AGENDA BOARD POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 BOARD POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Nai Hsueh, Chair Barbara Keegan, Vice Chair John Varela AGENDA BOARD POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Santa Clara Valley Water District Headquarters Building Board Conference Room A Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA MONDAY, January 22, :00 p.m. Time Certain 2:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call 2. Time Open for Public Comment on Any Item Not on Agenda Comments should be limited to two minutes. If the Committee wishes to discuss a subject raised by the speaker, it can request placement on a future agenda. 3. Approval of Minutes: 3.1 Approval of Minutes - November 27, 2017, meeting Recommendation: Approve the Minutes 4. New Business 4.1 District Sponsorship Policy Discussion Recommendation: That the Board Policy and Planning Committee consider the proposed revised sponsorship limit set forth in Executive Limitation 5.4 from $2,500 to $5,000, and request that the proposed policy revision be presented to the full Board for approval. 4.2 County Master Reservoir Lease Update Recommendation: That the Board Policy and Planning Committee receive information on the County Master Reservoir Lease. 5. Old Business 5.1 Environmental Justice Policy Discussion Recommendation: That the Committee discuss and consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Recommendations and forward these Recommendations to the Full Board if desired. A. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Statement; B. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Legislative Guiding Principle; and C. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Executive Limitation on Environmental Justice Implementation. 5.2 Updated Process to Resolve Encroachments on District Property Recommendation: A. Consider and recommend to the Board the Options for Resolving Existing Encroachments on District Property; and B. Consider and recommend to the Board the Draft Revised Water Resources Protection Ordinance. 5.3 Board Policy and Planning Committee Work Plan and Schedule Recommendation: A. Review Work Plan and incorporate any new tasks; and B. Discuss the Work Plan and schedule Committee meetings as appropriate. Page 1 of 2

2 6. Clerk Review and Clarification of Committee s Requests and Recommendations This is an opportunity for the Clerk to review and obtain clarification on any formally moved, seconded, and approved requests and recommendations made by the Committee. 7. Adjourn REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ACCOMMODATE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WISHING TO ATTEND COMMITTEE MEETINGS WILL BE MADE. PLEASE ADVISE THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OFFICE OF ANY SPECIAL NEEDS BY CALLING (408) Meetings of this committee will be conducted in compliance with all Brown Act requirements. All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body, at the following location: Santa Clara Valley Water District, Office of the Clerk of the Board 5700 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA Board Policy and Planning Committee: Purpose: Provide support to the Board in areas of: 1) Board Planning Process; 2) Board Committees principles and structure; 3) Board and organization performance monitoring; and 4) Other tasks as assigned by the Board. Page 2 of 2

3 Item 3.1 BOARD POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES MONDAY, November 27, :00 PM (Paragraph numbers coincide with agenda item numbers) 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Policy and Planning Committee (Committee) was called to order at 2:00 p.m. on November 27, 2017, at the District Headquarters Building Board Conference Room A-124, 5700 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California. Board Members in attendance were: Director Nai Hsueh-District 5; Director Barbara Keegan-District 2; and Director John L. Varela-District 1, constituting a quorum. Staff members in attendance were: Ingrid Bella, Senior Management Analyst; Rick Callender, Chief of External Affairs; Norma Camacho, Chief Executive Officer; Rachael Gibson, Acting Deputy Administrative Officer, Government Relations; Nina Hawk, Chief Operating Officer, Water Utility; Joanne Jin, Acting Budget Officer; Michele King, Clerk of the Board; Brian Mendenhall, Project Manager; Mita Prakash, Senior Management Analyst; Melanie Richardson, Interim Chief Operating Officer, Watersheds; Afshin Rouhani, Water Policy and Planning Manager; and Tina Yoke, Deputy Administrative Officer. 2. TIME OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON AGENDA There was no one present who wished to speak. 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 Approval of Minutes October 23, It was moved by Director Keegan, seconded by Director Hsueh, and unanimously carried to approve the October 23, 2017 minutes as presented. 4. NEW BUSINESS None. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Discussion and Consideration of Environmental Justice Practices Ms. Mita Prakash, Senior Management Analyst, Office of Government Relations, Page 1 of 3

4 reviewed the information on this item per the attached Committee agenda memo. The Committee requested that staff return with high-level policy language (GP-7 and/or E-3) and a plan that outlines how staff can implement environmental justice in District day to day activities, operations, and programs. 5.2 Fiscal Year 2019 Board Strategic Priority Planning Review Committee Chair Hsueh acknowledged receiving the attached November 26, 2017, letter from Ms. Trish Mulvey, referenced as Handout 5.2-A. A copy of the letter was distributed to the Committee and made available to the public. The Committee requested that staff speak with Ms. Mulvey and then prepare a response letter for Committee Chair Hsueh s signature, informing her of the efforts the District s pursuing relevant to the Regulations and Actions Guidance Document - Improving the Current Regulatory and Flood Protection System, published by the Bay Area Flood Control 2.0. Ms. Michele King, Clerk of the Board, reviewed this the information on this item as presented in the attached memorandum and attachments. The Committee discussed the proposed policy language revisions/additions that were presented to the Board at the strategic priority planning session, and provided the following input: Ends Policy E-1.6 The Committee requested that staff, in developing information on how the new E-1 policy language will be realized in District processes, include using existing resources and art mechanisms which already exist with our partner cities to integrated design elements architecturally driven by a professional and ensures there are is no unnecessary added costs. Executive Limitations EL-6 The Board will provide feedback to staff after the emergency preparedness table top exercise, in response to possible revisions to Board Governance Policy, Executive Limitations 6.3. The new requests from the Board on Water Storage and Emergencies were determined to be strategies, not policy. The Committee requested that staff include a report on how these issues are incorporated into District process when the strategic priority item returns to the Board. Board Chair Varela informed the Committee that both Transparency issues identified by the Board are being scheduled for closed session. The Committee also reviewed the Board input on the eleven Board priorities, and provided the following input: Item 3.1 Priority 2 Prioritize the Care of Our District Facilities Incorporate funds in Fiscal Year 2019 Budget to start planning how we can better use our education centers for the maximum public benefit. Priority 3 Advance the District s Interest in Countywide Storm Water Resource Planning Add reports to the Board Policy Planning Calendar about the Santa Clara Page 2 of 3

5 Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), Open Space Authority (Coyote Valley), and what cities are doing, i.e. promoting pervious pavements. Priority 9 Actively Pursue Efforts to Increase Water Storage Opportunities Board should consider expanding the Pacheco Reservoir Exploratory Ad Hoc Committee scope, and change the name to reflect all options for expanded water storage options. Priority 10 Advance Diversity and Inclusion Efforts Reports need to be provided more often and include more data and information; staff needs to benchmark with other agencies on reported data; and panelist make up should be reviewed. Director Varela left the meeting during the preceding item and did not return. The Committee requested that staff contact the Directors and ask for any additional priorities that the Committee should include in their report to the Board. The Committee requested that staff follow up with Santa Clara County Board of Supervisor President Cortese s office in response to the request for recreation partnership information, and move forward with scheduling a meeting of the Task Force as soon as possible. 5.3 Board Policy and Planning Committee Work Plan and Schedule The Committee did not review this item. 6. CLERK REVIEW AND CLARIFICATION OF COMMITTEE ACTIONS The Clerk did not review Committee actions. Item ADJOURNMENT Committee Chair Hsueh adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:50 p.m. to the next meeting on January 22, Michele L. King, CMC Clerk of the Board Approved: Page 3 of 3

6

7 Committee: Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Date: 1/22/18 Agenda Item No.: 4.1 Unclassified R. Gibson Manager: SUBJECT: District Sponsorship Policy Discussion RECOMMENDATION That the Board Policy and Planning Committee consider the proposed revised sponsorship limit set forth in Executive Limitation 5.4 from $2,500 to $5,000, and request that the proposed policy revision be presented to the full Board for approval. SUMMARY Executive Limitations set by the Board limit the amount of funding that can be approved for sponsorships without authorization from the Board. At the December 12, 2017 Board of Directors meeting, the Board referred a discussion of that policy to the Board Policy and Planning Committee (Committee), so that they could review and discuss the existing funding limitation, as well as potential revisions to it. This memo provides the forum for that discussion and a recommendation to increase the limit from $2,500 to $5,000. BACKGROUND The District s Community Partnering Sponsorship program was developed in the late 1990s to 1) carry out the District s vision, mission, and goals in collaboration with local and regional organizations, including academia, civic, diversity, nonprofits, and other groups, and 2) strengthen the relationship between the District and the community we serve. Accordingly, in 1999 the Board established two Executive Limitation policies under the procurement chapter (EL-5) that govern the Community Partnering Sponsorship program. These policies currently state that a Board Appointed Officer (BAO) shall: EL-5.4: Not allow any sponsorship greater than $2,500, unless authorized by the Board. EL-5.5: Not allow for any sponsorships, contributions, or memberships that do not have a nexus to the District s mission, vision, or Board governance policies. Page 1 of 2

8 SUBJECT: District Sponsorship Policy Discussion The Board last revised EL-5.4 in April 2001, when it established the $2,500 limit that stands in existing policy today. Consequently, and for the last 17 years, if a sponsorship request from an organization exceeds $2,500 and staff recommends funding the amount in full, staff must bring the item to the Board for review and a decision. As the Board noted at the December 12, 2017 Board meeting, there has been a noted uptick in the number of sponsorship requests submitted to the District. In addition, most of the sponsorships minimum sponsorship levels now exceed the $2,500 that staff is authorized to approve without Board action. The practical effect of this is that once staff informs the sponsor that their minimum request must go to the Board for approval, almost every single sponsor declines to do so and instead confers far fewer benefits to the District in order to meet the $2,500 threshold. Other organizations pull the sponsorship request from consideration entirely when informed of the sponsorship dollar threshold, thereby denying the District the opportunity to engage in the event and with the organization and its attendees. Consequently, the $2,500 limit, which has been in effect for almost two decades, has resulted in an overall reduction in the benefits that our community partners have conferred to the District over time, which runs contrary to the goals of the District s Community Partnering Sponsorship Program. Given this, staff recommends that the Committee consider recommending an increase in the limitation set forth in EL-5.4 from $2,500 to $5,000, which is more reflective of current minimum sponsorship levels, and that will restore historic levels of benefit and critical community engagement to the District. CONCLUSION Given that the existing sponsorship limit of $2,500 set forth in EL-5.4 has been in existence for the last 17 years without modification, given that minimum sponsorship levels exceed the current limit, and given the Community Partnering Sponsorship Program s commitment to 1) carry out the District s vision, mission, and goals in collaboration with local and regional organizations, including academia, civic, diversity, nonprofits, and other groups, and 2) strengthen the relationship between the District and the community we serve, staff recommends that the Committee considers supporting the recommended revision to the existing sponsorship limit from $2,500 to $5,000 in EL Page 2 of 2

9 Committee: Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Date: 1/22/18 Agenda Item No.: 4.2 Unclassified R. Gibson Manager: SUBJECT: County Master Reservoir Lease Update RECOMMENDATION That the Board Policy and Planning Committee receive information on the County Master Reservoir Lease. SUMMARY Staff will provide the Board Policy and Planning Committee, with an oral update on the County Master Reservoir Lease. Page 1 of 1

10

11 Committee: Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Date: 1/22/2018 Agenda Item No.: 5.1 Unclassified Manager: R. Gibson SUBJECT: Environmental Justice Policy Discussion RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee discuss and consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Recommendations and forward these Recommendations to the Full Board if desired. A. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Statement; B. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Legislative Guiding Principle; and C. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Executive Limitation on Environmental Justice Implementation. PURPOSE: Provide the Committee with a Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Statement, an Environmental Justice Legislative Guiding Principle, and an Environmental Justice Implementation Framework for the Committee s discussion and consideration. INTRODUCTION: At the last Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting, the Committee requested that staff propose an Environmental Justice Policy Statement, a Legislative Guiding Principle, and an Environmental Justice Implementation Framework. The Committee also asked staff to provide examples of District Projects that could implement Environmental Justice and suggestions for sharing any Environmental Justice policy with Water Resources Associations. FEDERAL STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Executive Order on Environmental Justice authorized by President Clinton in 1994, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), collectively define Environmental Justice. As per the EPA, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The CEQ issued guidance to federal agencies by advising them to develop effective public participation strategies and assure meaningful community representation in their decision-making process when forming their Environmental Justice policies and programs. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION: A. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Statement At the Committee s last meeting, the Committee requested that staff return with a broad Environmental Justice policy statement. Since the EPA is the highest governing federal Page 1 of 3

12 SUBJECT: BOARD COMMITTEE REQUEST ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES Page 2 of 3 1/22/18 environmental protection agency in the country, by aligning with the national standard of Environmental Justice defined above, the Committee can establish a credible framework to guide the District when implementing Environmental Justice for its Disadvantaged Communities within Santa Clara County. Accordingly, the Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding the following Environmental Justice Values Statement to its Board Governance Policies that states: We are committed to upholding Environmental Justice for Disadvantaged Communities in Santa Clara County (including low-income, minority, immigrant, tribal, and Limited English Proficiency residents), and will strive to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to our environmental projects and programs. B. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Environmental Justice Legislative Guiding Principle The Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding a Legislative Guiding Principle that states that: The District supports federal, state, and local legislation that promotes Environmental Justice for Disadvantaged Communities. C. Discuss and Consider the Proposed Executive Limitation on Environmental Justice Implementation The Committee may wish to discuss and consider the proposed Executive Limitation on the Implementation of Environmental Justice which can be included in the Board Governance Policies. The following Executive Limitation is proposed: The Board-Appointed Officers (BAO) shall not fail to promote practices, principles, and programs that support Environmental Justice for Disadvantaged Communities, and not fail to consider Environmental Justice objectives where appropriate and possible. EXAMPLES OF DISTRICT PROJECTS THAT ILLUSTRATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Staff selected four project examples in the Watersheds, Water Utility, External Affairs, and Administration Division that illustrate how Environmental Justice can be implemented: 1. Watersheds Division-Upper Penitencia Creek Project: This Project is in its early planning phase and a portion of the Project is intended to be near the Berryessa Flea Market in the East San Jose neighborhood where pockets of Disadvantaged Communities reside. Staff can uphold Environmental Justice by directly incorporating these Disadvantaged Communities into the decision-making process of the Project s planning, design, construction, and post-construction phases by reaching out to these community members and designating a Disadvantaged Community Representative who can represent the Disadvantaged Community at Upper Penitencia Project planning, design, construction, and post-construction meetings. Staff can seek the public participation of these communities by holding an Upper Penitencia community meeting in the East San Jose neighborhood where the residents live so that they can engage in dialogue about the Upper Penitencia Project, express their concerns about it, and be an active part of making Project decisions alongside District staff. 2. Water Utility Division-Water Supply Master Plan Planning Objectives: Staff can implement Environmental Justice into its Water Supply Master Plan Planning Objective process by

13 SUBJECT: BOARD COMMITTEE REQUEST ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES Page 3 of 3 1/22/18 incorporating it into its water supply planning strategy. As noted in the attached document (See Attachment 1), staff can promote Environmental Justice by adding a sub-objective dedicated to Disadvantaged Communities under the Ensure Community Benefits section, that states that community benefits must be ensured by, incorporating the public participation and meaningful representation of Disadvantaged Communities that may be impacted by the plan as part of the planning criteria. By doing so, the Division is ensuring that the voices of Disadvantaged Community members are directly incorporated into the water supply planning process. 3. External Affairs Division-Civic Engagement The Safe Clean Water Grants Program: This Program can implement Environmental Justice by including in the Minimum Requirements section of the FY 2018 Standard Grant Guidelines (See Attachment 2), the following language as one of the minimum requirements for grant funding: that the proposed grant project directly recruit the public participation and meaningful representation of Disadvantaged Communities in the project if it is in a location that directly affects Disadvantaged Communities. Similarly, Civic Engagement staff can include such language in the Evaluation Criteria section of the Guidelines by stating that the Project shows evidence of public participation and meaningful representation of Disadvantaged Communities. Staff can also use its grant tracking data to keep a detailed record of how the Environmental Justice goals were achieved. 4. Administration Division Human Resources: Staff can address Environmental Justice by memorializing it as one of the District s values that upholds its commitment to Diversity. Staff can incorporate this Environmental Justice as part of its employment training program for the District workforce by educating all employees on the importance of Environmental Justice. As part of its employment training program, staff can educate all District employees at an agencywide level on Environmental Justice and incorporate Environmental Justice into its employment training program by stating that, the District promotes and makes achieving Environmental Justice for Disadvantaged Communities part of the District s mission in the implementation of its projects, programs, and policies. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY WITH WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATIONS At the last Committee meeting, the Committee requested staff to inquire if water resources associations had Environmental Justice policies and to propose action the District can take in shaping policy among these associations. Staff contacted the Association of California Water Associations (ACWA), the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), and the American Water Works Agencies (AWWA). ACWA, AMWA, and AWWA confirmed that they do not have any published Environmental Justice policies on record at this time. Staff recommends that the District continue to work with these agencies as Environmental Justice policy opportunities (that are consistent with the future position of the Board) arise. CONCLUSION: Environmental Justice policies can empower Disadvantaged Communities with their right to a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Consequently, and based on staff s analysis of the Proposed Environmental Justice Policy Statement, the Legislative Guiding Principle, and the Executive Limitation on Environmental Justice Implementation, it is recommended that the Committee discuss and consider the proposed recommendations and forward them to the full Board. Attachment: Attachment 1: Prior Environmental Justice Policy Memo Board Policy & Planning Committee Meeting (11/27/17).

14

15 Committee: Meeting Date: 11/27/17 Agenda Item No.: 5.1 BOARD POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Board Policy & Planning Committee SUBJECT: Discussion and Consideration of Environmental Justice Policies RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee consider the following Environmental Justice policies and forward their recommendations to the full Board if desired: A. Consider Adoption of the Federal Standard of Environmental Justice in the Values Statement of the Board Governance Policies; B. Consider Adoption of the Federal Standard of Environmental Justice under the EPA in the District s General Principles Statement; C. Consider Adoption of the Language of President Clinton s Executive Order on Environmental Justice in the Natural Flood Protection Goals; D. Consider Adoption of the Environmental Justice Policy of Public Participation and Meaningful Community Representation in the Natural Flood Protection Goals; and E. Consider Formalizing the Importance of Public Engagement with Disadvantaged Communities by Acknowledging them in the District s General Principles Statement. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES: Environmental Justice was borne out of the struggle for historically disenfranchised communities, primarily low-income minority populations, including African-American, Latino, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) immigrants, and indigenous tribal populations, to gain fair and equal protection of their health and environment. This movement has evolved both on a national and state-wide level into direct political action taken at both the federal and state level to address the crucial mission of ensuring that all people enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process in order to maintain a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Federal Standard At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Executive Order on Environmental Justice authorized into law by then President Clinton in 1994, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), collectively define Environmental Justice. As per the EPA, Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Environmental Justice was codified in President Clinton s 1994 Executive Order, titled, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898), by mandating that federal agencies make achieving Environmental Justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations in the United States. Furthermore, the CEQ which was established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, issued guidance to federal agencies by proposing that the agencies should develop effective public participation strategies and assure meaningful community representation in their decision-making process when forming their Environmental Justice programs, policies, and regulations. F REV C Page 1 of 5 Attachment 1 1 of 5

16 State Standard California was one of the first states to recognize the importance of Environmental Justice. It was formally given credence and signed into California state law by Governor Davis in 1999 (SB-115). California state law defines Environmental Justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies. The law requires that the California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL EPA) incorporates Environmental Justice as a fundamental mission in its programs and also requires significant public participation in the creation, approval, and implementation of its environmental regulations and policies. THE STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES IN OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS: At the last Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting, the Committee requested that staff research Environmental Justice Policies in other special districts, including the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Staff found the following results: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) o The VTA has formally endorsed Environmental Justice through the issuance of its Organizational Commitment Statement which states: VTA supports the goal of Title VI and its Executive Orders on Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and Environmental Justice to provide meaningful access to its services, projects and activities by lowincome, minority, and limited English proficient persons. o The VTA has also exemplified its commitment to Environmental Justice through the formation of a Public Participation Plan (PPP) which seeks meaningful and inclusive public engagement of low-income minority communities. The PPP incorporates the viewpoints of underrepresented communities in its decision making process for the transportation services and programs that it provides. It states the following: The VTA understands that providing ample opportunities for the public to participate in decision-making is essential to delivering transportation solutions that meet the needs of Santa Clara County. The purpose of this PPP is to promote the use of effective methods to inform and provide meaningful opportunities for input by all members of the public. In recognition of the importance of having an inclusive process, this plan has a special focus on reaching traditionally under-represented communities such as low-income, minority, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen District) Although Midpen District does not have any official Environmental Justice policies, Midpen staff noted that the Midpen District is committed to serving its Disadvantaged Communities by advocating for the term Disadvantaged Community, to be redefined so that its low-income minority populations can benefit from its resource conversation projects. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS At the last Board Policy and Planning Committee, the Committee requested that staff identify underserved communities where flood protection projects were not completed. While there are numerous Disadvantaged Communities in the County where the District has had ongoing flood protection projects, for purposes of illustrating primary demographics that are underserved as well as for purposes of discussion, the staff has selected three Disadvantaged Communities to serve as examples of underserved populations that have been impacted from the District s flood protection efforts in Coyote Creek. Staff also included an example of a Disadvantaged Community that has benefited from the near completion of the Lower Silver Creek Flood Protection Project. The initial three examples listed are Disadvantaged Communities that were affected by the incompletion of the Coyote Creek Flood Protection Project: Rock Springs Community: This community is a Disadvantaged Community because it is a predominantly low-income Limited English Proficiency (LEP) community that is comprised of Vietnamese and Latino residents. Vietnamese and Spanish are the primary languages for both respective communities. F REV C Page 2 of 5 Attachment 1 2 of 5

17 Golden Wheel Mobile Home Community: This community is a Disadvantaged Community given that it is comprised of low-income Vietnamese residents who primarily speak Vietnamese. The Olinder/Williams/Naglee Park Community: This community is divided between a section that is more affluent and another section on the Olinder side which is a Disadvantaged Community because it is populated with low-income working class Latino residents who primarily speak Spanish. Lower Silver Creek Community: While this community was not impacted by the February 2017 Flood, it consists of low-income working class Latino residents and would therefore be considered Disadvantaged. However, a flood protection project along Lower Silver Creek is nearing completion for the flood protection benefits of this community. LESSONS LEARNED TO PROTECT DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES: Reducing flood risk for Disadvantaged Communities along Coyote Creek has been given priority since the February 2017 floods. Short-term repair efforts have been made, the completion of these projects has been prioritized, and flood awareness outreach efforts have been implemented in each respective community. These efforts are just one example of the District s commitment to striving towards Environmental Justice for its underserved populations. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES FOR THE COMMITTEE S DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION: A. Consider Adoption of the Federal Standard of Environmental Justice in the Values Statement of the Board Governance Policies By formally codifying Environmental Justice in the governing policies, the Committee can reaffirm its commitment to underscore the basic civil rights and human dignity of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income within the County. Setting a clear standard at the outset of the Board governing policies can set the tone for the District to further uphold the mission of Environmental Justice particularly when it comes to addressing the flood protection needs of its low-income Latino, Vietnamese, and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) residents. Therefore, the Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding a new statement to its Values Statement under Policy No. GP-7: Value 7.9 We are committed to upholding Environmental Justice for our Santa Clara County Residents including our low-income, minority, and LEP communities, and will strive to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to our environmental projects, programs, and events. B. Consider Adoption of the EPA s Federal Standard of Environmental Justice in the District s General Principles Statement Given that the EPA is the highest governing federal environmental protection agency in the country, aligning with the national standard for what Environmental Justice means establishes a credible framework to guide the District when implementing Environmental Justice for its Disadvantaged Communities within the County. Therefore the Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding a General Principle under Ends Policy No. E-1 of the District s General Principles Statement: Principle 1.6 The District supports Environmental Justice by striving to ensure that all people, including disadvantaged, low-income, minority, and LEP communities, enjoy the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and are afforded equal access to the decision-making process of the District s projects in order to maintain a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. C. Consider Adoption of the Language of President Clinton s Executive Order on Environmental Justice in the Natural Flood Protection Goals To bolster its commitment of providing Environmental Justice for Disadvantaged Communities that reside in areas where the District is implementing flood protection projects, it is suggested that the Committee consider incorporating the language of Executive Order (EO 12898) into the Natural Flood F REV C Page 3 of 5 Attachment 1 3 of 5

18 Protection (NFP) Goals. By including this language as an NFP Goal, the Committee would be identifying and addressing the flood protection rights of its Disadvantaged Communities. Therefore, the Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding NFP Goal 3.3 and accompanying NFP Objective under the Policy No. E-3 NFP Goals: NFP Goal 3.3-Commitment to Upholding Disadvantaged Community Needs in Flood Protection Projects NFP Objective Consider Environmental Justice issues as part of the District s flood protection mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its flood projection projects on lowincome, minority, LEP, or any other Disadvantaged Community within Santa Clara County. D. Consider Adoption of the Environmental Justice Policy of Public Participation and Meaningful Community Representation in the Natural Flood Protection Goals The Environmental Justice principle of public participation and meaningful community representation, issued by the White House Counsel on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is suggested for the Committee to consider including in its Natural Flood Protection (NFP) goals. By adopting this policy, the District would further advance its commitment to Environmental Justice in its flood protection projects by implementing public participation strategies which engage its Disadvantaged Communities and ensure their meaningful community representation in the flood protection decision-making process. It is important for the District to encourage its low-income, Vietnamese, Latino, and LEP populations to be involved in the decision-making processes of where and how flood protection projects are going to be implemented and completed in their neighborhoods. Community empowerment begins with listening to the needs of the communities that the District serves, as noted not only through the Environmental Justice standards set forth at the federal level but also through the Environmental Justice standards illustrated locally through the VTA s published Public Participation Plan (PPP). Including language that acknowledges public participation and meaningful community representation would help the District encourage its historically underrepresented populations and communities of concern to voice their needs by attending public meetings, town halls, outreach events, resource fairs, and flood awareness events that the District holds. Moreover, the participation of historically marginalized members of the public in the decisionmaking process of local flood protection projects in their respective neighborhoods creates a meaningful opportunity for them to advocate for their flood protection needs to the District. Therefore, the Committee may wish to discuss and consider adding a Sub-Objective under Policy No. E-3 NFP Goal 3.2-Reduce Potential for Flood Damages: NFP Sub-Objective Engage in constructive public participation and direct communication with Disadvantaged Communities (lowincome, minority, LEP populations) that reside within the flood protection project locations and encourage their meaningful representation in the decision-making process of flood protection projects. E. Consider Discuss and Consider Formalizing the Importance of Public Engagement with Disadvantaged Communities By Acknowledging Them in the District s General Principles Statement. The Committee may wish to discuss and consider acknowledging Disadvantaged Communities at the very outset of the description of General Principle 1.2 on Effective Public Engagement. It is suggested that the Committee consider calling for the inclusion and participation of its Disadvantaged Communities in open and transparent discussions with the District. By including the phrase, the inclusion and participation of Disadvantaged Communities, the Committee would be emphasizing that the District is actively seeking to dialogue with and incorporate the input of historically disenfranchised populations as part of its mission. The Committee may wish to discuss and consider modifying General Principle 1.2 on Effective Public Engagement under Policy No. E-1, by adding the phrase the inclusion and participation of Disadvantaged Communities: General Principle-1.2-Effective public engagement in accomplishing the District mission is achieved through communication that involves the diverse community, the inclusion and participation of Disadvantaged Communities, and key stakeholder groups in a F REV C Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 4 of 5

19 transparent and open manner. CONCLUSION: Environmental Justice policies can empower Disadvantaged Communities with their right to Environmental Justice and a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. Consequently, and based on the collective examination of Environmental Justice policies, the research of policies in other special districts, and an internal look at the needs of the District s own Disadvantaged Communities, it is recommended that the Board discuss and consider the policies proposed in this memorandum. F REV C Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1 5 of 5

20

21 Committee: Meeting Date: 1/22/18 Agenda Item No.: Board Policy and Planning Committee SUBJECT: Updated Process to Resolve Encroachments on District Property RECOMMENDATION A. Consider and recommend to the Board the Options for Resolving Existing Encroachments on District Property; and B. Consider and recommend to the Board the Draft Revised Water Resources Protection Ordinance. SUMMARY On October 18, 2016, the Board discussed the concept of licensing District property as an interim measure in resolving encroachments, and directed staff to develop and provide further details and structure for such a process. This document provides the detailed process, including different options to resolve encroachments. Additionally, staff has proposed revisions to the Water Resources Protection Ordinance for the purposes of updating and clarifying intent. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: PowerPoint Presentation Resolving Issues on District Property Attachment 2: Draft Revised Water Resources Protection Ordinance F REV C Page 1 of 1

22

23 Resolving Encroachments on District Property Jan. 22, 2018

24 Objective: Resolve District encroachments using a consistent, comprehensive and policydriven process Attachment 1 Page 2 of 13

25 Governance Policies of the Board EL-6.5.1: Proactively identify, preserve and protect District property to ensure its use is consistent with the District mission EL-6.5.2: Resolve encroachments on District property Attachment 1 Page 3 of 13

26 Background: Resolved encroachments as reported Fallen oak on Calabazas Creek and drought created the need to address encroachments comprehensively Attachment 1 Page 4 of 13

27 GIS application Access Valley Water Tools to identify, verify and prioritize encroachments Attachment 1 Page 5 of 13

28 Options for Resolving Existing Encroachments # CRITERIA Does/Is the encroachment: OPTIONS 1 Pose a potential threat to public/staff health and safety or create an actual or potential violation of law by the District or expose the District to potential civil or criminal liability (Located in a floodway or below the top of a creek bank, top of bank usage, siphoning water from creek, hazardous materials, severe erosion, blockage of creek, land slide, hazardous trees, potential pipeline damage or potential liability associated w/injury to others using District property) 2 Located in a riparian corridor with protected habitat, area of actual mitigation or otherwise threaten environmental health and safety (Water quality, stream stability, riparian corridor or wildlife habitat including habitat to endangered and/or protected species or native plant or planted mitigation areas) 3 Located in a riparian corridor with potential for mitigation 4 Located within a planned project area, impact the District s ability to operate and/or maintain an existing facility or ability to proceed with the planned construction of a facility (Blocks maintenance access; is located within limits of a scheduled capital, mitigation or stream maintenance project; impacts a levee or imposes alternative access/project design) 5 Located at the site of a future city/county trail Resolve Resolve Resolve or Issue a 2-year license if access not needed w/in 3 years Resolve or Issue a 2-year license if access not needed w/in 3 years Resolve or Issue a 2-year license if access not needed w/in 3 years 4 Attachment 1

29 Safety issues Attachment 1 Page 7 of 13

30 Active or planned mitigation sites Attachment 1 Page 8 of 13

31 Potential mitigation sites Attachment 1 Page 9 of 13

32 Blocked access Attachment 1 Page 10 of 13

33 City trail sites

34 Next steps: Finalize encroachment resolution matrix Finalize revisions to the Water Resources Protection Ordinance Attachment 1 Page 12 of 13

35 Resolving Encroachments on District Property Attachment 1 Page 13 of 13

36

37 ARTICLE 1.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 Reference 1.2 Purpose and Intent of Ordinance 1.3 Interpretations 1.4 Definitions 1.5 Severability 1.6 Notice 1.7 Permits Issued Before Effective Date Permits Involving District Facilities or Easements Other Permits ARTICLE 2.0 PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES 2.1 Purpose of Article 2.2 Encroachment Permit Requirements Encroachment Permit Required Exceptions 2.3 Encroachment Permit Procedures Application and Fees Environmental Assessment Action on Applications 2.4 Time Limit for Commencing Use of Encroachment Permit 2.5 Permit Revocation, Modification, and Suspension Cause for Permit Revocation, Modification, and Suspension Notice of Decision to Revoke, Modify, and Suspend a Permit 2.6 Appeals Right to Appeal; Timing Hearing and Decision ARTICLE 3.0 ENFORCEMENT 3.1 Purpose 3.2 Violation of Ordinance 3.3 Criminal and Civil Penalties 3.4 Administrative Remedies Compliance Order Attachment 2 Page 1 of 13

38 3.4.2 Method of Service Hearing Notice of Hearing Hearing - Findings and Order Administrative Penalties Administrative Costs Lien 3.5 Abatement Notice of Intent to Abate Findings; Abatement Order Time for Abatement; Lien ARTICLE 4.0 DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MANUAL 4.1 Purpose 4.2 Adoption of District Water Resources Protection Manual 4.3 Procedure to Adopt and Amend District Water Resources Protection Manual Notice of Public Hearing Adoption or Amendment to District Water Resources Protection Manual ARTICLE 5.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF ORDINANCE Effective Date 5.2 Repeal of Ordinance Attachment 2 Page 2 of 13

39 ARTICLE 1.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1.1 REFERENCE This Ordinance should be known and cited as the Water Resources Protection Ordinance of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. SECTION 1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ORDINANCE The intent of this Ordinance is to secure the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the District and to accomplish District purposes described in the District Act, including providing a reliable supply of healthy and clean Water; reducing the potential for flood damages; protecting and when appropriate enhancing and restoring natural resources of streams and watersheds; prohibiting trespass and injury to District property and projectsfacilities lands, structures, improvements, and appurtenances; and providing additional open spaces, trails, and parks along creeks and in the watersheds when reasonable and appropriate. SECTION 1.3 INTERPRETATIONS The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or designee is entitled to decide any question involving the interpretation or application of any provision of this Ordinance and/or the District Water Resources Protection Manual, except as may otherwise be provided herein. Any interpretation and application of the provisions of the Ordinance and/or the District Water Resources Protection Manual must be consistent with the purpose set forth in Section 1.2 and will be in writing. Any external party requesting an interpretation under this Section must make the request in writing to the CEO. SECTION 1.4 DEFINITIONS This section defines terms that have meanings specific to the interpretation of this Ordinance. Applicant: The party proposing the Modification and/or use for which the Encroachment Permit is required and to whom an Encroachment Permit may be issued. Board: The Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. CEO: Chief Executive Officer of the Santa Clara Valley Water District or his/her designee. Clerk of the Board: The Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District or his/her designee. Development: The placement or erection of any solid material or structure; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or installation of vegetation. District: Santa Clara Valley Water District. District Act: State law creating the District and enabling its powers and operation (Calif. Water Code Appendix, Ch. 60). District Easements: Lands not owned by the District in fee title, over which the District has been granted an easement for purposes specified in the easement document. District Facility: Lands, structures, or improvements and appurtenances owned, controlled, operated or maintained by the District for water conservation, water supply, flood protection, storm water Attachment 2 Page 3 of 13

40 management and treatment, stream stewardship, environmental protection, environmental enhancement, environmental mitigation or other lawful District purpose. Examples of District facilities are groundwater recharge (percolation) ponds, reservoirs, sediment control basins, pipelines, treatment plants, pumping stations, and injection wells. Lands owned by the District in fee are considered District Facilities. Encroachment Permit: Written permission granted by the District pursuant to this Ordinance allowing a Permittee to enter, use, temporarily access, or undertake any modification on District Facilities. Modification: Any alteration to District Facilities, including but not limited to the activities defined under ddevelopment and Trespass. Municipal Organization: The County of Santa Clara or a city or town within the County of Santa Clara County. Permit Authority: District employee designated by the CEO to make decisions regarding the issuance of encroachment permits. Permittee: A Person or entity to whom an Encroachment Permit under this Ordinance has been issued. Person: Any individual, firm, corporation, club, or governmental agency, and all associations or combinations of persons whenever acting for themselves or by any agent or employee. Stream: A body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks. The body of water may include a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish and/or aquatic life. District Water Resources Protection Manual: A set of requirements and supporting design guidelines including minimum standards to protect water, watershed resources, and District Facilities, modified and adopted according to Article 4 of this Ordinance. Structure: Anything made or constructed and having its foundation or support upon or within the ground. Trespass: Unauthorized access onto or use of District Facilities by Persons, including by the placement or maintenance of their personal property, or fixtures. Trespass does not include access or entry allowed under Section 2.2.2A or entry onto a nonexclusive easement. SECTION 1.5 SEVERABILITY If any section or provision of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, that finding will not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole nor any part thereof, other than the part found to be unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION 1.6 NOTICE Whenever a notice is required to be given under this Ordinance, unless different provisions herein are otherwise specifically made, such notice may be given served either by personal delivery thereof to the Person to be notified or by deposit in the United States Mail, in a sealed envelope postage prepaid, addressed to such Person to be notified at his last-known business or residence address as the same appears in the public records or other records pertaining to the matter to which such notice is directed. Service by mail will be deemed to have been completed at the time of deposit in the post office. Notice of Actions issued in accordance with Section 2.3.3C may also be served by to an address provided by an Applicant or a duly authorized agent of the Applicant on their Encroachment permit application submitted in accordance with Section Attachment 2 Page 4 of 13