is important, that the previous decision does not preclude the district from exploring any opportunities which might present themselves in making that happen. So with that, I would appreciate the board's support. Chair: Thank you, Supervisor. Do we have time for Taylor Mountain? Supervisor Cale: The supervisor forgot the other side of Sonoma Mountain. And also that residual piece of Taylor Mountain that was all in white. I'm prepared to support staff's recommendation. Chair: Any other comments? Supervisor Kelley: As relates to the second portion of Supervisor Kerns' comment, I think the priority of trails as it relates to the General Plan is more as it relates to the financial constraints the district's going to have over the next ten years. I don't think there was intention to preclude any other trail opportunities. As for the first part of his recommendation, it's already in extended greenbelt or expanded greenbelt. We still have as much protection and opportunities with that. If we do this for all of Sonoma Mountain, then maybe we should do it for the whole county. So I won't support the request. Chair: Any other comments? Any public comments on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board. The recommendation was all of Sonoma Mountain and the white portion of Taylor Mountain. Objections, Supervisor Kelley? Supervisor Smith: Mr. Chairman, I had the same reservations as Supervisor Kelley. If it's going to show more unity with our staff, I'll support it. Chair: Record 4-1. That's a straw vote and we want a resolution coming back at 2 o'clock. Thank you, Counsel. 37. Health Services: Alcohol and other drug (AOD) problem assessment program. Passes 5-0. 38. Regional Parks: Draft Outdoor Recreation Plan request for board policy direction. Jim Angelo, Regional Parks Director: The item before the board is a policy issue. It concerns whether or not the board wants the Regional Parks Department to continue with the Outdoor Recreation planning process. We are prepared to conduct 6 public information meetings on the Draft Plan. Those meetings will begin in August and run through October. And the goal is to have the initial studies conducted in the Citizens Advisory Committee, the people that process the information and comments. We would have the initial study to PRMD by December of this year, and once submitted, the estimated time line, the completion to environmental review and Planning Commission would bring the Outdoor Recreation Plan back to supervisors in April 2002. Today, two members of the Citizens Advisory Committee are here. That committee has spent about 40 meetings working on this. Judy James from the Farm Bureau, Carl Jackson. There might be others. That concludes my board report. Chair: We'll get board comments before public comments. Supervisor Cale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm probably somewhat responsible for bringing this back. [Laughs] Supervisor__?__: Massive understatement. [More laughs] Supervisor Cale: And a couple of the reasons as to why this is before you today: In this letter we received from the Coalition for an Outdoor Recreation Plan. I'm not going to suggest, they allege ignorance to RHI, I'll take that for what it's worth, but there's an issue here that's a complete misrepresentation of fact regarding county counsel's office and I'll let county counsel address it in a moment. The other one is their interpretation. The historic mission of county parks is to provide public access to the county's scenic lands to minimally develop parks and trails. We just went through last week and discovered because we honored our Parks Department for embracing the broad needs of the entire community. The historic mission of parks is to think about outdoor rec plan that allows everyone in this county to have access to their form of recreation. It does not focus to one area with one agenda as suggested by these folks, and I don't see why they can't understand that. It escapes me that they think it's just for them and recreation is not. It's supposed to be broad based. It's supposed to be balanced. That's one of the fundamental reasons of this whole issue. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, if county counsel would like to address the issue regarding the key phrase was coined by Sonoma County Counsel's office, regarding "non-intrusive," that some help he wrote the ballot initiative [sic] would you on the record, sir, please give us the factual data as to what occurred? Steven Woodside: First of all we did not write the Rural Heritage Initiative. What happens is an initiative gets presented to our office for the preparation of a title and a summary. That's before it's circulated. When that occurred, the initiative as it was then written, contained a phrase, and I think my memory is correct, that would have restricted or provided for an exception for so-called passive use. That had a particular meaning that our office pointed out to the drafters. When they looked at that particular meaning and realized that our analysis referred to that, they didn't like that meaning and were looking for another phrase that would have established meanings. We directed them to a number of open space documents that contained different categories of use, and they chose, in effect, language from a forever wild easement that the Open Space Authority typically uses. But it was clearly the choice of the drafters. It was not a choice of anybody in our office as to particular language. Supervisor Cale: Is that the most restrictive language you can find in any of our easements? County counsel: I believe it is the most restrictive easement language that is used by Open Space. It's a so-called forever wild easement. Supervisor Cale: ...as requested by the draftee of RHI? Not by the county nor county counsel? Counsel: We did not direct them to choose any particular language. We simply made available language that had generally accepted meanings where it was used in other places, and clearly, it was their choice. Chair: In terms of policy direction, Supervisor, is there a particular policy direction you want to see us pursue this morning? Supervisor Cale: Yes, I do, and my recommendation is that we hold any further action on this plan until after the vote in November because clearly if RHI passes, the approach we're going to take is going to be entirely different from what we anticipated and what was programmed into the plan as it went forward. And the various policies that we're talking about now would not be in place. We'd just have to go back and do it all over again anyway to some degree, and I would prefer to wait and see what the outcome is instead of wasting more time and money to adopt something that we cannot implement. And I have been firm in my decision if I cannot provide recreational opportunity for everyone in this county, I'm not going to provide it for anyone, let alone a select group of people that want it their own way. It's unfortunate that they see it that way. Why they couldn't have at least drafted it into their initiative language that would have allowed for other people to enjoy the benefits of this county. It's just mind-boggling to me. That's just the way it is. That's the way they are. And people need to realize that. This is a very very restrictive initiative. It's going to cause great harm both recreationally and also have adverse effect on agriculture much as they denied it. That's not true, it will. Chair: Thank you, supervisor, we understand direction to staff: Mr. Angelo, the net effect of this would be what - to defer a number of public hearings that you have coming up between now and November that lead to an initial study? Mr. Angelo: That's right. We'll probably delay the process 5 to 6 months. Chair: Any public comment on this particular issue? I'm Charles Rhinehart. I represent Californians Organized to Acquire Access To State Tidelands. I have a problem with delay. COAAST has a problem with the delay. The county has owned an easement on the Bodega Harbor subdivision since 1976. We have worked really hard for the last year or two to get that before the board. We have got $25,000 to finance work that's got to be done on that easement. It's just another delay in something that we have felt would happen if this had to be in the outdoor recreation plan. We really don't think it has to be in the outdoor recreation plan simply because the county has owned it since 1976. They haven't done anything about developing that trail. We were on a path where that trail was going to be developed then suddenly the idea came up that it ought to be in the recreation plan which didn't require it to go before the board in terms of an amendment of the General Plan. And we think all that delay is unnecessary. The county does own this easement. It has since 1976. It's never been in any General Plan and the reason for that is because they've owned it for so long. We've asked the Park Department to consider taking it out of the Recreation Plan. I have to say that they've tried to give us a response, but it doesn't really make sense. I think maybe you know what that response is. Somehow they think it'll be better if it's in the General Plan, that there won't be as much objection from the people that live in Bodega Harbor. And that's the only reason that I know. I'd like to ask you to take it out of the Recreation Plan and I ask you please not to delay this plan any more, to get it out of the Recreation Plan and let them go ahead with it in their regular work plan. Twenty- four years sitting there undeveloped, and I'm afraid that this delay is going to make it longer and longer. We need that trail to clean up the beaches. It's important! Getting off the beach with all the junk. I just don't see the logic for having it in the Recreational Plan. Thank you. I think you all know me, Carl Jackson. I'm also a member of this committee. Let's see, was it "Four score and seven years ago" that I was appointed to this, Jim? I think the only real thing that will happen in these next few months is these workshops. It would really be nice to finish those off. I feel like it's taken a long time to climb this mountain and reach a point where the meetings we've attended seem to be getting done. People coming out being happy with what's been done. I feel like I'm on the downhill run. It would be nice to get through that and not have to set it aside for several months. Supervisor Smith: I appreciate all the work done on this plan. I agree with Supervisor Cale. We were provided a list of potential impacts given us a couple of weeks ago. It's really alarming. I do believe that RHI is going to have a big impact on recreational opportunities in this county if it passes. I don't think it's wise to proceed ahead with a plan that may not be achievable. But that's exactly what these kinds of initiatives bring. We have to make sure we're not promising the public something that we can't deliver. Supervisor Kerns: I agree with both Supervisors Smith and Cale on RHI's impacts on our potential to develop parks in this county, and the impact it's going to have on recreation in this county. It's still in doubt whether RHI is going to pass. I think public education is an extremely important part of this campaign. I think having these workshops would give staff the ability to explain these impacts to people. We have to get that information out to the community so that people will understand the impacts of RHI and will vote against it. I'd like to see these workshops move ahead with the plan and hope that RHI is defeated. Supervisor Kelley: The Outdoor Recreation Plan has a wide range of activities. RHI will probably have an effect on over 2/3rds, especially the more active recreational facilities. Because of that, after November we may have to change. I'm going to concur with the supervisor's recommendation and say, let's put it off for a couple of months. Chairman Reilly: I'm not going to support the measure purposed for a couple of reasons. I think that in some ways it's speculative. We've got a process, we made a commitment to the public for 4 and 1/2 years. I think the expectation is we're going to go forward with that. Whether RHI passes or not, probably has some impact on that, but it may well not pass. So it may not be an issue and we may have delayed and disrupted our planning process for no reason. The other remedies available to the board that we haven't discussed are the board does have some latitude in interpreting the language. I've seen at least one legal interpretation of the word "primarily" which precedes this whole section on passive park use as saying that can be anything over 50%. It can be 50.1%. In a lot of our active parks I think we have about 50.1% in passive use. I'm not sure it has quite the severity of impacts depending on how the board would interpret that, that the initial rather conservative estimate of Regional Parks indicates. This plan has already been delayed. It's not scheduled to be done until April 2002, and, if RHI did pass, this board has full authority to put measures before the voters to modify if the board believes provisions in here are too restrictive for public good, and it would be an opportunity at the March 2002 primary election time to do that. So there are remedies available to the board without having to disrupt outdoor rec. I do recognize that the majority of the board is supporting Supervisor Cale's recommendation. Record 3-2, and we will hold public hearings on outdoor rec in abeyance until after November. Chair: Item 39. Comprehensive Planning Work Plan Review PRMD's evaluation of 99/00 work plan and review the plan for 2000-01. Staff Report, Chris Arnold, PRMD: We've brought to you both an update and a plan for the coming year. We completed major projects that we were assigned and didn't complete others due to lack of staff to cover the amount of work. Programs that we did complete this year are the trauma center designation, airport treatment plant, and sewage _?__ in Monte Rio, and the Russian River Redevelopment Plan so we do have some major accomplishments. We also have some things for next year that are in the plan, that we need your input on and that are in pp. 15-20. We would like to know what you would recommend for next year. Our plans included the Outdoor Recreation Plan for next year. That concludes my report. Supervisor Kelley: I think hours estimated in getting a project done and then projecting that into the future is important, but it is evident here that there are some projects that are way over what we estimated: the RR Redevelopment Project, time estimated 140 hours, time spent 450; Monte Rio, 200 estimated, 907 recorded; Ag Food Service 500, 627 spent; Landmarks Commission, twice as much as estimated. Other things obviously don't get some of the hours. The Zoning Ordinance here is one of the big ones that didn't get a lot of hours. We need to know when we've crossed over the estimated hours. When something takes away hours from something else, then a policy decision is being made. It's not being made by this board. Staff says it takes these hours to complete this project and we say, yep, go do those hours. When something is taken away from something else, we just didn't know that. Some sort of mechanism needs to kick in that that's happening. And then the only other comment that I would have is that at some point here we've really got to get moving on this whole General Plan update process, and I think, you know, I'm a little distraught that we've had this on the list the last couple of years and kind of hoping at this point that something that Mr. Chairman talked about at this point being able to say what is it going to take and what sort of resources would we need like now to make decisions on to throw in there instead of actually having to do some of that investigation work now and come back at some point to say, Gee, you know, if we had another plan or we had something allocated here, we would actually get a lot accomplished. These are how many hours we would get extra so I wish that would happen, and I hope we get that done as soon as possible. Supervisor Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think the department's been pretty good about letting us know when they're kind of running into trouble. I think Redevelopment on the River was one of those. I, at least, was aware of that. I don't blame the department for that one at all. I would say that there are two that come to mind. One is the Outdoor Rec Plan. What's that going to do with your schedule? I doesn't make sense to me to spend a lot of time on something that may not come to fruition. How much of that is scheduled between now and the first of the year? Out of that 200 hours that's allocated there? Greg Carr: Through the chair: actually very little because our involvement during this public workshop phase is not very much. Most of that time would be allocated to the hearing process and the CEQA documentation next spring. Chair: You're not going to get that until May or June now. Greg Carr: This may cause us to have less hours than anticipated. I guess it would be our additional thought that we not take those hours out at this point. Certainly tying it in with the General Plan update question, we're trying to come back to you by December time frame with the General Plan update with the budget cost estimate and bring the work plan back at that time. Perhaps that would be an opportunity for your board to look at the ORP time frame. Supervisor Smith: It's listed here in Item 25 which is the ALUC. That thing's certainly run over 24 pages. It's run over its estimate. I forget where it is this year. We're talking another 300 hours. I don't know where the rest of the board is but I'm just as frustrated as I can be with this thing. The ALUC is able to come up with its airport land use plan, and yet, I don't know if the board has a strong agreement with the way they're headed on this thing. It could be that the county is going to be forced to defend decisions they make. Could somebody enlighten me as to where the end of this thing is going to be? This has all the feeling of the housing element of the General Plan. Chris Arnold: Through the chair, we did make a major effort to try to complete the CLUE, Comprehensive Land Use Element. We are working with the manager and the deputy director and County Counsel to draft it the way they would like. Steven Woodside: There have been a lot of efforts in the last couple of months. It's now a much better document than it was before. I'm optimistic that it won't get us into legal trouble. Supervisor Smith: Lastly, there's one thing that isn't in here. I'd like to find some time for an initiative/effort to take a look at a regional planning agency - with no strict definition of what that means, but we've talked about this in the past to really get into doing some comprehensive county-wide planning. It seems to me we're kind of pushing Jell-O, putting socks on an octopus trying to get the nine cities and the county on the same page to do things that are beneficial to everybody in the county. The fiscal realities are really impeding progress with a way to mesh the county together. Are we over- retailing ourselves out of business? Where's the next COSTCO? Where's the housing going? It's worth some time working with the cities to open up a dialogue. Some city managers, planning directors and city council members are ready for this dialogue. If we could provide the push, I'd certainly work with whoever PRMD would like to. It's overdue. It provides a forum for differences. We can get better here. Supervisor Kerns: I would agree with that and would support that recommendation. Supervisor Smith and I have been part of a working group with officials from Rohnert Park updating their General Plan. That effort has been very successful in looking at regional impacts. Developing some sort of effort for the whole county makes good sense - talking about regional impacts and what this county is going to look like in the future. I think that's well-worth putting something together. Supervisor Cale: I have no difficulty with staff exploring the concept or coming up with a plan of some kind, but I would also put out the caution for nine years through transportation, we've attempted to get the cities to work cooperatively with the county to address a singular issue which is the most important issue, and we haven't been able to do it yet. To develop a transportation element that all the cities would agree to and the county could incorporate it under the General Plan that would give us a basis for making those kinds of decisions. Nine years and the answer is no. I don't know what staff would suggest. If we can't do it on transportation that affects everyone - it affects all land use throughout this county, I don't know what the central theme would be. Maybe they can come up with a better mouse trap, so be it. I just don't want to get bogged down in a bottomless pit that's going to burn up a lot of time and take us nowhere. Supervisor Kelley: Mr. Chairman? Chair: I'm just spending some time being bogged down in a bottomless pit here for a second, but go ahead. Supervisor Kelley: Backing on the comments of Supervisor Cale that's why it sounds to me like a useless bureaucratic boondoggle. Chairman Reilly: There are areas like Boulder, Colorado that have successfully integrated city and county general plans. Some of the technical planning staff are aware of these kinds of models around the country and how they've been able to mesh. I also sense among elected officials interest in some kind of regional approach. I can't speak about city managers who tend to guard city prerogatives pretty closely. That's probably our major hurdle. If we're talking about coming back in December with a work plan for the General Plan, we want to know what you can do within current resources but also want to know if we had additional resources, what would be the optimum we could move forward on. What kind of resources would we need to convene a regional planning process? I think it's probably possible for you to do some work on that. Some work has been done at Sonoma State and other places and even among city and county planning bodies in Sonoma County. Maybe getting the university involved with this is an option as well. In terms of what happens when we go over hours, my suggestion would be that we get a heads up and if the supervisor wants to bring that to the board, I think there'll be an opportunity that's acceptable. At some point in time, we're going to have to go back and address priorities that were established in 1989 and haven't been dealt with in 11 years and decide if we want to keep them on the list. Another comment I'll make and I said before, we're fortunate enough to get allocated a million dollars for restoration projects on the Russian River. We're struggling with an endangered species act listing that has us scrambling to provide the water supply to half a million people. We're spending a couple of million dollars doing biological assessment studies and restoration projects. We know the Russian River and its tributaries are impaired as to water temperature and sedimentation. Regional Water Quality has made that finding. We're the only county from Monterey to Mendocino that doesn't have a grading and erosion control ordinance to deal with the issues of sedimentation from various sources. We've got to put this higher on the list. I would like to pursue toward the end of the year, a grading and erosion control ordinance. Supervisor Smith: I don't object at all to taking a look at that. Is there a way to comprehensively find out what the problem is? What are we drafting the ordinance for? I understand the problem of sedimentation. I know that in the way of culverts, Sonoma County Roads are some of the biggest contributors to sediment in waterways that there is. I'm more interested in doing the pick and shovel work to replace those culverts and fix a change that way. What's the context? Chairman Reilly: I know that the 11 years the board is projecting to do a TMDL on the Russian is an extensive period of time. They're moving forward on watersheds before this one. That's their priorities. Supervisor Kelley: As it relates to TMDL and some of the others, 11 years is too short for me.You're looking at extensive regulatory issues here that may take a long time to oversee. I say that the reason we have such a successful agricultural community in Sonoma County is because we don't have the overwhelming bureaucratic burdens. I'm not interested in an erosion control ordinance. What I want to see back from staff is a work plan for a General Plan update. How many extra hours are you going to need? And what can you get accomplished over the next year? How are we going to allocate extra hours? Supervisor Cale: Let's make a list, establish priorities, what are the major problems? Let's go through the entire list, make a decision what we want to keep, what we want to throw out. Staff keeps looking for direction. Supervisor Kerns: I want to agree with that. I'm very reluctant to establish another regulatory level if it's unnecessary so obviously, I think we need some additional information. I like the supervisor's idea about a workshop and going through those lists item by item and deciding whether to keep it or eliminate it. With that, I support the supervisor's recommendation. Chairman Reilly: I believe staff has some direction on this. We're looking at having you come back with a game plan relative to the General Plan, an A plan and a B plan with additional resources and some sense how we might approach the regional planning effort,what resources we would need to do that and to schedule some workshop time perhaps in the afternoon and go over some of these inactive programs in more detail than we do this morning. With that, we have a 5-0 for acceptance. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS 40. Water and Landfill Gas Monitoring at County Landfills and Transfer Stations Approve and authorize Chair to sign Agreement for Professional Services with Pacific GeoScience in the amount of $160,488 to provide water quality and landfill gas monitoring services at county landfills and transfer stations Information from the Department From the Department continued: Water Monitoring: Consultant shall prepare reports for each site as required by state regulations, site waste discharge requirements, and specific reports. Consultant shall perform sample collection, storage, and analysis consistent with the most recent version of EPA "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste." And specifically comply with sampling protocols in "Sampling and Analysis Procedures," prepared June 1998 by EBA Wastechnologies for County. Samples will be collected and a analyzed in the order of 1) organic constituents, 2) metals, 3) minerals, 4) general chemistry Consultant shall report to county any significant findings verbally within 24 hours and in writing within 72 hours. Gas Monitoring: monitoring and reporting for perimeter probes, on-site structures and utilities at Annapolis, Central, Healdsburg sites and gas extraction systems at Central site in accordance with Title 27, Subchapter 4, Article 6 of CCRs and Regulation 8, Rule 34 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or related requirements of California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as appropriate. Gas monitoring reports shall be completed by February 15, May 15, August 15, and November 15 of every year this agreement is in effect. Domestic Well Sampling: Consultant shall perform sampling and reporting as required to comply with the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of all Claims between the county of Sonoma and the Neighbors Against the Landfill Expansion (NALE) approved by the board on June 6, 2000. State what will happen if the work is not performed: The county faces substantial legal and fiscal penalties for failure to collect and report environmental monitoring data in a timely manner for the disposal sites as required. End Department report BOS Meeting: Chairman Reilly introduced Item 40 and asked Ed Walker, Director of Transportation and Public Works to report. Mr. Walker introduced Susan Clausen, Engineering Division Manager for all the Landfills and Transfer Stations. Mr. Walker: Before you is a recommendation to hire a consultant to do all the water analysis and landfill gas monitoring services that have been going on for a number of years. Four consultants applied and were interviewed. [BW Comment: Mr. Walker details the steps he took to arrive at selecting Pacific GeoScience in the amount of $160,488 to do the work. This is a rather detailed report about how Public Works goes about the selection of a bid. I recommend you buy the tape from the county if you're interested.] Supervisor Smith: I got a letter. Have you seen this? Any comments on it? Mr. Walker: I would generally say that Mr. Butler was very honest in what he had to say. One thing I would say, in the last four years almost our entire staff at the landfill, the engineering staff as well as the management staff, has changed. So, we have found that we get along a lot better with the Regional Water Board ourselves. Yes, it's been a help to have Mr. Butler and his people but with Susan Clausen and a number of other people that have come on board for us, the antagonism that was there with the Regional Water Board no longer exists. Chairman Reilly: Just to follow up on that, Mr. Walker, because we've been experiencing a continuation of difficulties in relationship to the Water Agency and some other areas of __?__ with the Regional Water Board. What specifically is Pacific GeoScience's experience in working with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board? Susan Clausen: They would be fairly new to this area as far as working for us for this monitoring project. Primarily their clients have been in Southern California specifically in Imperial County right now. We did check their references and their ability to establish a good working relationship with the Regional Board down south, and we felt confident that they'd be able to do that here too. Supervisor Cale: You made reference to Imperial County? Would they be doing the same thing up here? Susan Clausen: That's correct. [BW will give a summary here:] Supervisor Cale expressed concern about the large difference between bid amounts [$56,000]. The two others were within $5,000 of each other. Mr. Walker said it always bothers him also, but he compared it favorably with EBA five years ago. Mr. Cale wondered why the company would bid amounts that are five years out of date. Supervisor Kerns asked if the company wasn't performing could we look for another company? Mr. Walker said we could do that in the first three or six months. Supervisor Kelley recommended we go with staff's recommendation. Supervisor Smith agreed. Chair asked for any public comment. Bill Pisenti, Redwood Empire TRIM said that county workers should be doing the job instead of paying outsiders to take our money. Mr. Walker told Bill that the state and federal government doesn't give us any money for that. Bill wondered if this was forever. He cautioned the board about paying out so much money. Chairman Reilly brought it back to the board. Seeing board support for staff's recommendation, Chair said he would vote against it. He said that a lot of the credit for the turn around in the relationship with the Regional Board goes to EBA. "One cease and desist order can make up $150,000 in a hurry. We haven't had those kinds of violations here." Supervisor Cale joined in a no vote. The issue passed 3-2 with Supervisors Kerns, Smith and Kelley voting yes and Supervisors Reilly and Cale no. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD 41. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) An amendment to increase the TOT from 9% to 12% in the unincorporated area (4/5ths vote required) Mr. Stone from EDB said this measure was to be put on the November ballot and estimates are that it would generate about $1.5 million a year. The city councils will put the measure on city ballots if they choose. The cities will have two measures on their ballots. [BW Comment: I wonder if this ballot information is correct. Call the County Clerk if you're worried.] [BW Summary of what was said follows:] Chairman Reilly said this measure had come from the City and County Investors Group. Santa Rosa will be considering an identical measure in the next couple of weeks according to reports. SR and the county represent 75% of the collections. The money would go into the General Fund. It was felt that the county was undervaluing itself as Napa had a 12% TOT and San Francisco was at 14%. Supervisor Kelley said he wasn't going to vote to increase taxes. In public comment, Bill Pisenti said that every time somebody had a problem, they tried to take more money out of us. This is not right and not fair. Probably about 75% of the people in the United States of America are working for little of nothing. When you consider they pay all the taxes for all governments, they deserve some consideration. If you continue to rake taxes off of these people, one of these days we may not have a country. Chairman Reilly: We are voting to put this measure on the November ballot. Are there other board comments? Record 4-1 with Supervisor Kelley dissenting. 42. Lakeville Road Safety Corridor (#3601) Resolution declaring Lakeville Road between Stage Gulch (Highway 116) and Highway 37 as a Safety Corridor and directing the Department of Transportation and Public Works to implement certain safety improvements Background Information from the Department of Transporttion and Public Works Safety Improvements Recommended: 1) Establish a Safety Corridor: Lakeville Road between Highway 116 and Hwy 37. Ask the CHP to increase patrol. 2) Designate the seven-mile length of Lakeville Road as a "No Passing" roadway with proper signing and double-double centerline (median markings) to accentuate this condition. 3) Install advisory signage that institutes "Lights for Life" program requesting HEADLIGHTS ON during daylight hours. 4) Increase speed limit signs along with "Radar Enforced" signs. 5) Increase shoulder reflective markers and guardrail reflectivity. 6) Petition for state enabling legislation for a "Double Fine" designation. 7) Authorize advisory signage encouraging truck traffic to use Highway 101 and Highway 37 routing. 8) Encourage Caltrans to consider similar safety improvements on Highway 116 and Highway 101 and Stage Gulch/Lakeville Road. The cost of these improvements will be covered by the existing road maintenance budget. BW Summary follows:] Staff recommends low-cost safety improvements. Funds are not available. It's now a thoroughfare with steep banks. More and more carnage. Supervisor Smith reported that travelling on that road was a horrifying experience. Bill Pisenti remarked that it's probably people coming in here. You're encouraging this. The board voted 5-0. 43. Fee Waiver of parking fees of $120 at Maxwell Farms Regional Park on August 23, 2000 for American Cancer Society Relay for Life Team Captains Vote: 5-0 44. Fee Waiver: Approve request to waive Special Event permit fees of $435 and Health Review fees of $80 (total $515) for the Bodega Volunteer Fire Department's annual BBQ fund raiser Vote: 5-0 _____Board Adjourned at 10:15 AM_____ [BW Note: I did not attend the afternoon session because there were no hearings.] |