To: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Department or Agency Name(s): Agriculture/Weights & Measures
Staff Name and Phone Number: Andrew F. Smith, (707) 565-2631
Vote Requirement: 4/5th
Supervisorial District(s): Countywide
Title:
Title
Amendment to a Consulting Agreement with Sonoma State University Northwest Information Center
End
Recommended Action:
Recommended action
Authorize the Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights & Measures (AWM) to execute the first amendment to a consulting agreement with Sonoma State University, Northwest Information Center for historical resource analysis retroactively from June 16, 2020 through June 15, 2023.
end
Executive Summary:
On August 29, 2017 the County of Sonoma entered into an agreement with Sonoma State University, Northwest Information Center for review of County’s land use permitting applications to determine if the project could adversely affect historical resources. The term “historical resources” includes both archaeological and historical structures. That agreement expired June 15, 2020.
Discussion:
On August 29, 2017 the County of Sonoma (County) entered into an agreement with Sonoma State University, Northwest Information Center (Consultant) for historical resource analysis through June 15, 2020. When mitigation is recommended as a result of the cultural resource survey and local tribe, a use permit will be required. When there is no mitigation recommendation by the Consultant, the project may proceed through the ministerial permitting process.
Sonoma County Code Section 26-88-254 Cannabis Cultivation - Commercial requires that cultivations involving ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to, new structures, roads, water storage, trenching for utilities, water, wastewater, or drainage systems shall be subject to design standards and referral to the Northwest Information Center and local tribes. This section of the ordinance remains in effect.
The historical resource analysis will result in one or more of the following statements:
• Recommendation that a study be conducted if the proposed project area contains or is adjacent to archaeological sites.
• The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to the commencement of project activities.
• If there are existing studies on file in which one or more historical resources have been identified, a recommendation could be made to require a qualified archaeologist to assess the status of the site and provide project specific recommendations.
• If there are existing studies in which no historical resources were identified, a notation that further study for historical resources is not recommended.
• A statement that there is a low possibility of historical resources, with a notation that further study for historical resources is not recommended.
• A statement that review for possible historic structure was limited to the Consultant’s documents and should not be considered comprehensive. State Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older may be of historic value, and if the project area contains such properties they should be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities.
• The guidelines for implementation of the California Register of Historical Resources criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. For purposes of CEQA, all identified archaeological sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria.
• Their review is based on scientific information, and a recommendation to contact the local tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious values, and, that if archaeological resources are encountered during the project, the work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation.
The original agreement required a $75 payment for each analysis made during the original agreement term, regardless of the number of hours or length of time necessary for Consultant to complete the services. No additional payment for any expenses incurred in completion of the services is included in the agreement language. There is no minimum requirement number of projects during any given period. The $75 payment is collected from the permit applicant and remitted to Consultant on behalf of the County.
The terms of the First Amendment of the Agreement with Consultant remain unchanged from the initial agreement, with the exception of the period of the agreement. The First Amendment of the Agreement extends the period three years, or until June 15, 2023.
Prior Board Actions:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Fiscal Summary
|
Expenditures |
FY 19-20 Adopted |
FY20-21 Projected |
FY 21-22 Projected |
|
Budgeted Expenses |
|
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
|
Additional Appropriation Requested |
|
|
|
|
Total Expenditures |
|
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
|
Funding Sources |
|
|
|
|
General Fund/WA GF |
|
|
|
|
State/Federal |
|
|
|
|
Fees/Other |
|
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
|
Use of Fund Balance |
|
|
|
|
Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
Total Sources |
|
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
Narrative Explanation of Fiscal Impacts:
There are no fiscal impacts for this Agreement. Fees are collected from the permit applicant and remitted to the Consultant.
|
Staffing Impacts: |
|
|
|
|
Position Title (Payroll Classification) |
Monthly Salary Range (A-I Step) |
Additions (Number) |
Deletions (Number) |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Narrative Explanation of Staffing Impacts (If Required):
None
Attachments:
First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement
Related Items “On File” with the Clerk of the Board:
None