Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04252017 - Board of SupervisorsCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 FEDERAL D. GLOVER, CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, VICE CHAIR, 4TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 3RD DISTRICT DAVID J. TWA, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 335-1900 PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES. A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR. The Board of Supervisors respects your time, and every attempt is made to accurately estimate when an item may be heard by the Board. All times specified for items on the Board of Supervisors agenda are approximate. Items may be heard later than indicated depending on the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES April 25, 2017                  9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 101. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Bruce Heid. Employee Organizations: Contra Costa County Employees’ Assn., Local No. 1; Am. Fed., State, County, & Mun. Empl., Locals 512 and 2700; Calif. Nurses Assn.; Service Empl. Int’l Union, Local 1021; District Attorney’s Investigators Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters, Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Service Employees International Union Local 2015; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Probation Peace Officers Assn. of Contra Costa County; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; and Prof. & Tech. Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO; Teamsters Local 856. 2. Agency Negotiators: David Twa. Unrepresented Employees: All unrepresented employees. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(1)) In re: West Contra Costa Healthcare District, Debtor, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 16-42917 1. Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al. and Phillips 66 Company, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Nos. N15-0301, N15-0345, N15-0381 2. 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure." ~ Colin Powell Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1 Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.84 on the following agenda) – Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Supervisor or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.   PRESENTATIONS (5 Minutes Each)   PRESENTATION to take the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Idle Free Pledge and encourage Contra Costa County employees and residents to also take the Idle Free Pledge. (Jody London, Department of Conservation and Development)     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION proclaiming April 24-28, 2017 as "Week of the Young Child". (Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director and Camilla Rand, Community Services Director)     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month. (Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Director and Kathy Marsh, Employment and Human Services Department)    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION recognizing April 2017 as Alcohol Awareness Month. (Fatima Matal Sol, Alcohol and Other Drugs Services)    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PRESENTATION proclaiming the month of April 2017 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Glover)    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Consent item C.79 was removed to allow for public comment, and subsequently adopted as presented.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    The following people addressed the Board at Public Comment: Tanya Nemicik, resident of Antioch, commented on inappropriate practices of arbitration and mediation in Family Law services; (The court system is run by the State of California, it was recommended she contact her Assemblymember) Brad Harper, resident of Pleasant Hill, spoke in inefficiencies in family court system: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 2 The following people spoke on the Canyon Road bridge closure in Moraga: Brian Coyle, resident of Canyon (handout attached); Gloria Faircloth, resident of Canyon; Lucia Sullivan, resident of Canyon (attachment) Lisa Gaiser, resident of Pleasant Hill. A meeting will be held on April 27, 2017 at 6 p.m. in the Town Council chamber at 335 Rheem Blvd. It will also be live-streamed on the town’s website at www.moraga.ca.us   D. 3 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit out period for Fernando Bauzon, Accountant III in the Treasurer-Tax Collector Office and approving and authorizing the hiring of Fernando Bauzon as a temporary County Employee for the period of May 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, as recommended by the Treasurer-Tax Collector. (Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 4 CONSIDER receiving the 2016 Annual Performance Evaluation Report of Alliance Emergency Medical Services. (Pat Frost, Emergency Medical Services Director, and Jeff Carman, Fire Chief)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 5 CONSIDER adopting, as the Governing Board of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, Resolution No. 2017/140, approving four Escrow and Deposit Agreements in connection with the issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds; and CONSIDER authorizing the taking of necessary actions and the execution of necessary documents in connection therewith, as recommended by the Finance Committee. (John Kopchik, Conservation and Development Director) (See Item D.6)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 6 CONSIDER adopting, as the Governing Board of the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, Resolution No. 2017/147, approving an Indenture of Trust, four Escrow and Deposit Agreements, and a Bond Purchase Agreement in connection with the issuance of tax allocation refunding bonds; and CONSIDER authorizing the taking of necessary actions and the execution of necessary documents in connection therewith, as recommended by the Finance Committee. (John Kopchik, Conservation and Development Director) (See Item D.5)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 7 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2017/148 to become a groundwater sustainability agency for portions of the Tracy Subbasin located in the county, and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding related to the development of a proposed groundwater sustainability plan for the subbasin, east Contra Costa County area, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. (Ryan Hernandez, Conservation and Development Department)       Speakers: Chris Christian, resident of Brentwood; Steve Larsen, resident of Byron. CLOSED the hearing; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2017/148, DECLARING Contra Costa County's intent to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County excluding the areas of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding related to development of a proposed Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the subbasin.   April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 3     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 8 HEARING to consider the appeals of the County Planning Commission's Decision to approve the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan for a 193-unit Apartment Complex in the unincorporated Bay Point area and consider related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, County File # DP15-3023. (CeCe Valenzuela & Timothy Reimers/Meta Housing, Appellants) (Bay Point Family Apartments LLC, Owners) (Lashun Cross, Department of Conservation and Development)       CeCe Valenzuela, appellant: Ralph Strauss, SDG Architects, appellants; Welbon I. Salaam, resident of Bay Point (handout attached); Judy Dawson, resident of Bay Point (handout attached); Alex Dongallo, resident of Bay Point; Doug Parker, resident of Bay Point (handout attached). CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) completed for the project are adequate; DENIED the appeal by CeCe Valenzuela and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #DP15-3023; UPHELD the appeal of Timothy Reimers/Meta Housing and eliminated the County Planning Commission’s added condition of approval (COA #23) pertaining to rough grade and elevation of improvements at common property boundaries; ADOPTED the County Planning Commission Resolution #5-2017 with one change to eliminate condition of approval #23; ADOPTED the findings and conditions of approval contained within the attached conditions of approval document for County File #DP15-3023, as approved by the County Planning Commission, and with the elimination of condition of approval #23; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.   D. 9 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no announcements from Closed Session.   1:00 P.M.   D. 10 WORKSHOP to discuss the potential regulation of marijuana related land uses as authorized by Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) or Proposition 64. (John Kopchik, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Javier Quezoda & Ilianna Inzonza, Friday Night Live; Ashley Bargenquast, Tully & Weiss Attorneys at Law; Wayne Reeves, Contra Cost County Farm Bureau; Patty Hoyt, ADAPT San Ramon Valley; Ryan Orihood, DROC; Catherine Taughinbaugh, Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board; Brian Eliff, Delta Organic; Timothy Byars, resident of Concord; Rebecca Byars, resident of Concord (handout attached);Jaime Rich, ADAPT Lamorinda; Steve Mick, resident of Alamo; Eric Thomas, resident of Briones; Tom Aswad, resident of Walnut Creek; Tyson Griffin, La Corona Wellness; Eric Rehn, CCIM; Brian Mitchell, La Corona Wellness; Ricardo Munoz, resident of Brentwood; Chris Niewiarowski, resident of Martinez; Nbila Sher, Alcohol, Marijuana, Prescription Drug Coalition; Ryan Doronila, DVC Horticulture Program (book attached); Lucy Cheng; Guita Bahramipour, resident of Moraga; Jenny Jennings, Support Recovery; Joe Partansky, resident of Concord. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 4 The Department of Conservation and Development and other departments will return in mid-summer with an outline of options and additional information on the following: 1. An outreach plan to hold workshops and town halls for input from the cities and unincorporated areas 2. The appropriate and/or desirable areas in which to allow indoor cultivation, outdoor cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and distribution centers 3. The appropriate and/or desirable location of retail dispensaries to best serve the public, particularly those with disabilities, with the support of the nearby city(s) 4. The use of the tobacco ordinance as a model for regulation of sales of cannabis products and preventing access by youth 5. The use of the urbans farms ordinance as a model for the zoning in the siting of cannabis-related businesses 6. Regulation of delivery of cannabis products to residences 7. Information on models used by other areas where programs and regulations are already in place for medicinal or recreational cannabis 8. Information on the cultivation of hemp or cannabis as a crop 9. Information on environmentally friendly and responsible production and construction, such as the use of solar power, recycled water, and the use and management of pesticides and herbicides 10. Information on revenues (taxes and fees) feasible from transactions of cannabis cultivation, testing, manufacturing, distribution and retail sales, particularly as related to funding for youth drug use prevention and treatment, and public safety services - law enforcement and fire protection 11. Information and recommendations in regard to cannabis-related industry siting in the Northern Waterfront Initiative area 12. Information on the handling of banking transactions and revenue collection employed in other regions 13. Further information on the health effects of cannabis use 14. Further information on providing public education on a) youth access b)responsible adult use   ADJOURN in memory of Joseph Ovick Former Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools     Adjourned today's meeting at 4:35 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Engineering Services   C. 1 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/118 approving the fourth extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD03-08791, for a project being developed by ADP Freedom 7, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, El Sobrante area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/120 approving the Maintenance Agreement between the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association and the County of Contra Costa, to maintain the improvements that are in the public right-of-way, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/141 approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 5 C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/141 approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Management Agreement for minor subdivision MS15-00005, for a project being developed by Ken Gardner, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Byron area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 4 Acting as the Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute the Right of Way Contract and ACCEPT the Grant of Easement from West County Wastewater District, granting to the District the property rights in connection with the San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks Levee Remediation Project, Richmond area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 Acting as the Governing Body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/131 approving the vacation of a Grant Deed of Development Rights covering four parcels of property located on Golf Course Road in Antioch, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 6 DENY claims filed by Jeffrey Bustamante, Timothy Feradoures, Marty Gray, Lupita Guadian, Gloria Magee, and Tisa Tatum; DENY amended claim filed by Gloria Magee; DENY late file claim filed by Queen Bayless-Jackson & Robert Jackson.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 7 ACCEPT Board members' meeting reports for March 2017.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/135 proclaiming May 11, 2017 as "Bike to Work Day", and REQUEST County Department heads to participate in outreach efforts for Bike to Work Day to their employees, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 6 C. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/145 to take the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Idle Free Pledge and encourage Contra Costa County employees and residents to also take the Idle Free Pledge, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia and Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/143 to recognize April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 ADOPT Resolution No 201/144 recognizing April 2017 as Alcohol Awareness Month as recommended by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Administration Mothers Against Drinking and Driving, and by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/152 recognizing Jeff Eorio, San Ramon Valley Unified School District Education Foundation 2017 honoree, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 13 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2017-04 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the Merit System the new classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 14 ACCEPT the resignation of Geoffrey E. Meredith, DECLARE a vacancy in the At Large #2 seat on the Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 ACCEPT the resignation of Tom Bloomfield from the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of Directors, DECLARE the seat vacant, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 16 Airport Operations / Fixed Assets (0841 / 0843): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 7 C. 16 Airport Operations / Fixed Assets (0841 / 0843): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5069 authorizing new fiscal year 2016/17 revenue from license fees and concessions in the amount of $48,000 and appropriating for airport operating expenditures. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations   C. 17 ADOPT an advocacy position on the following seven bills, as recommended by the Legislation Committee: Bill Author Title Summary Position 1 AB 557 Rubio CalWORKs: Victim of Abuse Expands and modifies the circumstances for waiving the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program requirements for victims of abuse. Support 2 AB 1164 Thurmond Foster Care Placement: Funding Establishes the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children to facilitate access to child care for foster youth and the families with whom they are placed through the provision of child care vouchers and/or payments, navigator services, and trauma-informed training and coaching for child care providers Support 3 AB 1332 Bloom Juveniles: Dependents: Removal Establishes a specific standard for removal of a dependent child from the physical custody of a noncustodial parent. Support 4 AB 1406 Gloria Homeless Youth Advocacy and Housing Program Establishes the Homeless Youth Advocacy and Housing Program to award grants to up to 10 local continuums of care that demonstrate the ability to contract with service provider capable of providing housing assistance and supportive services to homeless youth with the goal of transitioning youth towards self-sufficiency. Support 5 SB 213 Mitchell Placement of Children: Criminal Records Check Alters the background check process for prospective foster and adoptive parents by establishing a list of non-exemptible crimes, a list of crimes for which an exemption may be granted and a list of presumptively exemptible crimes. Support 6 SB 282 Wiener CalFresh and CalWORKs Would authorize a county to provide employment services to a noncustodial parent of a child receiving benefits under the CalWORKs Program,establish the CalFresh Restaurant Meal Program, and require the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to seek a federal waiver to allow counties participating in the CalFresh Employment and Training to offer subsidized employment to able bodied adults without dependents. Support    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 8 7 AB 1479 Bonta Public Records: Supervisor of Records: Fines Amends the Public Records Act. Requires public agencies to identify a supervisor of records who shall review a determination by the agency that a request for records is denied. Oppose   Personnel Actions   C. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22021 to reallocate the salary of the Properties Trust Officer (represented) classification in the Health Services Department. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22037 to add two Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) positions; cancel one vacant Secretary-Journey (represented) position and one Secretary-Advanced vacant position in the Department of Conservation and Development. (Cost savings)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22046 to add one Senior Business Systems Analyst (represented) position and one Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III (represented) position in the County Administrator's Office - Law & Justice Systems Division. (100% County General Fund, Budgeted)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22062 to add one Substance Abuse Program Manager (represented) position in the Health Services Department. (100% Third Party funding)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22063 to add one Housing Services Coordinator (represented) position in the Health Services Department. (100% Third Party funding)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22064 to increase the position hours of one part time Public Health Nurse - Project (represented) position from part time (20/40) to part time (24/40) in the Health Services Department. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22065 to add one Community Health Worker II position, increase the hours of one Public Health Nutritionist – Project position from part time (30/40) to full time, and cancel one Home Economist position (all represented classes) in the Health Services Department. (Cost savings)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 9 Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the State of California, 23rd District Agricultural Association, including full indemnification of the State of California, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $32,500 to provide law enforcement services at the Contra Costa County Fair for the period May 17 through May 21, 2017. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with local law enforcement agencies, including mutual indemnification, to reimburse the County for forensic services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. (100% User Agency Fee revenue)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the Town of Moraga, including mutual indemnification, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $900,000 to provide police dispatching services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2021. (100% Reimbursement Revenue)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $10,000 from the City of Brentwood to provide advisory, training, and outreach services to Brentwood businesses for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from BBVA Compass Foundation to support Small Business Development Center operating expenses for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Department of Food and Agriculture in an amount not to exceed $26,626 to place and service traps for the detection of the European Grapevine Moth for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/136 approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner or designee, to apply    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 10 C. 31 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/136 approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner or designee, to apply for and accept a California Division of Boating and Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant in an initial allocation of $220,000 for the abatement of abandoned vessels and the vessel turn in program on County waterways for the period beginning October 1, 2017 through the end of the grant funding availability. (90% State, 10% In kind match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/137 approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a Boating Safety and Equipment Grant from the California Division of Boating and Waterways, for an initial amount of $87,810, for the re-power of a damaged engine, the purchase of a mud boat, and the purchase of a Forward-Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) camera lens for the Marine Patrol Unit. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $25,020 for the Health Services Department’s Communicable Disease Program to provide Zika virus testing coordination, surveillance and outreach for the period March 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Department of Health Care Services, to make technical adjustments to the budget and increase the amount payable to County by $2,441,274 to a new payment limit of $35,036,726, for the continuation of the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment services with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit funding application to Community Awareness Emergency Response Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,400 for the Emergency Preparedness Kits for Community Wellness & Prevention Program employees conducting services in the field, for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Zebra Technologies International, LLC, in the amount of $550,000 for patient label sheets and customized adult wrist bands for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period June 5, 2017 through June 4, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 11 C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Illumina, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $109,148 to procure the MiSeq System for the Public Health Laboratory. (100% State Homeland Security grant)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with McKesson Corporation in an amount not to exceed $5,500,000 for pharmaceuticals designated as 340B replenishment inventories dispensed through ten Rite Aid pharmacies and one City Center pharmacy located within Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund III)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to enter into a contract with Admin, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $386,173 for administrative support services for the period March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2019. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, or designee, to execute Amendment Number 10 to the Customer Support Agreement with Medtel Services, LLC, for the renewal of telecommunications software and equipment maintenance in an amount not to exceed $250,000, for the period April 20, 2017 through April 19, 2018. (100% User Fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract with the United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $39,852 for wildlife damage management services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (60% Unclaimed Gas Tax; 40% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland (dba UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland) to increase the payment limit by $13,000 to a new payment limit of $28,000 with no change to the term October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, to provide reflective supervision training. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective May 1, 2017, with Minh Hiep Nguyen, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $13,000 to a new payment limit of $163,000 to provide additional pulmonology critical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 12  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract with Election Systems & Software, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the license of elections software, and to provide hardware and software maintenance services and support for the County's voting system for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director. or designee, to execute a contract with Kevin Blatter (dba Delta Bay Consulting) in an amount not to exceed $298,700 for management consulting services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Richard A. Denton, Ph.D, PE, to extend the term from December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2019 and increase the payment limit by $120,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000 for water resource consulting related to the Delta and the San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improvement Study. (80% Contra Costa County Water Agency funds and 20% Ship Channel Maintenance Assessment District funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to enter into a contract with the Contra Costa County Historical Society in an amount not to exceed $242,520 for continued support of the preservation and indexing of historical County records for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract containing modified indemnification language with John Muir Health, Inc. (dba Community Health Improvement), in an amount not to exceed $3,000 for County’s use of a mobile van for the Homeless Mobile Medical Team for the period January 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% Federal Healthcare for the Homeless grant)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lutheran Social Services of Northern California in an amount not to exceed $282,409 to provide transitional housing assistance for emancipated youth, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 13 C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet in an amount not to exceed $396,418 to provide emergency shelter receiving center services in the central region of the County, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (70% State; 30% County)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet in an amount not to exceed $410,000 to provide emergency shelter receiving center services in the eastern region of the County, for the period May 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (70% State; 30% County)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 25, 2017, with The Gordian Group, Inc. (dba The Mellon Group), to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $1,000,000 and extend the term through July 28, 2020, to continue to provide Job Order Contracting Program development and implementation services for various County projects, countywide. (100% Various Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Steven A. Harrison, M.D., A Professional Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,050,000 to provide ophthalmology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2020. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Diablo Nephrology Medical Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide nephrology services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Minimed Distribution Corp., in an amount not to exceed $600,000 to provide durable medical equipment services for Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Laura Ruano, MFT, effective April 1, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $95,000 to a new payment limit of $130,000 to provide additional specialty mental health services, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (50% Federal, 50% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 14  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to purchase on behalf of the Health Services Director, fifty (50) $20 Safeway supermarket gift cards totaling $1,000 and to execute a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $680 with Nob Hill / Raley's supermarket for food and drinks, to be provided to participants of data focus groups for the HIV/AIDS Program, for the period April 1 through December 31, 2017. (100% Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation grant)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Uplift Family Services in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide family visitation center services in a community setting for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $332,800 to provide outpatient psychiatric services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (24% Mental Health Services Act; 38% State Mental Health Realignment; 38% Federal Financial Participation)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D. in an amount not to exceed $266,240 to provide child psychiatric services at the Juvenile Hall and East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic, for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (25% Federal Financial Participation; 25% State Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment; 50% State Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with Oracle America, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $158,671 for software support and maintenance renewals for the period May 16, 2017 through May 15, 2020. (10% County; 48% State; $42% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento in an amount not to exceed $769,275 to provide mental health services for seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents for the period April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2018 in an amount not to exceed $307,710. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 15 C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective April 1, 2017, with Telecare Corporation, to increase the payment limit by $575,000 to a new payment limit of $1,927,909 for additional gero-psychiatric services, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (81% Mental Health Realignment; 19% Hospital Utilization Review)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Alternative Family Services, Inc., effective April 1, 2017 to increase the payment limit by $231,978 to a new payment limit of $976,088 to provide additional multidimensional treatment foster care services to seriously emotionally disturbed youth and their families, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017; and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $115,989 to a new payment limit of $488,044 through December 31, 2017. (50% Federal Financial Participation, 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Indra Singh, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $266,240 to provide outpatient psychiatric services at the Central County Mental Health Clinic, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. (100% Mental Health Services Act)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Daniel May, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $232,960, to provide outpatient psychiatric services at the West County Mental Health Clinic, for the period May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. (100% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with S/T Health Group Consulting, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $454,000 to provide drug pricing program compliance and price verification recovery audits per Health Resources and Services Administration requirements, for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2020. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Medical Information Technology, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $103,000 for annual maintenance of Medical Information Technology software for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 16 C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Hammons Supply Company in an amount not to exceed $165,000 for the purchase of miscellaneous custodial supplies and equipment repairs as needed by the three County detention facilities, for the period June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with PerformRX, LLC, to extend the term from April 30, 2017 through July 31, 2017, with no change in the payment limit of $95,000,000, to continue providing pharmacy administration services to Contra Costa Health Plan members. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) in an amount not to exceed $5,361,907, for temporary nursing and medical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical, Health Centers Clinics and Detention Facility for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 72 AUTHORIZE discharge from accountability of 1,348 General Assistance program accounts receivable totaling $256,577.53 that have been determined to be uncollectible, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with California State University, Sacramento, to provide supervised field instruction to physical therapist students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period June 1, 2017 through May 30, 2019. (Non-financial agreement)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 CONTINUE the emergency actions originally taken by the Board of Supervisors effective January 19 and February 14, 2017 and most recently continued by the Board on March 28, 2017 regarding the hazardous conditions caused by a series of severe rainstorms in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for temporary nursing and therapy services rendered during the period November 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 17 C. 76 ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report from the Contra Costa County Commission for Women, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 ACCEPT the March 2017 operations report of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and CERTIFY the final Jail Demolition Project environmental impact report, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (100% General Fund)       Speakers: Harlan Bailey, resident of Martinez; Kris Carlock, resident of Martinez; Melissa Jackson, resident of Lafayette (handout attached). Written commentary was also received from Annette Nunez, resident of Pacheco; Marie Knutson, resident of Martinez; Debra Reuter, resident of Martinez; Steve Older, Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Kara Lucca, resident of Martinez; Dean McLeod, Director, Architectural Preservation Foundation of Contra Costa County; Kristen Henderson, resident of Martinez (attached).     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/139 authorizing the execution and delivery of a termination agreement related to redundant affordability restrictions for the Willowbrook Apartments in Bay Point, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Owner fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa County Office of Education to provide supervised field instruction to healthcare students at various Health Services Department facilities, for the period April 18 through December 31, 2017. (Non-financial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 82 ACCEPT and APPROVE the 2017 program year annual Head Start self-assessment and corrective action plan as submitted and recommended by Employment and Human Services Director.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 18 C. 83 APPROVE recommendations from the Fish & Wildlife Committee for the allocation of 2017 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grant funds for 16 projects totaling $102,185, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 84 ACCEPT the Small Business Enterprise and Outreach Programs Report, reflecting departmental program data for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION The Board meets in all its capacities pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402, including as the Housing Authority and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Persons who wish to address the Board should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Supervisors less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 19 STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the fourth Wednesday of the month at 1:30 p.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and Candace Andersen) meets on the first Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Diane Burgis and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Diane Burgis and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee April 26, 2017 1:30 p.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee May 22, 2017 10:30 a.m.See above Finance Committee May 22, 2017 9:00 a.m.See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee June 5, 2017 1:00 p.m.See above Internal Operations Committee May 8, 2017 1:00 p.m.See above Legislation Committee May 8, 2017 10:30 a.m. See above Public Protection Committee May 1, 2017 10:30 a.m. See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee May 8, 2017 9:00 a.m. See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 20 AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 21 HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 22 WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 23 RECOMMENDATION(S): WAIVE the 180-day "sit-out period" for Fernando Bauzon, Accountant III, Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office;1. FIND that the appointment of Mr. Bauzon is necessary to fill a critically needed position;2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of county retiree Mr. Fernando Bauzon as a temporary County employee starting May 1, 2017 and serving no longer than December 31, 2017, as recommended by Treasurer-Tax Collector. 3. FISCAL IMPACT: If the request is granted there will continue to be salary and employment tax payments for the hours provided. However, these costs will be offset by savings due to the difference paid in benefits to Mr. Bauzon and the salary differential by flexing the position to Accountant I. BACKGROUND: The Treasury Unit consists of five full-time employees. Mr. Bauzon held a critical role in the unit as the Accountant with the responsibility for bank reconciliations of the various banks utilized by the County pool participants. Mr. Bauzon, who retired on March 30, 2017, has worked for the County for over 30 years. In addition, to his corporate knowledge and abundant experience, he has established well-maintained professional relationships with other County departments, school districts, special districts and agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ronda Boler, (925) 957-2806 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Request to Waive 180-day Sit-Out Period for Treasurer Tax Collector April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 24 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Office has hired a replacement for Mr. Bauzon. However, as a tightly-staffed team, the training of his replacement will significantly impact the duties of the remaining Treasury team. As a temporary retiree, Mr. Bauzon will be able to minimize the disruption of the Treasury daily operations, help maintain the best customer service to the County, as well as train and transfer his knowledge and experience to his replacement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Treasury Division’s daily operations will be significantly impacted and may be unable to efficiently and effectively train a new staff member to perform monthly bank reconciliations and daily balancing of treasury accounting operations unless the position can be backfilled by Mr. Bauzon on a temporary basis. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 25 RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive Annual Performance Evaluation Report of Alliance Emergency Medical Services covering the subject year of 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact, information report only. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Fire Protection District was awarded the contract for Emergency Ambulance Services for Exclusive Areas I, II and V covering approximately 92% of the County on January 1, 2018. Emergency Ambulance Services provided under this agreement utilize the unique emergency ambulance service delivery model known as the Alliance, with Contra Costa Fire Protection District being responsible for the subcontractor performance provided by American Medical Response. This is the first annual performance evaluation report to the Board of Supervisors of this contract. The joint presentation by the EMS Agency and Contractor (Contra Costa Fire Protection District) will describe Emergency Ambulance Services delivered during 2016. The performance evaluation specifies a report on the following: Response Time performance standards assessed with reference to the minimum requirements in the contract1. 2. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Pat Frost, 925-646-4690 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Jeff Carman, Marcy Wilhelm, Patricia Weisinger D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Annual Performance Evaluation Report of Alliance Emergency Medical Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 26 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Clinical performance standards assessed with reference to the minimum requirements in the contract. Initiation of innovative programs to improve system performance Workforce stability, including documented efforts to minimize employee turnover; Compliance of pricing and revenue recovery efforts with rules and regulations Compliance with information reporting requirements Financial stability and sustainability CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board will not receive the Alliance performance evaluation report as required under the emergency ambulance contract. ATTACHMENTS BOS Annual Performance Evaluation Report 2016 CCFPD AMR Performance Report PowerPoint April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 27 On Time LateTotal IncidentsAdjusted Total IncidentsAdjusted LateExemptions RequestedExemptions ApprovedTime Corrections ApprovedCompliance Calculated LateResponse Time Compliance7253 819 80728069 819111131350593.73%3555 158 37133706 154001282699.30%1011 0 0 0 00100.00%1011 0 0 0 00100.00%Zone A7254 819 80738070 8191111313505 93.73%TOTAL3556 158 37143707 1540012826 99.30%7991 766 87578747 7658827748294.48%4007 65 40724063 6500481799.58%48 2 5050 20020100.00%11 0 1111 00000100.00%Zone B8039 768 88078797 76788279482 94.52%TOTAL4018 65 40834074 65004817 99.58%18559 1737 2029620284 1732 1313575114894.34%9863 139 100029987 13700884999.51%97 10 107107 10005595.33%33 1 3433 00000100.00%Zone C18656 1747 2040320391 1742 13135801153 94.34%TOTAL9896 140 1003610020 137008849 99.51%174 45 219219 4500103584.02%15826 1633 1745917447 1631 1111570105293.97%8661 112 87738761 10911654399.51%469 32 501501 3200151796.61%201 2 203203 2001199.51%Zone D16469 1710 1817918167 1708 11115951104 93.92%TOTAL8862 114 89768964 111116644 99.51%Priority 11218156Priority 3128963Zone D LDPriority 1 - 20:000501Priority 3 - 45:000203Zone D BISL Priority 1 - 16:450219Zone D HDPriority 1 - 11:451217436Priority 3 - 30:00128760Priority 11220378Priority 31610020Zone C LDPriority 1 - 20:000107Priority 3 - 45:00133Zone C HDPriority 1 - 11:451220271Priority 3 - 30:00159987Priority 1108789Priority 394074Zone B LDPriority 1 - 20:00050Priority 3 - 45:00011Zone B HDPriority 1 - 11:45108739Priority 3 - 30:0094063Priority 138059Priority 373707Zone A LDPriority 1 - 20:0001Priority 3 - 45:0001ZonePriorityDo Not CountCompliance Calculated IncidentsZone A HDPriority 1 - 10:0038058Priority 3 - 30:0073706Contra Costa - Alliance Compliance Report Compliance ReportingPeriod: Feb 01 2016 to Dec 31 2016Printed on Page 1 of 1April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes28 0:00:000:00:430:01:260:02:100:02:530:03:360:04:190:05:020:05:46Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecAverage Response Time by City ‐2016Priority 1 (Lights/Sirens) ResponseAlliance Zone ARichmondApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes29 0:00:000:01:260:02:530:04:190:05:460:07:120:08:380:10:050:11:310:12:580:14:24Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecPort Costa not included due to several months with no responsesAverage Response Time by City ‐2016Priority 1 (Lights/Sirens) ResponseAlliance Zone BCrockettEl CerritoEl SobranteHerculesKensingtonPinoleRodeoSan PabloApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes30 0:00:000:01:260:02:530:04:190:05:460:07:120:08:380:10:05Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecClyde not included due to several months with no responsesAverage Response Time by City ‐2016Priority 1 (Lights/Sirens) ResponseAlliance Zone CClaytonConcordLafayetteMartinezPachecoPleasant HillWalnut CreekApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes31 0:00:000:01:260:02:530:04:190:05:460:07:120:08:380:10:050:11:310:12:580:14:24Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecAverage Response Time by City ‐2016Priority 1 (Lights/Sirens) ResponseAlliance Zone DAntiochBay PointBethel IslandBrentwoodByronDiscovery BayKnightsenOakleyPittsburgApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes32 Outlier Count Maximum  Outlier Time Minimum Outlier  Time Average Outlier  Time 90th Percentile  Outlier Time Antioch 38 0:49:00 0:19:00 0:24:30 0:35:31 Priority 1 37 0:35:57 0:19:00 0:23:50 0:32:25 Priority 3 1 0:49:00 0:49:00 0:49:00 0:49:00 Bay Point 12 0:44:34 0:21:08 0:28:46 0:44:22 Priority 1 10 0:33:58 0:21:08 0:25:41 0:33:31 Priority 3 2 0:44:34 0:43:55 0:44:14 0:44:30 Bethel Island 1 0:31:05 0:31:05 0:31:05 0:31:05 Priority 1 1 0:31:05 0:31:05 0:31:05 0:31:05 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Brentwood 16 0:46:44 0:19:01 0:28:31 0:45:33 Priority 1 13 0:46:44 0:19:01 0:24:54 0:39:36 Priority 3 3 0:45:02 0:42:53 0:44:14 0:44:59 Clayton 6 0:47:24 0:20:05 0:30:16 0:46:47 Priority 1 4 0:25:10 0:20:05 0:22:01 0:24:08 Priority 3 2 0:47:24 0:46:10 0:46:47 0:47:17 Concord 43 0:59:55 0:19:08 0:25:35 0:38:30 Priority 1 40 0:59:55 0:19:08 0:24:02 0:30:12 Priority 3 3 0:50:24 0:41:51 0:46:20 0:49:40 Crockett 3 0:20:32 0:19:59 0:20:10 0:20:26 Priority 1 3 0:20:32 0:19:59 0:20:10 0:20:26 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Discovery Bay 22 0:37:23 0:19:23 0:24:59 0:44:51 Priority 1 22 0:37:23 0:19:23 0:24:59 0:35:17 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 El Cerrito 12 0:55:52 0:19:48 0:30:22 0:51:22 Priority 1 10 0:38:16 0:19:48 0:26:46 0:37:46 Priority 3 2 0:55:52 0:40:51 0:48:22 0:33:45 El Sobrante 6 0:35:10 0:19:09 0:25:52 0:32:14 Priority 1 6 0:35:10 0:19:09 0:25:52 0:32:14 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Hercules 7 0:48:18 0:19:10 0:23:59 0:32:20 Priority 1 6 0:21:42 0:19:10 0:19:56 0:21:17 Priority 3 1 0:48:18 0:48:18 0:48:18 0:48:18 Kensington 4 0:32:37 0:19:20 0:24:00 0:29:59 Priority 1 4 0:32:37 0:19:20 0:24:00 0:29:59 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Lafayette 13 0:37:26 0:19:58 0:25:18 0:37:10 Priority 1 13 0:37:26 0:19:58 0:25:18 0:35:43 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Martinez 16 0:50:42 0:19:41 0:28:43 0:50:27 Priority 1 13 0:30:46 0:19:41 0:24:27 0:28:51 Priority 3 3 0:50:42 0:40:40 0:47:14 0:50:38 Oakley 6 0:45:10 0:19:06 0:28:00 0:41:07 Priority 1 5 0:37:04 0:19:06 0:24:35 0:31:53 Priority 3 1 0:45:10 0:45:10 0:45:10 0:45:10 Pinole 9 0:30:40 0:19:08 0:22:54 0:30:40 Priority 1 9 0:30:40 0:19:08 0:22:54 0:28:37 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Pittsburg 33 0:43:53 0:19:03 0:25:41 0:41:11 Priority 1 29 0:30:21 0:19:03 0:23:24 0:29:39 Priority 3 4 0:43:53 0:41:03 0:42:12 0:43:30 Pleasant Hill 8 0:45:04 0:20:10 0:26:14 0:34:51 Priority 1 8 0:45:04 0:20:10 0:26:14 0:34:51 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 Richmond 55 0:59:14 0:19:01 0:26:41 0:41:39 Priority 1 50 0:59:14 0:19:01 0:25:08 0:33:39 Priority 3 5 0:46:40 0:40:31 0:42:15 0:44:52 Rodeo 5 0:34:26 0:19:03 0:23:10 0:29:59 Priority 1 5 0:34:26 0:19:03 0:23:10 0:29:59 Priority 3 0 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 San Pablo 8 0:45:09 0:21:04 0:30:13 0:43:19 Priority 1 7 0:45:09 0:21:04 0:28:28 0:38:14 Priority 3 1 0:42:32 0:42:32 0:42:32 0:42:32 Walnut Creek 56 1:20:08 0:18:59 0:29:18 0:45:27 Priority 1 52 1:20:08 0:18:59 0:27:44 0:33:54 Priority 3 4 0:57:18 0:41:22 0:49:36 0:56:09 Bradford Island 1 1:01:46 1:01:46 1:01:46 1:01:46 Priority 1 LD 1 1:01:46 1:01:46 1:01:46 1:01:46 2016 Outlier Report ‐ by City/Response Priority Outlier Criteria: Priority 1: High Density (>18:59)                            Priority 1 High Density‐ Bethal Island (>29:59)                              Priority 1 Low Density (>59:59) Priority 3 High Density (>39:59) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 33 2016 Annual Performance Evaluation Emergency Medical Services (EMS)Contractor: Contra Costa Fire Protection District Subcontractor:American Medical ResponseJeff Carman, Fire Chief Contra Costa County Fire Protection DistrictPat Frost, EMS DirectorContra Costa County EMS AgencyApril 25, 20171April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes34 Performance Evaluation 2016Performance Based Contract: Operationally and Clinically measured with strong medical and quality oversightPerformance ReportResponse timesClinical PerformanceInnovationWorkforce StabilityPricing & Revenue RecoveryReporting ComplianceFiscal Stability & Sustainability2April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes35 Ambulance Service ModelOn January 1, 2016, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District assumed Emergency Ambulance Services for Exclusive Operating Areas (EOAs) I, II and V covering West, Central and East CountyAlliance Model: A unique emergency ambulance service delivery model.Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, as the contractor, is responsible for the subcontractor performance provided by American Medical Response (AMR).3April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes36 EMS Response Re‐designed4 New Response Zones4April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes37 EMS System Volume 2016Responsible for 92% of Countywide ServiceAll Providers Alliance94,731 90,15373,987 71,08320,744 19,07073,987 71,0833,428 3,26769,559 67,0601,000 75620,744 19,0706,264 5,83614,480 13,234 On Scene Transported Code 2 Transport Code Not ReportedTotal Patient Transports Transported Code 3 Transported CanceledTotal Canceled EnrouteTotal Dispatches5April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes38 Response AreaResponse Time Performance Requirement High Density (Code 3)Alliance Performance2016 Average Response Time20162015Prior ContractAveragesZone A (Richmond)10:00 minutes90% of the time93.73% 4:07 4:41Zone B (West)11:45 minutes90% of the time94.52% 4:38 5:03Zone C (Central)11:45 minutes90% of the time94.34% 4:40 5:31Zone D** (East)11:45 minutes90% of the time93.92% 4:45 5:05** 6:40***Response Time Performance ** Re‐defined Zone D includes Antioch/Bay Point/Pittsburg *** East County6April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes39 0:03:100:03:530:04:360:05:200:06:03Jan‐16 Feb‐16 Mar‐16 Apr‐16 May‐16 Jun‐16 Jul‐16 Aug‐16 Sep‐16 Oct‐16 Nov‐16 Dec‐16Alliance ‐2016Priority 1 (Lights/Sirens) ResponseAverage Response Time by Response ZoneZone AZone BZone CZone D7Zone A : RichmondZone B: West CountyZone C: Central CountyZone D: East CountyAverage Response TimeImprovement Range 20 to 115 seconds within 4 response zonesApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes40 Partners in System Optimization2017 Focus: Improve Uniformity in ResponseEven with excellent contract compliance EMS ambulance response delaysoccur in allEMS SystemsEMS Modernization Study Findings: Delays A Public ConcernFire stations closuresPopulation GrowthHospital ClosuresContract Outlier GoalsImprove Reliability in ResponseReduce risk in vulnerable communities8April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes41 Performance Expectation: Reduce OutliersOptimizing Uniform Service Delivery9April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes42 Cardiac Arrest System of Care Clinical Performance: CPR Compression RatesMeasure and Improve!Clinical InitiativeHigh Performance CPROptimal CPR Compression RateStandard: 100‐120/minuteAlliance: 104.2/minute2016 Alliance Performance10April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes43 EMS System InnovationData Driven Prehospital Care11April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes44 Reporting ComplianceOptimizing Contract Reporting Workflows12ReportsResponse ComplianceSystem UtilizationMedical OversightQuality ImprovementPatient & Provider SafetyWorkforce CompetencyFiscalApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes45 EMS as Health Care Provider Innovation through EMS System Partnerships13April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes46 Dedicated WorkforceVibrant personnelAMR (full and part time)Paramedics  ‐161EMT –173CCCFPDParamedics – 114EMT ‐12714April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes47 Fire and Ambulance personnel in the field work seamlessly together to provide professional and prompt service.  Operating out of the same dispatch center, sharing the same radio frequency which allows crews to communicate effectively and efficiently. 15Operational SystemApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes48 Labor and management working together Attrition rate– 10% (EMS average 12%) New full time employees Paramedic –7EMT –54Internal career advancementsEMT to Paramedic –716Workforce Stability2016April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes49 Revenue and RecoveryCCCFPD works closely with Intermedix (third party billing company) to ensure billing policies are adhered to.Intermedix, along with CCCFPD, adheres to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) regulations for ambulance billing reimbursement. These are federal regulations and guidelines that direct all patient care billing processes. Gross collection rate –1stquarter 2016  = 22% 17April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes50 18Customer Payer MixYear Medi‐Cal Medi‐Care Third Party/Private/ContractedInsuranceSelf Pay201017.8% 40.7% 20.2% 21.3%201120.0% 39.4% 20.3% 20.3%201221.9% 39.9% 18.5% 19.7%201321.9% 42.9% 17.0% 18.2%201427.0% 43.3% 16.8% 12.9%201526.8% 39.1% 24.5% 9.6%201627.0% 41.0% 17.0% 14.0%New Contract April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes51 Intergraded 911 dispatching operationsDecrease of call processing time by 51 secondsIncrease of over 100 ambulance unit hours/week  IPAD based Electric Patient Care Reporting SystemContinuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process –enhanced review and feedback from the CQI RNs and Medical Directors19EMS System ImprovementsApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes52 World CPR day –4000middle school students taught hands only CPRPartnered with Supervisor Gioia– information after the closure of Doctors Medical Center. Heart Screening Program PartnershipGoal of the program is to detect potential heart abnormalities Stand by ambulance services and demonstrationsOver 300hours donated 202016 Public EducationApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes53 Financial StabilityFactors impacting the EMS systemAffordable Care ActHospital Emergency Room overcrowdingIncreasing request for 911 EMS servicesThese factors are continually being evaluatedGoal –Ensure high quality and efficient patient care continue to be delivered.System costs to revenues will continue to be monitored to ensure sustainability.21April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes54 Inter‐facility (IFT) Advanced Life Support (ALS) transportBy January 2018, this service will be offered by the AllianceExploring ambulances only to Alpha and Bravo EMS callsMobile Integrated Healthcare22On the HorizonApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes55 EMS PartnershipsTaking Great Strides Together23CCCFPD‐AMR‐CCEMSApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes56 RECOMMENDATION(S): Acting as the Governing Board of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/140 approving four Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreements (the "Escrow Agreements") between the County of Contra Costa Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"), the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "Successor Agency") and U.S. Bank National Association in connection with the issuance of two series of tax allocation refunding bonds (the "Refunding Bonds") and authorizing the execution and delivery of the four Escrow Agreements. 2. AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Chair, the Executive Director, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Authority to take necessary actions and execute necessary documents in order to assist the Successor Agency with the lawful issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds, and to use the proceeds thereof to refinance five series of tax allocation bonds previously issued for the benefit of the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency. FISCAL IMPACT: The issuance of the Refunding Bonds at current market rates is expected to save over $25 million in debt service payments over the next 19 years. The savings will be distributed among the various taxing entities within the former redevelopment project areas. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Lackey 925-674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 5 To:Contra Costa County Public Financing Authority From:FINANCE COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Issuance and Sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 57 BACKGROUND: In 1999, 2003 and 2007, the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") issued bonds for the benefit of the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency (the "RDA"). The bond debt service is paid from the revenue of 12 tax increment loans made to the former redevelopment project areas (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor) from bond proceeds. Staff to the Successor Agency to the RDA (the "Successor Agency"), with assistance from the County's municipal advisor, Montague DeRose and Associates, determined that, due to prevailing market conditions, it is in the best interest of the Successor Agency to refund the existing bonds with the issuance of two series of refunding bonds (the "Refunding Bonds"). The proposed refunding is expected to save approximately $25 million in debt service payments over the next 19 years. This is a savings of 14.2 percent, which is significantly greater than the 3 percent savings required by the County's Debt Management Policy for Tax Allocation Bonds. The debt service savings will be distributed to the various taxing entities within the former redevelopment project areas. The refunding will consolidate the outstanding bonds and underlying loans resulting in a significant reduction of the monitoring and reporting burden on County staff. In addition to this recommended action of the Authority, the Finance Committee is recommending parallel actions from the Governing Board of the Successor Agency (see April 25, 2017 agenda item D.6.) If approved by the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency Oversight Board will considered authorizing the issuance of the Refunding Bonds at its May 4, 2017 meeting. The State Department of Finance must review and approve the transaction before staff can return to the Successor Agency for approval of the final bond sale transaction and associated documents. This is expected to be the only action required by the Authority. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Successor Agency will be unable to issue the Refunding Bonds and thereby increase revenue to the taxing entities in the former redevelopment project areas. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/140 Escrow Agreement for the 2007A-T Authority Bonds Escrow Agreement for the 1999 Authority Bonds Escrow Agreement for the 2003 Authority Bonds Escrow Agreement for the 2007A and 2007B Authority Bonds MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017/140 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 58 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/140 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF FOUR ESCROW AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE BY THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TWO SERIES OF TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS TO REFUND INDEBTEDNESS OF THE FORMER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND APPROVING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”) was a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Law”), including the power to borrow funds and issue bonds for any of its corporate purposes; and WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Former Agency, the Former Agency has incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) and the Former Agency, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “PH 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $21,138,030.52 of which $6,995,000 is outstanding, a 2003A Loan (the “PH 2003A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $19,195,000 of which $5,550,000 is outstanding, and a 2007A Loan (the “PH 2007A Loan,” and together with the PH 1999 Loan and the PH 2003A Loan, the “Pleasant Hill Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $37,775,000 of which $32,645,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “WP 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $8,029,984.60 of which $175,000 is outstanding, a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “WP 2007B Loan,” and together with the WP 1999 Loan and the WP 2007A Loan, the “West Pittsburg Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $5,015,000 of which $4,520,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “NR 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $16,685,000 of which $2,800,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan,” and together with the NR 2007A Loan, the “North Richmond Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 59 $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “R 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $9,775,000 of which $5,265,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan,” and together with the R 2007A Loan, the “Rodeo Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (v) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a Loan (the “MM 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $2,195,000 of which $1,390,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan,” and together with the MM 2007A Loan, the “Montalvin Manor Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the Pleasant Hill Loans, the West Pittsburg Loans, the North Richmond Loans, the Rodeo Loans and the Montalvin Manor Loans are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Agency Indebtedness”); and WHEREAS, (i) the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) (the “1999 Bonds”); (ii) the PH 2003 Loan was funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) (the “2003 Bonds”); (iii) the PH 2007A Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan, a portion of the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007A Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A Bonds”) and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007B Bonds”); and (iv) portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the R 2007B Loan, and all of the MM 2007B Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A-T Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to issue two series of refunding bonds (collectively, the “Refunding Bonds”) to, among other purposes, refinance its obligations under the Prior Agency Indebtedness, which will result in a refunding of the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds (collectively, the “Prior Authority Bonds”); and WHEREAS, in order to provide for the refunding of the Prior Authority Bonds, and otherwise implement the refinancing of the Former Agency’s obligations under the Prior Agency Indebtedness, it is necessary for the Authority to enter into four escrow deposit and trust agreements, and the Board of Directors now desires to approve such agreements and actions related thereto so that the Successor Agency can move forward with the issuance of the Refunding Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority as follows: Section 1. The four Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreements (collectively, the “Escrow Agreements”), each by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank (the “Escrow Bank”), relating to the refunding of the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds and the 2007B Bonds, and the 2007A-T Bonds, respectively, in the forms on file with the Secretary, are hereby approved. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Escrow Agreements in such forms, together with such additions thereto or changes therein as the Executive Director, upon consultation with the general counsel to the Successor Agency and Bond Counsel, deems necessary, desirable or appropriate, and the execution of the Escrow Agreements by the Executive Director shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions or changes. The Authority hereby authorizes the delivery and performance by the Authority of the Escrow Agreements. Section 2. The Chair, the Executive Director, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Authority, and any and all other officers of the Authority, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to assist the Successor Agency with the lawful issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds and the use of proceeds thereof to refinance the Prior Agency Indebtedness and to redeem the Prior Authority Bonds as described in the Escrow Agreements. Whenever in this April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 60 Resolution any officer of the Authority is authorized to execute or countersign any document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or action may be taken on behalf of such officer by any person designated by such officer to act on his or her behalf in the case such officer shall be absent or unavailable. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. Contact: Kristen Lackey 925-674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 61 D.5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 62 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 63 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 64 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 4/17/17 19134.01:J14610 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of portions of a WP 2007A Loan, a NR 2007B Loan and an R 2007B Loan, and all of a MM 2007B Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 65 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2007A- T Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “North Richmond Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Rodeo Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Montalvin Manor April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 66 -2- Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007B Loan are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Loans”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, Section 12.04 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement, Section 10.04 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement and Section 7.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007B Loan, respectively, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A-T Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2007 (as amended, the “2007A-T Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2007A-T Trustee”), proceeds of which 2007A-T Authority Bonds were used to fund all or a portion of the Prior Loans; WHEREAS, Section 11.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the WP 2007A Loan, Section 12.05 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the NR 2007B Loan, Section 10.05 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the R 2007B Loan and Section 7.05 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the MM 2007B Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the North Richmond Loan Agreement, the Rodeo Loan Agreement and the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (collectively, the “Prior Loan Agreements”) effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2007A- T Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2007A-T Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2007A-T Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2007A-T Trustee pursuant to the 2007A- T Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2007A-T Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2007A-T Authority Bonds are to be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 67 -3- redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2007A-T Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture with respect to all 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2007A-T Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 2007A-T Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 2007A-T Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 68 -4- Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 2007A-T Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2007A-T Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 2007A-T Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2007A-T Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2007A-T Authority Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 69 -5- remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2007A-T Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007A-T Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007A-T Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2007A-T Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2007A-T Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 2007A-T Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the General Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the Program Fund held under the 2007 Authority Indenture. (c) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the West Pittsburg Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts held in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Redevelopment Fund established under Section 11.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement (as defined in 2007 Indenture). (d) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture), all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 10.06 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture), and all amounts in the Taxable Account of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 7.06 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture). (e) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements not referenced in Section 5.(a), (b), (c) and (d) above, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2007A-T Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2007A-T Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 70 -6- and the resignation and removal of the 2007A-T Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 71 -7- or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2007A-T Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2007A-T Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 72 -8- Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 73 -9- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14610 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 74 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 75 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007A-T AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 76 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2037 212262 JP5 August 1, 2037 212262 JR1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 77 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2037 $ 100% 6.011% 212262 JP5 August 1, 2037 100 6.291 212262 JR1 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: _________________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 78 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 19134.01:J14595 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 1999 Loan and a WP 1999 Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo and Redevelopment Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 79 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 1999 Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), the Fomer Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “PH 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $21,138,030.52 of which $6,995,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement,” and together with the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the “Prior Loan Agreements”), the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “WP 1999 Loan,” and together with the PH Loan, the “Prior Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $8,029,984.60 of which $175,000 is outstanding; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement and Section 8.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan, respectively, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) (the “1999 Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 1999 (as amended, the “1999 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association (formerly known as U.S. Bank Trust National Association), as trustee (the “1999 Trustee”), proceeds of which 1999 Authority Bonds were used to fund the Prior Loans; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 80 -2- WHEREAS, Section 7.05(a) of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 1999 Loan and Section 8.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the WP 1999 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Prior Loan Agreements effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 1999 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 1999 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 1999 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 1999 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 1999 Trustee pursuant to the 1999 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 1999 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 1999 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 1999 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 1999 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 1999 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 1999 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 1999 Authority Indenture with respect to all 1999 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 1999 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 1999 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 81 -3- WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 1999 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 1999 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 1999 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 1999 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 1999 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 82 -4- Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 1999 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 1999 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 1999 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 1999 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 1999 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 1999 Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 1999 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 1999 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 1999 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 1999 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 1999 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 1999 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 1999 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 1999 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 1999 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 83 -5- Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 1999 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 1999 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 1999 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 1999 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 1999 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 1999 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 84 -6- deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 1999 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 1999 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 1999 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 1999 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 1999 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 1999 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 85 -7- Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 1999 Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 86 -8- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14595 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 87 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 88 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 1999 AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 89 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2019 $ 212262 CD9 August 1, 2028 212262 CE7 August 1, 2028 212262 CF4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 90 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2019 $ 100% 5.125% 212262 CD9 August 1, 2028 100 5.250 212262 CE7 August 1, 2028 100 5.450 212262 CF4 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 91 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 19134.01:J14608 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 2003 Loan, as referenced herein, from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 92 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2003 Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred, pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), a 2003 Loan (the “PH 2003 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $19,195,000 of which $5,550,000 is outstanding; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the PH 2003 Loan, which payments are a source of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) (the “2003 Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2003 (as amended, the “2003 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2003 Trustee”), proceeds of which 2003 Authority Bonds were used to fund the PH 2003 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 8.05 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 2003 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2003 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with respect to the Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 93 -2- amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with respect to the Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2003 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2003 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2003 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2003 Trustee pursuant to the 2003 Authority Indenture and the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2003 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2003 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2003 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2003 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2003 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2003 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2003 Authority Indenture with respect to all 2003 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2003 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, refund the 2003 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 94 -3- Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, the 2003 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, the 2003 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement and the 2003 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve fund held by the 2003 Trustee under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________; (iii) from the special fund held by the Successor Agency under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2003 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 95 -4- redemption of the remaining outstanding 2003 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2003 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2003 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2003 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2003 Authority Bonds or the PH 2003 Loan, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2003 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2003 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2003 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2003 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2003 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2003 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2003 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve fund held by the 2003 Trustee under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2003 Authority Indenture and the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2003 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2003 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2003 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2003 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2003 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 2003 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 96 -5- Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 97 -6- termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2003 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 2003 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2003 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2003 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2003 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2003 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2003 Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 98 -7- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14608 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 99 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 100 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2003 AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 101 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2023 $ 212262 DV8 August 1, 2033 212262 DW6 August 1, 2033 212262 ER6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 102 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2023 $ 100% 5.500% 212262 DV8 August 1, 2033 100 5.625 212262 DW6 August 1, 2033 100 5.850 212262 ER6 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 103 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 19134.01:J14609 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 2007A Loan, a portion of a WP 2007A Loan, a WP 2007B Loan, a NR 2007A Loan, a portion of a NR 2007B Loan, an R 2007A Loan, a portion of an R 2007B Loan and a MM 2007A Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) and the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 104 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2007A Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2017, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “PH 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $37,775,000 of which $32,645,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2017, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “WP 2007B Loan,” and together with the WP 1999 Loan and the WP 2007A Loan, the “West Pittsburg Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $5,015,000 of which $4,520,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “North Richmond Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “NR 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $16,685,000 of which $2,800,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan,” and together with the NR 2007A Loan, the “North April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 105 -2- Richmond Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Rodeo Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “R 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $9,775,000 of which $5,265,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan,” and together with the R 2007A Loan, the “Rodeo Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (v) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a Loan (the “MM 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $2,195,000 of which $1,390,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan,” and together with the MM 2007A Loan, the “Montalvin Manor Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the PH 2007A Loan, the West Pittsburg Loans, the North Richmond Loans, the Rodeo Loans and the Montalvin Manor Loans are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Loans”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, Sections 11.04 and 12.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, Sections 10.04 and 11.04 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement, Sections 9.04 and 10.04 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement, and Sections 2.03 and 7.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the Prior Loans, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A Authority Bonds”) and on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007B Authority Bonds,” and together with the 2007A Authority Bonds, the “2007 Authority Bonds”), both issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2017 (as amended, the “2007 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2007 Trustee”), proceeds of which 2007 Authority Bonds were used to fund all or a portion of the Prior Loans; WHEREAS, Section 9.05 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 2007A Loan, Sections 11.05 and 12.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allow for the prepayment of the WP 2007A Loan and the WP 2007B Loan, respectively, Sections 11.05 and 12.05 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement allow for prepayment of the NR 2007A Loan and the NR 2007B Loan, respectively, Sections 9.05 and 10.05 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement allow for the prepayment of the R 2007A Loan and the R 2007B Loan, respectively, and Section 2.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the MM 2007A Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the North Richmond Loan Agreement, the Rodeo Loan Agreement and the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (collectively, the “Prior Loan Agreements”), effectively April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 106 -3- provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2007 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2007 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2007 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2007 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2007 Trustee pursuant to the 2007 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2007 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2007 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2007 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2007 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2007 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2007 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2007 Authority Indenture with respect to all 2007 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2007 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 2007 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 107 -4- providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 2007 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 2007 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 108 -5- uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2007 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 2007 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2007 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2007 Authority Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2007 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2007 Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2007 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2007 Authority Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2007 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2007 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 2007 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2007 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 109 -6- Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2007 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2007 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2007 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2007 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2007 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 2007 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 110 -7- The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 2007 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2007 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2007 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2007 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2007 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 111 -8- company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2007A Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 112 -9- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14609 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 113 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 114 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007A AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007B AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 115 Exhibit C Page 1 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Date Amount Defeased CUSIP Number* August 1, 2018 $ 212262 HE2 August 1, 2019 212262 HF9 August 1, 2020 212262 HG7 August 1, 2021 212262 HH5 August 1, 2022 212262 HJ1 August 1, 2023 212262 HK8 August 1, 2024 212262 HL6 August 1, 2025 212262 HM4 August 1, 2030 212262 HP7 August 1, 2037 212262 HQ5 August 1, 2014 212262 HX0 August 1, 2019 212262 JC4 August 1, 2026 212262 JK6 August 1, 2037 212262 JM2 and County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Date Amount Defeased CUSIP Number* August 1, 2018 $ 212262 KC2 August 1, 2019 212262 KD0 August 1, 2020 212262 KE8 August 1, 2021 212262 KF5 August 1, 2026 212262 KK4 August 1, 2030 212262 KL2 August 1, 2035 212262 KM0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) and the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (collectively, the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien * Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 116 Exhibit C Page 2 of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. DATED this ______ day of ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 117 Exhibit D Page 1 EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price(1) Rate Number(2) August 1, 2018 $ 100% 5.000% 212262 HE2 August 1, 2019 100 5.000 212262 HF9 August 1, 2020 100 5.000 212262 HG7 August 1, 2021 100 5.000 212262 HH5 August 1, 2022 100 5.000 212262 HJ1 August 1, 2023 100 5.000 212262 HK8 August 1, 2024 100 5.000 212262 HL6 August 1, 2025 100 5.000 212262 HM4 August 1, 2030 100 5.000 212262 HP7 August 1, 2037 100 5.000 212262 HQ5 August 1, 2014 100 4.000 212262 HX0 August 1, 2019 100 4.350 212262 JC4 August 1, 2026 100 4.750 212262 JK6 August 1, 2037 100 4.750 212262 JM2 and County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price(1) Rate Number(2) August 1, 2018 $ 100% 4.125% 212262 KC2 August 1, 2019 100 4.250 212262 KD0 August 1, 2020 100 4.350 212262 KE8 August 1, 2021 100 4.375 212262 KF5 August 1, 2026 100 5.000 212262 KK4 August 1, 2030 100 5.000 212262 KL2 August 1, 2035 100 5.000 212262 KM0 NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay (1) Accrued interest to be added. (2) Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 118 Exhibit D Page 2 Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. Dated: ___________________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 119 RECOMMENDATION(S): Acting as the Governing Board of the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/147 that authorizes the issuance and sale of two series of tax allocation refunding bonds (the "Refunding Bonds") to refinance five series of County of Contra Costa Public Finance Authority Tax Allocation Bonds (the "Prior Agency Indebtedness") issued for the benefit of the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, and approving related documents and actions; AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the County Administrator, the County Director of Conservation and Development, and the Deputy director and Assistant Deputy Director of Conservation and Development, and the Community Development Bond Program Manager (the "Designated Officers") to take necessary actions and execute necessary documents in order to assist the Successor Agency with the lawful issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds, and to use the proceeds thereof to refinance the Prior Agency Indebtedness. 2. DETERMINE that there are significant potential savings available to the Successor Agency and to applicable taxing entities as evidenced by the Debt Service Savings Analysis; 3. APPROVE the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") between the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "Successor Agency") and U.S. Bank National Association (the "Escrow Bank") and AUTHORIZE the execution, delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the Indenture; 4. APPROVE four Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreements (the "Escrow Agreements") between the Successor Agency, County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"), and the Escrow Bank in connection with the Refunding Bonds and AUTHORIZE the execution, delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the four Escrow Agreements; 5. AUTHORIZE the sale of the Refunding Bonds to Stifel, Nicolaus & Company APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Lackey 925-674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 6 To:Successor to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency From:FINANCE COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Issuance and Sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds/Successor Agency April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 120 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) Incorporated (the "Underwriter"); APPROVE the Bond Purchase Agreement between the Underwriter and the Successor Agency (the "Agreement) and AUTHORIZE the execution, delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the Agreement; 6. AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Designated Officers to take all actions necessary to obtain a municipal bond insurance policy for the Refunding Bonds and reserve account surety bond or insurance policy for the Refunding Bonds if it is determined that such action will reduce the interest cost with respect to the Refunding Bonds; 7. DIRECT staff and consultants to prepare a form of official statement for the Refunding Bonds; 8. REQUEST the Oversight Board to undertake refunding proceedings and make certain determinations; 9. AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Secretary of the Successor Agency to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Oversight Board; and 10. AUTHORIZE the Designated Officers to approve modifications to the documents approved by this Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The issuance of Refunding Bonds at current market rates is expected to save over $25 million in debt service payments over the next 19 years. The savings will be distributed among the various taxing entities within the former redevelopment project areas. BACKGROUND: In 1999, 2003 and 2007, the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"), issued bonds for the benefit of the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "RDA"). The bond debt service is paid from the revenue of twelve tax increment loans made to the former redevelopment project areas (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo, and Montalvin Manor) from bond proceeds. Staff to the Successor Agency to the RDA (the "Successor Agency"), with assistance from the County's municipal advisor, Montague DeRose and Associates, determined that, due to prevailing market conditions, it is in the best interest of the Successor Agency to refund the existing bonds with the issuance of two series of refunding bonds (the "Refunding Bonds"). The proposed refunding is expected to save approximately $25 million in debt service payments over the next 19 years. This is a savings of 14.2 percent, which is significantly greater than the 3 percent savings required by the County's Debt Management Policy for Tax Allocation Bonds. The debt service savings will be distributed to the various taxing entities within the former redevelopment project areas. The refunding will consolidate the outstanding bonds and underlying loans resulting in a significant reduction of the monitoring and reporting burden on County staff. In addition to this recommended action of the Authority, the Finance Committee is recommending parallel actions from the Governing Board of the Successor Agency (see April 25, 2017 agenda item D.5.) If approved by the Successor Agency, the Successor Agency Oversight Board will consider authorizing the issuance of the Refunding Bonds at its May 4, 2017 meeting. The State Department of Finance must review and approve the transaction before staff can return to the Successor Agency for approval of the final bond sale transaction and associated documents. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Successor Agency will be unable to issue the Refunding Bonds and thereby increase revenue to the taxing entities in the former redevelopment project areas. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/147 Escrow Agreement for the 2007A-T Authority Bonds Indenture of Trust Debt Service Savings Analysis Escrow Agreement for the 1999 Authority Bonds Escrow Agreement for the 2003 Authority Bonds April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 121 Escrow Agreement for the 2007A and 2007B Authority Bonds Bond Purchase Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017/147 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 122 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/147 A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds to Refund Obligations of the Former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, and Approving Related Documents and Actions WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”) was a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Law”), including the power to borrow funds and issue bonds; and WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Former Agency, the Former Agency has incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) and the Former Agency, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “PH 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $21,138,030.52 of which $6,995,000 is outstanding, a 2003A Loan (the “PH 2003A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $19,195,000 of which $5,550,000 is outstanding, and a 2007A Loan (the “PH 2007A Loan,” and together with the PH 1999 Loan and the PH 2003A Loan, the “Pleasant Hill Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $37,775,000 of which $32,645,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “WP 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $8,029,984.60 of which $175,000 is outstanding, a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “WP 2007B Loan,” and together with the WP 1999 Loan and the WP 2007A Loan, the “West Pittsburg Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $5,015,000 of which $4,520,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “NR 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $16,685,000 of which $2,800,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan,” and together with the NR 2007A Loan, the “North Richmond Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 123 amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “R 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $9,775,000 of which $5,265,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan,” and together with the R 2007A Loan, the “Rodeo Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (v) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the Former Agency incurred a Loan (the “MM 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $2,195,000 of which $1,390,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan,” and together with the MM 2007A Loan, the “Montalvin Manor Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the Pleasant Hill Loans, the West Pittsburg Loans, the North Richmond Loans, the Rodeo Loans and the Montalvin Manor Loans are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Agency Indebtedness”); and WHEREAS, section 34177.5 of the Law authorizes the issuance by the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Successor Agency”) of refunding bonds pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with section 53580) of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “Refunding Law”) for the purpose of achieving debt service savings within the parameters set forth in section 34177.5(a)(1) of the Law (the “Savings Parameters”); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has now determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to refinance the Prior Agency Indebtedness by means of the issuance of (i) its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017A Bonds”) to refinance the Pleasant Hill Loans the WP 1999 Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R2007A Loan, a portion of the R2007B Loan and the MM 2007A Loan; and (ii) its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B (the “2017B Bonds,” and together with the 2017A Bonds, the “Refunding Bonds”) to refinance portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the R 2007B Loan, and all of the MM 2007B Loan, all under the provisions of section 34177.5 of the Law and the Refunding Law; and WHEREAS, to determine compliance with the Savings Parameters for purposes of the issuance by the Successor Agency of the Refunding Bonds, the Successor Agency has caused its municipal advisor, Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC (the “Municipal Advisor”), to prepare an analysis of the potential savings that will accrue to the Successor Agency and to applicable taxing entities as a result of the use of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to refund all or a portion of the Prior Agency Indebtedness (the “Debt Service Savings Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the Debt Service Savings Analysis has demonstrated that a refunding of the Prior Agency Indebtedness will satisfy the Savings Parameters; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has duly considered the above described transactions and wishes at this time to authorize the issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 34179 of the Law, an oversight board (the “Oversight Board”) has been established for the Successor Agency; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency is now requesting that the Oversight Board approve the issuance of the Refunding Bonds pursuant to this Resolution and the Indenture (defined below); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency further requests that the Oversight Board make certain determinations described below on which the Successor Agency will rely in undertaking the refunding proceedings and the issuance of the Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, following approval by the Oversight Board of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds by the Successor Agency and upon submission of this Resolution and a resolution of approval of the Oversight Board (the “Oversight Board Resolution”) to the California Department of Finance, the Successor Agency will, with the assistance of its disclosure counsel, the Municipal Advisor and its fiscal consultant, cause to be prepared a form of official statement for the Refunding Bonds describing the Refunding Bonds and containing material information relating to the Successor Agency and the Refunding Bonds, the preliminary form of which will be submitted to the Successor Agency for approval for distribution to persons and institutions interested in purchasing the Refunding Bonds. Section 1. The Successor Agency has determined that there are significant potential savings available to the Successor Agency and to applicable taxing entities in compliance with the Savings Parameters by the issuance by the Successor Agency of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 124 Refunding Bonds to provide funds to refinance the Prior Agency Indebtedness, all as evidenced by the Debt Service Savings Analysis on file with the Successor Agency Secretary, which Debt Service Savings Analysis is hereby approved. The Successor Agency further finds and determines that the issuance of the Refunding Bonds is in accordance with the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) Debt Management Policies for the Successor Agency, as set forth in Appendix 6 to the County’s Debt Management Policy approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2017/110 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County on March 21, 2017. Section 2. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes the issuance of the Refunding Bonds to refinance redevelopment and housing activities of the Former Agency by means of the refinancing of the Prior Agency Indebtedness. The Refunding Bonds shall be issued pursuant to the Law, the Refunding Law and an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee ("the Trustee"). The Successor Agency hereby approves the Indenture in the form on file with the Secretary. The Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the County Administrator, the County Director of Conservation and Development, the Deputy Director and Assistant Deputy Director of Conservation and Development, and the Community Development Bond Program Manager of the County (the "Designated Officers"), each acting alone, are hereby authorized to execute, and the Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to attest, the Indenture in said form, together with such additions thereto or changes therein as the Designated Officer executing the Indenture, upon consultation with general counsel to the Successor Agency and Bond Counsel, shall deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, and the execution of the Indenture by a Designated Officer shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions and changes. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes the delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the Indenture. Section 3. The four Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreements (collectively, the “Escrow Agreements”) relating to (i) the refinancing of the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan, and thereby the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), proceeds of which bonds were used to fund such loans; (ii) the refinancing of the PH 2003 Loan, and thereby the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), proceeds of which bonds were used to fund the PH 2003 Loan; (iii) the refinancing of the PH 2007A Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan, a portion of the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007A Loan, and thereby the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas); and (iv) the refinancing of portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the R 2007B Loan, and all of the MM 2007B Loan, and thereby the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), with each such Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be among the Successor Agency, the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, in the respective forms on file with the Secretary, are hereby approved. The Designated Officers, each acting alone, are hereby authorized to execute the Escrow Agreements in said forms, together with such additions thereto or changes therein as the Designated Officers executing the Escrow Agreements, upon consultation with general counsel to the Successor Agency and Bond Counsel, shall deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, and the execution of the Escrow Agreements by a Designated Officer shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions or changes. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes the delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the Escrow Agreements. Section 4. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes the sale of the Bonds to Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated (the “Underwriter”). The Successor Agency hereby approves the Bond Purchase Agreement, by and between the Underwriter and the Successor Agency (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), in the form on file with the Secretary, pursuant to which the Refunding Bonds shall be sold to the Underwriter. The Designated Officers, each acting alone, are hereby authorized to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement in said form, together with such additions thereto and changes therein as a Designated Officer executing the Bond Purchase Agreement, upon consultation with general counsel to the Successor Agency and Bond Counsel, shall deem necessary, desirable or appropriate, so long as the principal amount of the Refunding Bonds does not exceed the $90,000,000, the requirements of section 34177.5(a)(1) of the Law are satisfied with respect to the Refunding Bonds and the Underwriter’s discount, excluding original issue discount which does not constitute compensation to the Underwriter, does not exceed 0.50% of the initial principal amount of the Refunding Bonds, and the execution by a Designated Officer of the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of any such additions and changes. The Successor Agency hereby authorizes the delivery and performance by the Successor Agency of the Bond Purchase Agreement. Section 5. The Designated Officers, each acting alone, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to obtain a municipal bond insurance policy for the Refunding Bonds and reserve account surety bond or insurance policy for the Refunding Bonds from a municipal bond insurance company if it is determined, upon consultation with the Municipal Advisor and the Underwriter, that such municipal bond insurance policy and/or reserve account surety bond or insurance policy will reduce the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 125 interest cost with respect to the Refunding Bonds. Section 6. Following approval by the Oversight Board of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds by the Successor Agency and upon submission of this Resolution and the Oversight Board Resolution to the California Department of Finance, the Successor Agency will, with the assistance of its disclosure counsel, its fiscal consultant and its Municipal Advisor, cause to be prepared a form of official statement for the Refunding Bonds describing the Refunding Bonds and containing material information relating to the Successor Agency and the Refunding Bonds, the preliminary form of which will be submitted to the Successor Agency for approval for distribution by the Underwriter to persons and institutions interested in purchasing the Refunding Bonds. Section 7. The Successor Agency hereby requests the Oversight Board, as authorized by section 34177.5(f) of the Law, to direct the Successor Agency to undertake the refunding proceedings, and as authorized by section 34177.5(f) of the Law and section 34180 of the Law, to approve the issuance of the Refunding Bonds pursuant to section 34177.5(a)(1) of the Law, this Resolution and the Indenture. Section 8. The Successor Agency requests that the Oversight Board make the following determinations upon which the Successor Agency will rely in undertaking the refunding proceedings and the issuance of the Refunding Bonds: (i) The Successor Agency is authorized, as provided in section 34177.5(f) of the Law, to recover its costs related to the issuance of the Refunding Bonds from the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, including the cost of reimbursing the County of Contra Costa for administrative staff for time spent with respect to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds; (ii) The application of the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds by the Successor Agency to the refinancing of the Prior Agency Indebtedness, as well as the payment by the Successor Agency of costs of issuance of the Refunding Bonds, as provided in section 34177.5(a) of the Law, including municipal bond insurance and reserve fund surety bond or insurance policy premiums, shall be implemented by the Successor Agency promptly upon sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds, notwithstanding section 34177.3 of the Law or any other provision of law to the contrary, without the approval of the Oversight Board, the California Department of Finance, the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller or any other person or entity other than the Successor Agency; and (iii) The Successor Agency shall be entitled to receive its full Administrative Cost Allowance under section 34181(a)(3) of the Law without any deductions with respect to continuing costs related to the Refunding Bonds, such as trustee’s fees, auditing and fiscal consultant fees and continuing disclosure and rating agency costs (collectively, “Continuing Costs of Issuance”), and such Continuing Costs of Issuance shall be payable from property tax revenues pursuant to section 34183 of the Law; and, in addition and as provided by section 34177.5(f) of the Law, if the Successor Agency is unable to complete the issuance of the Refunding Bonds for any reason, the Successor Agency shall, nevertheless, be entitled to recover its costs incurred with respect to the refunding proceedings for the Prior Agency Indebtedness from such property tax revenues pursuant to section 34183 of the Law without reduction in its Administrative Cost Allowance. Section 9. The Secretary of the Successor Agency is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Oversight Board, and, as provided in section 34180(j) of the Law with the Contra Costa County Administrative Officer, the Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller and the California Department of Finance. Section 10. The Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the County Administrator, the County Director of Conservation and Development, the Deputy Director and Assistant Deputy Director of Conservation and Development, and the Community Development Bond Program Manager of the County, and any and all other officers of the Successor Agency, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Successor Agency, to do any and all things and take any and all actions, including execution and delivery of any and all assignments, certificates, requisitions, agreements, notices, consents, instruments of conveyance, warrants and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in obtaining the requested approvals by the Oversight Board and the Calfornia Department of Finance, and in the issuance, sale and delivery of the Refunding Bonds. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to approve modifications to the documents approved by this Resolution (a) to allow for municipal bond insurance and a reserve fund surety bond or insurance policy for the Refunding Bonds if, upon the advice of the Municipal Advisor, such insurance and/or surety bond are advantageous to the Successor Agency in the circumstances, and (b) to remove one or more of the Prior Agency Indebtedness loans from the documents if necessary for the Refunding Bonds to satisfy the requirements of section 34177.5(a)(1) of the Law. Whenever in this Resolution any officer of the Successor Agency is authorized to execute or countersign any document or take any action, such execution, countersigning or action may be taken on behalf of such officer by any person designated by such officer to act on his or her behalf in the case such officer shall be absent or unavailable. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 126 Section 11. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. Contact: Kristen Lackey 925-674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 127 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 128 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 129 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 130 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 131 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 4/17/17 19134.01:J14610 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of portions of a WP 2007A Loan, a NR 2007B Loan and an R 2007B Loan, and all of a MM 2007B Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 132 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2007A- T Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “North Richmond Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Rodeo Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Montalvin Manor April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 133 -2- Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007B Loan are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Loans”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, Section 12.04 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement, Section 10.04 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement and Section 7.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007B Loan, respectively, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A-T Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2007 (as amended, the “2007A-T Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2007A-T Trustee”), proceeds of which 2007A-T Authority Bonds were used to fund all or a portion of the Prior Loans; WHEREAS, Section 11.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the WP 2007A Loan, Section 12.05 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the NR 2007B Loan, Section 10.05 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the R 2007B Loan and Section 7.05 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the MM 2007B Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the North Richmond Loan Agreement, the Rodeo Loan Agreement and the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (collectively, the “Prior Loan Agreements”) effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2007A- T Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2007A-T Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2007A-T Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2007A-T Trustee pursuant to the 2007A- T Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2007A-T Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2007A-T Authority Bonds are to be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 134 -3- redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2007A-T Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture with respect to all 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2007A-T Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 2007A-T Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 2007A-T Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 135 -4- Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 2007A-T Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2007A-T Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 2007A-T Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2007A-T Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2007A-T Authority Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 136 -5- remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2007A-T Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007A-T Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007A-T Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2007A-T Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2007A-T Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 2007A-T Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the General Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the Program Fund held under the 2007 Authority Indenture. (c) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the West Pittsburg Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts held in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Redevelopment Fund established under Section 11.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement (as defined in 2007 Indenture). (d) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the 2017 Trustee, for deposit by the 2017 Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05 of the 2017 Indenture, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture), all amounts in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 10.06 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture), and all amounts in the Taxable Account of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 7.06 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (as defined in the 2007 Indenture). (e) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements not referenced in Section 5.(a), (b), (c) and (d) above, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2007A-T Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2007A-T Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2007A-T Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 137 -6- and the resignation and removal of the 2007A-T Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 138 -7- or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2007A-T Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2007A-T Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2007A-T Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2007A-T Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2007A-T Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2007A-T Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 139 -8- Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 140 -9- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14610 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 141 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 142 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007A-T AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 143 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2037 212262 JP5 August 1, 2037 212262 JR1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on August 1, 2037 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 144 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2037 $ 100% 6.011% 212262 JP5 August 1, 2037 100 6.291 212262 JR1 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: _________________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 145 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 4/17/17 19134.01:J14596 INDENTURE OF TRUST by and between the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee dated as of __________ 1, 2017 Relating to: $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 146 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I DETERMINATIONS; DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Findings and Determinations ..........................................................................................................................5 Section 1.02. Definitions ..........................................................................................................................................................5 Section 1.03. Rules of Construction .....................................................................................................................................15 ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION AND TERMS Section 2.01. Authorization of Bonds ..................................................................................................................................16 Section 2.02. Terms of Bonds ................................................................................................................................................16 Section 2.03. Redemption of Bonds. ....................................................................................................................................17 Section 2.04. Forms of Bonds ................................................................................................................................................21 Section 2.05. Execution of Bonds .........................................................................................................................................21 Section 2.06. Transfer of Bonds ............................................................................................................................................21 Section 2.07. Exchange of Bonds ..........................................................................................................................................22 Section 2.08. Registration of Bonds .....................................................................................................................................22 Section 2.09. Temporary Bonds ............................................................................................................................................22 Section 2.10. Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen ...............................................................................................22 Section 2.11. CUSIP Numbers ..............................................................................................................................................23 Section 2.12. Book-Entry Only System ................................................................................................................................23 Section 2.13. Successor Securities Depository; Transfer Outside Book-Entry Only System .......................................24 ARTICLE III DEPOSIT AND APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF BONDS; PARITY DEBT Section 3.01. Issuance of Bonds ............................................................................................................................................25 Section 3.02. Application of Proceeds of Sale ....................................................................................................................25 Section 3.03. Costs of Issuance Fund. ..................................................................................................................................26 Section 3.04. Program Fund ..................................................................................................................................................27 Section 3.05. Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund .................................................................................................27 Section 3.06. Issuance ............................................................................................................................................................27 Section 3.07. Validity of Bonds .............................................................................................................................................28 ARTICLE IV SECURITY OF BONDS; FLOW OF FUNDS Section 4.01. Security of Bonds; Equal Security .................................................................................................................29 Section 4.02. Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund; Deposit of Tax Revenues ...............................................29 Section 4.03. Deposit of Amounts by Trustee ....................................................................................................................29 ARTICLE V COVENANTS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY Section 5.01. Covenants of the Successor Agency .............................................................................................................33 ARTICLE VI THE TRUSTEE Section 6.01. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Trustee .............................................................................................38 Section 6.02. Merger or Consolidation ................................................................................................................................39 Section 6.03. Liability of Trustee ..........................................................................................................................................39 Section 6.04. Right to Rely on Documents and Opinions ................................................................................................41 Section 6.05. Preservation and Inspection of Documents ................................................................................................42 Section 6.06. Compensation and Indemnification .............................................................................................................42 Section 6.07. Deposit and Investment of Moneys in Funds .............................................................................................42 Section 6.08. Accounting Records and Financial Statements ..........................................................................................44 Section 6.09. Appointment of Co-Trustee or Agent ..........................................................................................................44 Section 6.10. Other Transactions with Successor Agency ................................................................................................45 ARTICLE VII MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THIS INDENTURE Section 7.01. Amendment .....................................................................................................................................................46 Section 7.02. Effect of Supplemental Indenture .................................................................................................................46 Section 7.03. Endorsement or Replacement of Bonds After Amendment .....................................................................47 Section 7.04. Amendment by Mutual Consent ..................................................................................................................47 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 147 -ii- ARTICLE VIII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF OWNERS Section 8.01. Events of Default .............................................................................................................................................48 Section 8.02. Remedies of Bondowners ..............................................................................................................................48 Section 8.03. Application of Funds ......................................................................................................................................49 Section 8.04. Limitation on Owner’s Right to Sue .............................................................................................................49 Section 8.05. Non-Waiver .....................................................................................................................................................50 Section 8.06. Actions by Trustee as Attorney-in-Fact .......................................................................................................50 Section 8.07. Remedies Not Exclusive .................................................................................................................................50 Section 8.08. Parties Interested Herein ...............................................................................................................................50 ARTICLE IX PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURER AND THE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE POLICY Section 9.01. Provisions Relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer and the Municipal Bond Insurance ....................51 ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS Section 10.01. Benefits Limited to Parties .............................................................................................................................52 Section 10.02. Successor is Deemed Included in All References to Predecessor ............................................................52 Section 10.03. Discharge of Indenture ...................................................................................................................................52 Section 10.04. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Owners ................................................................53 Section 10.05. Disqualified Bonds ..........................................................................................................................................53 Section 10.06. Waiver of Personal Liability ..........................................................................................................................53 Section 10.07. Destruction of Canceled Bonds .....................................................................................................................53 Section 10.08. Notices ..............................................................................................................................................................54 Section 10.09. Partial Invalidity .............................................................................................................................................54 Section 10.10. Unclaimed Moneys .........................................................................................................................................55 Section 10.11. Execution in Counterparts .............................................................................................................................55 Section 10.12. Governing Law ................................................................................................................................................55 EXHIBIT A: FORM OF 2017A BONDS EXHIBIT B: FORM OF 2017B BONDS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 148 INDENTURE OF TRUST THIS INDENTURE OF TRUST (this “Indenture”) is dated as of __________ 1, 2017, is by and between the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee (the “Trustee”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”) was a public body, corporate and politic, duly established and authorized to transact business and exercise powers under and pursuant to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Law”), including the power to borrow funds for any of its corporate purposes; WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Former Agency, the Former Agency has incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “PH 1999 Loan”) of which $6,995,000 is outstanding, a 2003A Loan (the “PH 2003A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $19,195,000 of which $5,550,000 is outstanding, and a 2007A Loan (the “PH 2007A Loan,” and together with the PH 1999 Loan and the PH 2003A Loan, the “Pleasant Hill Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $37,775,000 of which $32,645,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “WP 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $8,029,984.60 of which $175,000 is outstanding, a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “WP 2007B Loan,” and together with the WP 1999 Loan and the WP 2007A Loan, the “West Pittsburg Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $5,015,000 of which $4,520,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 149 -2- 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “North Richmond Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “NR 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $16,685,000 of which $2,800,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan,” and together with the NR 2007A Loan, the “North Richmond Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Rodeo Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “R 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $9,775,000 of which $5,265,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan,” and together with the R 2007A Loan, the “Rodeo Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (v) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a Loan (the “MM 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $2,195,000 of which $1,390,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan,” and together with the MM 2007A Loan, the “Montalvin Manor Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the Pleasant Hill Loans, the West Pittsburg Loans, the North Richmond Loans, the Rodeo Loans and the Montalvin Manor Loans are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Agency Indebtedness”); WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the California Legislature adopted ABx1 26 (the “Dissolution Act”) and ABx1 27 (the “Opt-in Bill”); WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court subsequently upheld the provisions of the Dissolution Act and invalidated the Opt-in Bill resulting in the Former Agency being dissolved as of February 1, 2012; WHEREAS, the powers, assets and obligations of the Former Agency were transferred on February 1, 2012, to the Successor Agency; WHEREAS, on or about June 27, 2012, the California Legislature adopted AB 1484 as a trailer bill in connection with the 2012-13 California Budget; WHEREAS, AB 1484 added various provisions to the Law, including section 34177.5(a)(1) thereof which specifically authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds by the Successor Agency in certain circumstances to refund bonds and indebtedness of the Former Agency; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 150 -3- WHEREAS, on or about September 17, 2015, the California Legislature adopted SB 107 as a trailer bill in connection with the 2015-16 California Budget; WHEREAS, SB 107 revised various provisions of the Law, including removing certain time limits affecting the number of tax dollars and other statutory limitations on redevelopment plans; WHEREAS, section 34179 of the Law established an oversight board (the “Oversight Board”) for the Successor Agency; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to refinance the Prior Agency Indebtedness; WHEREAS, (i) the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) (the “1999 Bonds”); (ii) the PH 2003 Loan was funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) (the “2003 Bonds”); (iii) the PH 2007A Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan, a portion of the R 2007B Loan, and the MM 2007A Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A Bonds”) and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007B Bonds”); and (iv) portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the R 2007B Loan, and all of the MM 2007B Loan were funded with proceeds of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A-T Bonds,” and together with the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds and the 2007B Bonds, the “Prior Authority Bonds”); WHEREAS, to provide moneys to prepay the Prior Agency Indebtedness and thereby refund the Prior Authority Bonds, the Successor Agency has determined to issue its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A, in the aggregate principal amount of $__________ (the “2017A Bonds”), and its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B, in the aggregate principal amount of $__________ (the “2017B Bonds” and, with the 2017A Bonds, the “Bonds”), under the provisions of section 34177.5(g) of the Law and Article 11 (commencing with Section 53580) of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that the total net interest cost to maturity of the Bonds plus the principal amount of the Bonds will not exceed the total net interest cost to maturity of the Prior Agency Indebtedness to be refinanced plus the principal amount of the Prior Agency Indebtedness to be refinanced; WHEREAS, in order to provide for the authentication and delivery of the Bonds, to establish and declare the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are to be issued and secured and to secure the payment of the principal thereof and interest and redemption April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 151 -4- premium (if any) thereon, the Successor Agency and the Trustee have duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Indenture; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that all acts and proceedings required by law necessary to make the Bonds when executed by the Successor Agency and authenticated and delivered by the Trustee, the valid, binding and legal special obligations of the Successor Agency, and to constitute this Indenture a legal, valid and binding agreement for the uses and purposes herein set forth in accordance with its terms, have been done or taken. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, that in order to secure the payment of the principal of and the interest and redemption premium (if any) on all the Bonds issued and Outstanding under this Indenture, according to their tenor, and to secure the performance and observance of all the covenants and conditions therein and herein set forth, and to declare the terms and conditions upon and subject to which the Bonds are to be issued and received, and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants herein contained and of the purchase and acceptance of the Bonds by the Owners thereof, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Successor Agency and the Trustee do hereby covenant and agree with one another, for the benefit of the respective Owners from time to time of the Bonds, as follows: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 152 -5- ARTICLE I DETERMINATIONS; DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Findings and Determinations. The Successor Agency has reviewed all proceedings heretofore taken and has found, as a result of such review, and hereby finds and determines that all things, conditions and acts required by law to exist, happen or be performed precedent to and in connection with the issuance of the Bonds do exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by law, and the Successor Agency is now duly empowered, pursuant to each and every requirement of law, to issue the Bonds in the manner and form provided in this Indenture. Section 1.02. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 1.02 shall, for all purposes of this Indenture, of any Supplemental Indenture, and of any certificate, opinion or other document herein mentioned, have the meanings herein specified. “Act” means Articles 1 through 4 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State, as in existence on the Closing Date or as thereafter amended from time to time. “Annual Debt Service” means, for each Bond Year, the sum of (a) the interest payable on the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Debt in such Bond Year, assuming that the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt are retired as scheduled, and (b) the principal or sinking fund amount of the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt payable by their terms in such Bond Year. “Authority” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority. “Bond Law” means the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985, constituting Article 4 of the Act (commencing with Section 6584), as in existence on the Closing Date or as thereafter amended from time to time. “Bond Proceeds Account” means the temporary account on the Trustee’s records to facilitate the deposits and transfers of the proceeds of the Bonds. “Bond Year” means any twelve-month period beginning on June 2 in any year and ending on the next succeeding August 1, both dates inclusive, except that the first Bond Year shall begin on the Closing Date, and end on August 1, 2017. “Bonds” means, collectively, the 2017A Bonds and the 2017B Bonds. “Business Day” means a day of the year, other than a Saturday or Sunday, on which banks in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, are not required or permitted to be closed and on which the New York Stock Exchange is not closed. “Certificate of the Successor Agency” means a certificate in writing signed by the Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the County Administrator, the County Director of Conservation and Development, the Assistant Deputy Director of Conservation and Development, the County Director of Redevelopment, and the Community Development Bond Program Manager of the County. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 153 -6- “Closing Date” means __________, 2017, the date on which the Bonds are delivered by the Successor Agency to the original purchaser thereof. “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on the date of issuance of the Bonds or (except as otherwise referenced herein) as it may be amended to apply to obligations issued on the date of issuance of the Bonds, together with applicable temporary and final regulations promulgated, and applicable official public guidance published, under the Code. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” means the Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the Successor Agency dated as of the Closing Date, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. “Costs of Issuance” means all items of expense directly or indirectly payable by or reimbursable to the Successor Agency relating to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and the refinancing of the Prior Agency Indebtedness, including but not limited to printing expenses, operating expenses, rating agency fees, filing and recording fees, initial fees and charges and first annual administrative fee of the Trustee and fees and expenses of its counsel, Escrow Bank fees and those of its counsel, fees, charges and disbursements of attorneys, municipal advisors, fiscal consultants, accounting firms, consultants and other professionals, fees and charges for preparation, execution and safekeeping of the Bonds, premiums for the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy and the Reserve Policy and any other cost, charge or fee in connection with the issuance of the Bonds and the refinancing of the Prior Agency Indebtedness. “Costs of Issuance Fund” means the fund by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 3.03. “County” means Contra Costa County, California. “Debt Service Fund” means the fund by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03. “Defeasance Obligations” means (a) cash, (b) direct non-callable obligations of the United States of America, (c) securities fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by the United States of America, to which direct obligation or guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States of America has been pledged, (d) Refcorp interest strips, (e) CATS, TIGRS, STRPS, (f) defeased municipal bonds rated AAA by S&P or Aaa by Moody’s, and (g) or any combination of the foregoing. “Dissolution Act” means Parts 1.8 (commencing with section 34161) and 1.85 (commencing with section 34170) of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, as amended. “Escrow Agreements” means, collectively, the 1999 Escrow Agreement, the 2003 Escrow Agreement, the 2007A and B Escrow Agreement and the 2007A-T Escrow Agreement. “Escrow Bank” means U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow agent under the Escrow Agreements, or any successor thereto appointed as escrow bank thereunder. “Event of Default” means any of the events described in Section 8.01. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 154 -7- “Federal Securities” means (a) cash, and (b) obligations of, or obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, when such obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States including: (i) United States treasury obligations, (ii) all direct or fully guaranteed obligations, (iii) Farmers Home Administration, (iv) General Services Administration, (v) Guaranteed Title XI financing, (vi) Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), and (vi) State and Local Government Series. “Fiscal Year” means any twelve-month period beginning on July 1 in any year and extending to the next succeeding June 30, both dates inclusive, or any other twelve month period selected and designated by the Successor Agency to the Trustee in writing as its official fiscal year period. “Former Agency” means the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency. “Indenture” means this Indenture of Trust by and between the Successor Agency and the Trustee, as originally entered into or as it may be amended or supplemented by any Supplemental Indenture entered into pursuant to the provisions hereof. “Independent Accountant” means any accountant or firm of such accountants duly licensed or registered or entitled to practice and practicing as such under the laws of the State, appointed by the Successor Agency, and who, or each of whom: (a) is in fact independent and not under domination of the Successor Agency; (b) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with the Successor Agency; and (c) is not connected with the Successor Agency as an officer or employee of the Successor Agency, but who may be regularly retained to make reports to the Successor Agency. “Independent Financial Consultant” means any financial consultant or firm of such consultants appointed by the Successor Agency, and who, or each of whom: (a) is in fact independent and not under domination of the Successor Agency; (b) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with the Successor Agency, other than as original purchaser of the Bonds or any Parity Debt; and (c) is not connected with the Successor Agency as an officer or employee of the Successor Agency, but who may be regularly retained to make reports to the Successor Agency. “Independent Redevelopment Consultant” means any consultant or firm of such consultants appointed by the Successor Agency, and who, or each of whom: (a) is judged by the Successor Agency to have experience in matters relating to the collection of Tax Revenues or otherwise with respect to the financing of Redevelopment Project; (b) is in fact independent and not under domination of the Successor Agency; (c) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with the Successor Agency; and (d) is not connected with the Successor Agency as an officer or employee of the Successor Agency, but who may be regularly retained to make reports to the Successor Agency. “Information Services” means the Electronic Municipal Market Access System (referred to as “EMMA”), a facility of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (at http://emma.msrb.org) or, in accordance with then current guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such other addresses and/or such other national information services providing information with respect to called bonds as the Successor Agency may designate in a Written Certificate of the Successor Agency delivered to the Trustee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 155 -8- “Interest Account” means the account by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03(a). “Interest Payment Date” means February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2018, so long as any of the Bonds remain Outstanding hereunder. “Last and Final ROPS” means a Last and Final Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule authorized by Section 34191.6 of the Dissolution Act. [“Late Payment Rate” means the lesser of (a) the greater of (i) the per annum rate of interest, publicly announced from time to time by JPMorgan Chase Bank at its principal office in the City of New York, as its prime or base lending rate (“Prime Rate”) (any change in such Prime Rate to be effective on the date such changes are announced by JPMorgan Chase Bank) plus 3%, and (ii) then applicable highest rate of interest on the Bonds, and (b) the maximum rate permissible under applicable usury or similar laws limiting interest rates. The Late Payment Rate shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days elapsed over a year of 360 days. In the event JPMorgan Chase Bank ceases to announce its Prime Rate publicly, Prime Rate shall be the publicly announced prime or base lending rate of such bank, banking association or trust company bank as the Municipal Bond Insurer in its sole and absolute discretion shall specify.] “Law” means the Community Redevelopment Law of the State, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto. “Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund” means the fund by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 3.05. “Maximum Annual Debt Service” means, as of the date of calculation, the largest Annual Debt Service for the current or any future Bond Year following the anticipated issuance of Bonds and Parity Debt. “Moody’s” means Moody’s Investors Service, its successors and assigns. “Municipal Bond Insurance Policy” means the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy issued by the Municipal Bond Insurer that guarantees the scheduled payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. “Municipal Bond Insurer” means ___________________________ or any successor thereto. “Original Purchaser” means Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated, the original purchaser of the Bonds upon their delivery by the Trustee on the Closing Date. “Outstanding” when used as of any particular time with reference to Bonds, means (subject to the provisions of Section 10.05) all Bonds except: (a) Bonds theretofore canceled by the Trustee or surrendered to the Trustee for cancellation; (b) Bonds paid or deemed to have been paid within the meaning of Section 10.03; and (c) Bonds in lieu of or in substitution for which other Bonds shall have been authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the Successor Agency pursuant hereto. “Oversight Board” means the oversight board to the Successor Agency duly constituted from time to time pursuant to section 34179 of the Dissolution Act. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 156 -9- “Owner” or “Bondowner” or “Bond Owner,” when used with respect to the Bonds, means the person in whose name the ownership of the Bonds shall be registered on the Bond Registration Books. “Parity Debt” means any loans, advances or indebtedness issued or incurred by the Successor Agency on a parity with the Bonds pursuant to Section 3.06. “Participating Underwriter” has the meaning ascribed thereto in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Permitted Investments” means the following, but only to the extent that the same are acquired at Fair Market Value: (a) Federal Securities. (b) Bonds, debentures, notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued or guaranteed by any of the following federal agencies and provided such obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America (stripped securities are only permitted if they have been stripped by the agency itself): 1. U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) Direct obligations or fully guaranteed certificates of beneficial ownership 2. U.S. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Certificates of Beneficial Ownership 3. Federal Financing Bank 4. Federal Housing Administration Debentures (FHA) 5. General Services Administration Participation Certificates 6. Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae) GNMA—guaranteed mortgage-backed bonds GNMA—guaranteed pass-through obligations 7. U.S. Maritime Administration Guaranteed Title XI financing 8. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Project Notes Local Authority Bonds New Communities Debentures - U.S. government guaranteed debentures U.S. Public Housing Notes and Bonds - U.S. government guaranteed public housing notes and bonds (c) Bonds, debentures, notes or other evidence of indebtedness issued or guaranteed by any of the following federal agencies which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America (stripped securities are only permitted if they have been stripped by the agency itself): 1. Federal Home Loan Bank System Senior debt obligations April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 157 -10- 2. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac) Participation Certificate Senior debt obligations 3. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) Mortgage-backed securities and senior debt obligations 4. Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA or Sallie Mae) Senior debt obligations 5. Resolution Funding Corp. (REFCORP) obligations 6. Farm Credit System Consolidated systemwide bonds and notes (d) Money market funds registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940, whose shares are registered under the Federal Securities Act of 1933, which invest solely in Federal Securities, if rated by S&P, having a rating of AAAm-G; and if rated by Moody’s having a rating of Aaa, including such funds for which the Trustee, its affiliates or subsidiaries provide investment advisory or other management services or for which the Trustee or an affiliate of the Trustee serves as investment administrator, shareholder servicing agent, and/or custodian or subcustodian, notwithstanding that (i) the Trustee or an affiliate of the Trustee receives fees from funds for services rendered, (ii) the Trustee collects fees for services rendered pursuant to this Indenture, which fees are separate from the fees received from such funds, and (iii) services performed for such funds and pursuant to this Indenture may at times duplicate those provided to such funds by the Trustee or an affiliate of the Trustee. (e) Certificates of deposit secured at all times by collateral described in (A) and/or (B) above. Such certificates must be issued by commercial banks or savings and loan associations (including the Trustee or its affiliates). The collateral must be held by a third party and the bondholders must have a perfected first security interest in the collateral. (f) Certificates of deposit, savings accounts, deposit accounts or money market deposits which are fully insured by FDIC including those of the Trustee or its affiliates or secured at all times by collateral described in (a) and/or (b) above. (g) Commercial paper rated, at the time of purchase, “Prime-1” by Moody’s and “A-1” or better by S&P. (h) Deposit accounts, Federal funds or bankers acceptances with a maximum term of 180 days of any bank which has an unsecured, uninsured and unguaranteed obligation rating of “Prime-1” or better by Moody’s and “A-1” or better by S&P. (i) The Local Agency Investment Fund of the State, created pursuant to section 16429.1 of the California Government Code. (j) Other forms of investments that satisfy the County’s Statement of Investment Policy. “Principal Account” means the account by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03(b). “Principal Corporate Trust Office” means such corporate trust office of the Trustee as may be designated from time to time by written notice from the Trustee to the Successor Agency, initially being at 633 West Fifth Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Attention: Global Corporate Trust Services, except that, with respect to presentation of Bonds for payment or for April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 158 -11- registration of transfer and exchange, such term shall mean the office or agency of the Trustee at which, at any particular time, its corporate trust operations and agency business shall be conducted, initially in St. Paul, Minnesota. “Prior Agency Indebtedness” has the meaning given to such term in the second Recital to this Indenture. “Prior Agency Loan Agreements” means collectively, the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the North Richmond Loan Agreement, the Rodeo Loan Agreement and the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, as such terms are defined in the second Recital to this Indenture. “Prior Authority Bonds” means, collectively, the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds. “Program Fund” means the fund by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 3.04. “Rating Category” means any generic rating category of Moody’s or S&P, without regard to any refinement of such category by plus or minus sign or by numerical or other qualifying designation. “Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule” or “ROPS” means a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, prepared and approved from time to time pursuant to subdivision (l) of section 34177 of the Dissolution Act. “Record Date” means, with respect to any Interest Payment Date, the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) calendar day of the month preceding such Interest Payment Date, whether or not such fifteenth (15th) calendar day is a Business Day. “Redemption Account” means the account by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03(e). “Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund” means the fund by that name established pursuant to section 34170.5 of the Dissolution Act and referenced in Section 4.02 of this Indenture. “Redevelopment Plan” means, collectively, the “Redevelopment Plan,” as such term is defined in each of the several Prior Agency Loan Agreements. “Redevelopment Project” means, collectively, the “Redevelopment Project,” as such term is defined in each of the several Prior Agency Loan Agreements. “Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund” means the fund established under section 34170.5(b) of the Law and administered by the County Auditor-Controller. “Refunding Bond Law” means, collectively, section 34177.5(g) of the Law and section 53580 et seq. of the California Government Code “Registration Books” means the records maintained by the Trustee pursuant to Section 2.08 for the registration and transfer of ownership of the Bonds. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 159 -12- “Reimbursement Agreements” means, collectively, (a) the Revocable Grant Agreement, entered into as of November 1, 1998, between the Former Agency and Coggins Square Associates, a California Limited Partnership, and (b) the Agency Assistance Agreement, made as of December 19, 2005, between the Former Agency and Pleasant Hill Transit Village Associates LLC (“Pleasant Hill Transit”), as amended by a First Amendment to Agency Assistance Agreement, dated as of February 25, 2008, and by a Second Amendment to Agency Assistance Agreement, dated as of February 9, 2010, each between the Former Agency and Pleasant Hill Transit. “Report” means a document in writing signed by an Independent Financial Consultant or an Independent Redevelopment Consultant and including: (a) a statement that the person or firm making or giving such Report has read the pertinent provisions of this Indenture to which such Report relates; (b) a brief statement as to the nature and scope of the examination or investigation upon which the Report is based; and (c) a statement that, in the opinion of such person or firm, sufficient examination or investigation was made as is necessary to enable said consultant to express an informed opinion with respect to the subject matter referred to in the Report. “Reserve Account” means the account by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03(d). “Reserve Policy” means the Municipal Bond Debt Service Reserve Insurance Policy issued by the Municipal Bond Insurer in lieu of a cash funded reserve fund for the Bonds in an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement. “Reserve Requirement” means, as of any date of calculation, to be equal to the least of (a) Maximum Annual Debt Service for then current or every subsequent Bond Year, (b) 125% of average Annual Debt Service for then current or every subsequent Bond Year, and (c) 10% of the original principal amount of the Bonds and any Parity Debt. On the Closing Date, such amount is $___________. “Responsible Officer” means any Vice President, Assistant Vice President or Trust Officer of the Trustee with responsibility for matters related to this Indenture. “ROPS” means a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, as contemplated by the Dissolution Act. “ROPS Payment Period” means the six-month fiscal period (commencing on each January 1 and July 1) during which monies distributed on a RPTTF Distribution Date are permitted to be expended under the Dissolution Act. “ROPS Period” means the twelve-month fiscal period (commencing on each July 1) covered by a ROPS; provided, that if the Dissolution Act is hereafter amended, such that each ROPS covers a fiscal period of a different length, or if the Successor Agency adopts a Last and Final ROPS that is approved by the Oversight Board and the State Department of Finance, then “ROPS Period” shall mean such other fiscal period per the Dissolution Act, as amended, or the fiscal period covered by the Last and Final ROPS, as applicable. “RPTTF Distribution Date” means each January 2 and June 1, as specified in Section 34183 of the Dissolution Act, on which the County Auditor-Controller allocates and distributes to the Successor Agency monies from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund for payment on enforceable obligations pursuant to an approved ROPS. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 160 -13- “S&P” means Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, a Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC business, New York, New York, or its successors. “Securities Depositories” means The Depository Trust Company, and, in accordance with then current guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such other addresses and/or such other securities depositories as the Successor Agency may designate in a Certificate of the Successor Agency delivered to the Trustee. “Sinking Account” means the account by that name established and held by the Trustee pursuant to Section 4.03(c). “State” means the State of California. “Statutory Pass-Through Amounts” means all amounts required to be paid to affected taxing agencies pursuant to sections 33607.5 and/or 33607.7 of the Law and section 34183 of the Dissolution Act. “Successor Agency” means the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, as successor to the Former Agency, a public body corporate and politic duly organized and existing under the Law. “Supplemental Indenture” means any resolution, agreement or other instrument which has been duly adopted or entered into by the Successor Agency, but only if and to the extent that such Supplemental Indenture is specifically authorized hereunder. “Tax Revenues” means the moneys deposited from time to time in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund established pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 34172 of the Dissolution Act, as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 of the Dissolution Act, after payment of (a) County administrative fees pursuant to section 34183(a) of the Dissolution Act, and (b) the amounts required by the Reimbursement Agreements and the Statutory Pass-Through Amounts, to the extent not subordinated to the use of Tax Revenues for the payment of amounts due under this Indenture. If, and to the extent, that the provisions of section 34172 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 of the Dissolution Act are invalidated by a final judicial decision, then Tax Revenues shall include all tax revenues allocated to the payment of indebtedness of the Successor Agency pursuant to section 33670 of the Law or such other section as may be in effect at the time providing for the allocation of tax increment revenues to the Successor Agency in accordance with Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution. “Term Bonds” means the 2017A Bonds maturing on August 1, ____ and August 1, ____; the 2017B Bonds maturing on August 1, ____ and August 1, ____; and any Parity Debt the principal thereof is payable from sinking fund installments. “Trustee” means U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee hereunder, or any successor thereto appointed as trustee hereunder in accordance with the provisions of Article VI. “1999 Bonds” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), proceeds of which were used to fund the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan (as such terms are defined in the second Recital of this Indenture). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 161 -14- “1999 Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency and the Escrow Bank, to provide for the defeasance and redemption of the 1999 Bonds. “2003 Bonds” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), proceeds of which were used to fund the PH 2003A Loan (as such term is defined in the second Recital of this Indenture). “2003 Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency and the Escrow Bank, to provide for the defeasance and redemption of the 2003 Bonds. “2007 Indenture” means the Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, as amended by the First Supplemental Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2012, between the Authority and such trustee, pursuant to which the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds were issued. “2007A Bonds” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), proceeds of which were used, together with proceeds of the 2007B Bonds, to fund the PH 2007A Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan, a portion of the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007A Loan (as such terms are defined in the second Recital of this Indenture). “2007B Bonds” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), proceeds of which were used, together with proceeds of the 2007A Bonds, to fund the PH 2007A Loan, a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the WP 2007B Loan, the NR 2007A Loan, a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan, a portion of the R 2007B Loan and the MM 2007A Loan (as such terms are defined in the second Recital of this Indenture). “2007A and B Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency and the Escrow Bank, to provide for the defeasance and redemption of the 2007A Bonds and the 2007B Bonds. “2007A-T Bonds” means the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), proceeds of which were used to fund the MM 2007B Loan, and portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the R 2007B Loan (as such terms are defined in the second Recital of this Indenture). “2007A-T Escrow Agreement” means that certain Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency and the Escrow Bank, to provide for the defeasance and redemption of the 2007A-T Bonds. “2017A Bonds” means the $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A; and, when the context requires, any Parity Debt. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 162 -15- “2017B Bonds” means the $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B; and, when the context requires, any Parity Debt. “Written Request of the Successor Agency” or “Written Certificate of the Successor Agency” means a request or certificate, in writing signed by the Chairman, the Executive Director or the Treasurer of the Successor Agency or by any other officer of the Successor Agency duly authorized by the Successor Agency for that purpose. Section 1.03. Rules of Construction. All references herein to “Articles,” “Sections” and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Indenture, and the words “herein,” “hereof,” “hereunder” and other words of similar import refer to this Indenture as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 163 -16- ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION AND TERMS Section 2.01. Authorization of Bonds. (a) 2017A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of __________ million __________ hundred __________ thousand dollars ($__________) are hereby authorized to be issued by the Successor Agency under and subject to the terms of this Indenture and the Refunding Bond Law. The 2017A Bonds shall be designated the “Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A.” (b) 2017B Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of __________ million __________ hundred __________ thousand dollars ($__________) are hereby authorized to be issued by the Successor Agency under and subject to the terms of this Indenture and the Refunding Bond Law. The 2017B Bonds shall be designated the “Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B.” (c) This Indenture constitutes a continuing agreement with the Owners of all of the Bonds issued or to be issued hereunder and then Outstanding to secure the full and final payment of principal and redemption premiums (if any) and the interest on all Bonds which may from time to time be executed and delivered hereunder, subject to the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions herein contained. Section 2.02. Terms of Bonds. (a) The 2017A Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form without coupons in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. The 2017A Bonds shall mature on August 1 in the years and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) at the rates per annum as follows: Maturity Date Principal Interest (August 1) Amount Rate April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 164 -17- (b) The 2017B Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form without coupons in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. The 2017B Bonds shall mature on August 1 in the years and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) at the rates per annum as follows: Maturity Date Principal Interest (August 1) Amount Rate (c) Interest on the Bonds (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) shall be payable on each Interest Payment Date to the person whose name appears on the Registration Books as the Owner thereof as of the Record Date immediately preceding each such Interest Payment Date, such interest to be paid by check of the Trustee mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the Interest Payment Date, to such Owner at the address of such Owner as it appears on the Registration Books as of such Record Date; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer to an account in the United States of America to any registered owner of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more who shall furnish written wire instructions to the Trustee on or before the applicable Record Date. Such instructions shall remain in effect until rescinded in writing by the Owner. Principal of and redemption premium (if any) on any Bond shall be paid upon presentation and surrender thereof, at maturity or redemption (except for Sinking Account redemptions which do not require presentment for payment), at the Principal Corporate Trust Office. Both the principal of and interest and premium (if any) on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. (d) The Bonds shall be dated as of their date of delivery and shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of authentication thereof, unless (a) it is authenticated after a Record Date and on or before the following Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date; or (b) the Bonds are authenticated on or before January 15, 2018, in which event they shall bear interest from their date of delivery; provided, however, that if, as of the date of authentication of the Bonds, interest thereon is in default, the Bonds shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment thereon. Section 2.03. Redemption of Bonds. (a) Optional Redemption. (i) 2017A Bonds. The 2017A Bonds maturing on or before August 1, _____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The 2017A Bonds maturing on or after August 1, _____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, _____, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 165 -18- (ii) 2017B Bonds. The 2017B Bonds maturing on or before August 1, _____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The 2017B Bonds maturing on or after August 1, _____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, ______, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. The Successor Agency shall be required to give the Trustee written notice of its intention to redeem Bonds under this subsection (a) with a designation of the series and maturities to be redeemed at least forty-five (45), but not more than seventy-five (75) days, prior to the date fixed for such redemption, or such lesser number of days as shall be agreed to by the Trustee in the sole determination of the Trustee. (b) Sinking Account Redemption. (i) 2017A Bonds. (A) The 2017A Bonds maturing on August 1, _____ (“_____ 2017A Term Bonds”), are subject to mandatory redemption from Sinking Account payments set forth in the following schedule on August 1, _____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, _____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the _____ 2017A Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to subsection (a)(i) above, the total amount of Sinking Account payments to be made subsequent to such redemption shall be reduced in an amount equal to the principal amount of the _____ 2017A Term Bonds so redeemed by reducing each such future Sinking Account payment on a pro rata basis (as nearly as practicable) in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the Successor Agency with the Trustee. Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount (B) The 2017A Bonds maturing on August 1, _____ (“_____ 2017A Term Bonds”), are subject to mandatory redemption from Sinking Account payments set forth in the following schedule on August 1, _____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, _____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the _____ 2017A Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to subsection (a)(i) above, the total amount of Sinking Account payments to be made subsequent to such redemption shall be reduced in an amount equal to the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 166 -19- principal amount of the _____ 2017A Term Bonds so redeemed by reducing each such future Sinking Account payment on a pro rata basis (as nearly as practicable) in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the Successor Agency with the Trustee. Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount (ii) 2017B Bonds. (A) The 2017B Bonds maturing on August 1, _____ (“_____ 2017B Term Bonds”), are subject to mandatory redemption from Sinking Account payments set forth in the following schedule on August 1, _____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, _____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the _____ 2017B Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to subsection (a)(ii) above, the total amount of Sinking Account payments to be made subsequent to such redemption shall be reduced in an amount equal to the principal amount of the _____ 2017B Term Bonds so redeemed by reducing each such future Sinking Account payment on a pro rata basis (as nearly as practicable) in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the Successor Agency with the Trustee. Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount (B) The 2017B Bonds maturing on August 1, _____ (“_____ 2017B Term Bonds”), are subject to mandatory redemption from Sinking Account payments set forth in the following schedule on August 1, _____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, _____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the _____ 2017B Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to subsection (a)(ii) above, the total amount of Sinking Account payments to be made subsequent to such redemption shall be reduced in an amount equal to the principal amount of the _____ 2017B Term Bonds so redeemed by reducing each such future Sinking Account payment on a pro rata basis (as nearly as practicable) in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the Successor Agency with the Trustee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 167 -20- Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount (c) Notice of Redemption. The Trustee on behalf of and at the expense of the Successor Agency will mail (by first class mail, postage prepaid) notice of any redemption at least twenty (20) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date, to (i) the Owners of any Bonds designated for redemption at their respective addresses appearing on the Registration Books, and (ii) to the Securities Depositories and to the Information Services designated in a Written Request of the Successor Agency filed with the Trustee at the time the Successor Agency notifies the Trustee of its intention to redeem Bonds; but such mailing will not be a condition precedent to such redemption and neither failure to receive any such notice nor any defect therein will affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of such Bonds or the cessation of the accrual of interest thereon. Such notice will state the redemption date and the redemption price, will designate the CUSIP number of the Bonds to be redeemed, state the individual number of each Bond to be redeemed or state that all Bonds between two stated numbers (both inclusive) or all of the Bonds Outstanding (or all Bonds of a maturity) are to be redeemed, and will require that such Bonds be then surrendered (except for mandatory Sinking Account redemptions) at the Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee for redemption at the said redemption price, giving notice also that further interest on such Bonds will not accrue from and after the redemption date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of any optional redemption of the Bonds under Section 2.03(a) above, the notice of redemption shall state that the redemption is conditioned upon receipt by the Trustee of sufficient moneys to redeem the Bonds on the anticipated redemption date, and that the optional redemption shall not occur if, by no later than the scheduled redemption date, sufficient moneys to redeem the Bonds have not been deposited with the Trustee. In the event that the Trustee does not receive sufficient funds by the scheduled optional redemption date to so redeem the Bonds to be optionally redeemed, such event shall not constitute an Event of Default; the Trustee shall send written notice to the Owners to the effect that the redemption did not occur as anticipated, and the Bonds for which notice of optional redemption was given shall remain Outstanding for all purposes of this Indenture. Upon the payment of the redemption price of Bonds being redeemed, each check or other transfer of funds issued for such purpose shall, to the extent practicable, bear the CUSIP number identifying, by issue and maturity, the Bonds being redeemed with the proceeds of such check or other transfer. (d) Effect of Redemption. From and after the date fixed for redemption, if funds available for the payment of the redemption price of and interest on the Bonds so called for redemption shall have been duly deposited with the Trustee, such Bonds so called shall cease to be entitled to any benefit under this Indenture other than the right to receive payment of the redemption price and accrued interest to the redemption date, and no interest shall accrue thereon from and after the redemption date specified in such notice. (e) Manner of Redemption. Whenever any Bonds or portions thereof are to be selected for redemption by lot, the Trustee shall make such selection, in such manner as the Trustee shall April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 168 -21- deem appropriate, and shall notify the Successor Agency thereof. All Bonds redeemed or purchased pursuant to this Section 2.03 shall be canceled and destroyed as provided in Section 10.07 hereof. (f) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. Whenever provision (other than pursuant to Section 2.03(b)) is made in this Indenture for the redemption of Bonds and less than all Bonds then currently outstanding are called for redemption, the Trustee will select Bonds for redemption from Bonds then currently Outstanding and not previously called for redemption, at the written direction of the Successor Agency in such order of maturity as shall be designated by the Successor Agency, and in the absence of such direction, pro rata among maturities and by lot within a maturity. The Trustee will promptly notify the Successor Agency in writing of the Bonds so selected for redemption. Section 2.04. Forms of Bonds. The Bonds, the form of Trustee’s Certificate of Authentication, and the form of Assignment to appear thereon, shall be substantially in the form set forth in Exhibits A and B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions, as permitted or required by this Indenture. Section 2.05. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the Successor Agency by the signature of its Chair and the signature of its Secretary who are in office on the date of execution and delivery of this Indenture or at any time thereafter. Either or both of such signatures may be made manually or may be affixed by facsimile thereof. If any officer whose signature appears on any Bond ceases to be such officer before delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, such signature shall nevertheless be as effective as if the officer had remained in office until the delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser. Any Bond may be signed and attested on behalf of the Successor Agency by such persons as at the actual date of the execution of such Bond shall be the proper officers of the Successor Agency although on the date of such Bond any such person shall not have been such officer of the Successor Agency. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication in the form hereinafter set forth, manually executed and dated by the Trustee, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Indenture, and such Certificate shall be conclusive evidence that such Bonds have been duly authenticated and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this Indenture. In the event temporary Bonds are issued pursuant to Section 2.09 hereof, the temporary Bonds may bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication executed and dated by the Trustee, may be initially registered by the Trustee, and, until so exchanged as provided under Section 2.09 hereof, the temporary Bonds shall be entitled to the same benefits pursuant to this Indenture as definitive Bonds authenticated and delivered hereunder. Section 2.06. Transfer of Bonds. Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the Registration Books, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by a duly authorized attorney of such person, upon surrender of such Bond to the Trustee at its Principal Corporate Trust Office for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form acceptable to the Trustee, duly executed. Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for registration of transfer, the Successor Agency shall execute and the Trustee shall deliver a new Bond or Bonds, of like series, interest rate, maturity and principal amount of authorized denominations. The Trustee shall collect from the Owner any tax or other governmental charge on the transfer of any Bonds pursuant to this Section 2.06. The cost of printing Bonds and any services rendered or expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with any transfer shall be paid by the Successor Agency. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 169 -22- The Trustee may refuse to transfer, under the provisions of this Section 2.06, either (a) any Bonds during the period fifteen (15) days prior to the date established by the Trustee for the selection of Bonds for redemption, or (b) any Bonds selected by the Trustee for redemption. Section 2.07. Exchange of Bonds. Bonds may be exchanged at the Principal Corporate Trust Office for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized denominations of the same series, interest rate and maturity. The Trustee shall collect any tax or other governmental charge on the exchange of any Bonds pursuant to this Section 2.07. The cost of printing Bonds and any services rendered or expenses incurred by the Trustee in connection with any exchange shall be paid by the Successor Agency. The Trustee may refuse to exchange, under the provisions of this Section 2.07, either (a) any Bonds during the fifteen (15) days prior to the date established by the Trustee for the selection of Bonds for redemption or (b) any Bonds selected by the Trustee for redemption. Section 2.08. Registration of Bonds. The Trustee will keep or cause to be kept, at its Principal Corporate Trust Office, sufficient records for the registration and registration of transfer of the Bonds, which shall at all times during normal business hours be open to inspection by the Successor Agency, upon reasonable prior notice to the Trustee; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Trustee shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on the Registration Books Bonds as hereinbefore provided. Section 2.09. Temporary Bonds. The Bonds may be initially issued in temporary form exchangeable for definitive Bonds when ready for delivery. The temporary Bonds may be printed, lithographed or typewritten, shall be of such denominations as may be determined by the Successor Agency, and may contain such reference to any of the provisions of this Indenture as may be appropriate. Every temporary Bond shall be executed by the Successor Agency upon the same conditions and in substantially the same manner as the definitive Bonds. If the Successor Agency issues temporary Bonds, it will execute and furnish definitive Bonds without delay, and thereupon the temporary Bonds shall be surrendered, for cancellation, in exchange therefor at the Principal Corporate Trust Office, and the Trustee shall deliver in exchange for such temporary Bonds an equal aggregate principal amount of definitive Bonds of authorized denominations, interest rates and like maturities. Until so exchanged, the temporary Bonds shall be entitled to the same benefits pursuant to this Indenture as definitive Bonds authenticated and delivered hereunder. Section 2.10. Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen. If any Bond shall become mutilated, the Successor Agency, at the expense of the Owner of such Bond, shall execute, and the Trustee shall thereupon deliver, a new Bond of like tenor and amount in exchange and substitution for the Bond so mutilated, but only upon surrender to the Trustee of the Bond so mutilated. Every mutilated Bond so surrendered to the Trustee shall be canceled by it. If any Bond shall be lost, destroyed or stolen, evidence of such loss, destruction or theft may be submitted to the Trustee and, if such evidence be satisfactory to the Trustee and indemnity for the Trustee and the Successor Agency satisfactory to the Trustee shall be given, the Successor Agency, at the expense of the Owner, shall execute, and the Trustee shall thereupon deliver, a new Bond of like tenor and amount in lieu of and in substitution for the Bond so lost, destroyed or stolen (or if any such Bond has matured or has been called for redemption, instead of issuing a substitute Bond, the Trustee may pay the same without surrender thereof upon receipt of indemnity satisfactory to the Trustee and the Successor Agency). The Successor Agency may require payment by the Owner of a sum not exceeding the actual cost of preparing each new April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 170 -23- Bond issued under this Section 2.10 and of the expenses which may be incurred by the Successor Agency and the Trustee in the premises. Any Bond issued under the provisions of this Section 2.10 in lieu of any Bond alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen shall constitute an original additional contractual obligation on the part of the Successor Agency whether or not the Bond so alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen be at any time enforceable by anyone, and shall be equally and proportionately entitled to the benefits of this Indenture with all other Bonds issued pursuant to this Indenture. Section 2.11. CUSIP Numbers. The Trustee and the Successor Agency shall not be liable for any defect or inaccuracy in the CUSIP number that appears on any Bond, check, advise of payment or redemption notice and any such document may contain a statement to the effect that CUSIP numbers have been assigned by an independent service for convenience of reference and that neither the Successor Agency nor the Trustee shall be liable for any inaccuracy in such numbers. Section 2.12. Book-Entry Only System. It is intended that the Bonds, be registered so as to participate in a securities depository system with DTC (the “DTC System”), as set forth herein. The Bonds shall be initially issued in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each of the maturities of the Bonds in the name of Southwest Securities, Inc. and shall thereafter be assigned to and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC. The Successor Agency and the Trustee are authorized to execute and deliver such letters to or agreements with DTC as shall be necessary to effectuate the DTC System, including a representation letter in the form required by DTC (the “Representation Letter”). In the event of any conflict between the terms of any such letter or agreement, including the Representation Letter, and the terms of this Indenture, the terms of this Indenture shall control. DTC may exercise the rights of a Bondholder only in accordance with the terms hereof applicable to the exercise of such rights. With respect to the Bonds registered in the books of the Trustee in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the Successor Agency and the Trustee, shall have no responsibility or obligation to any broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution for which DTC holds Bonds from time to time as securities depository (each such broker-dealer, bank or other financial institution being referred to herein as a “DTC Participant”) or to any person on behalf of whom such a DTC Participant directly or indirectly holds an interest in the Bonds (each such person being herein referred to as an “Indirect Participant”). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, Successor Agency and the Trustee shall have no responsibility or obligation with respect to (a) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any DTC Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (b) the delivery to any DTC Participant or any Indirect Participant or any other person, other than a Bondholder, as shown in the Register, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, (c) the payment to any DTC Participant or Indirect Participant or any other Person, other than a Bondholder, as shown in the Register, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or interest on, the Bonds or (d) any consent given by DTC as registered owner. So long as certificates for the Bonds are not issued pursuant to Section 2.12 and the Bonds are registered to DTC, the Successor Agency, and the Trustee shall treat DTC or any successor securities depository as, and deem DTC or any successor securities depository to be, the absolute owner of the Bonds for all purposes whatsoever, including without limitation (i) the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds, (ii) giving notice of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, (iii) registering transfers with respect to the Bonds and (iv) the selection of Bonds for redemption. While in the DTC System, no person other than Cede & Co., or any successor thereto, as nominee for DTC, shall receive a Bond certificate with respect to any Bond. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Indenture to the contrary, so long as any of the Bonds are registered April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 171 -24- in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds and all notices with respect to such Bonds shall be made and given, respectively, in the manner provided in the Representation Letter. Upon delivery by DTC to the Trustee of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., and subject to the provisions in this Indenture with respect to interest checks being mailed to the registered owner at the close of business on the Record Date applicable to any Interest Payment Date, the name “Cede & Co.” in this Indenture shall refer to such new nominee of DTC. Section 2.13. Successor Securities Depository; Transfers Outside Book Entry-Only System. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the Successor Agency and the Trustee and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The Successor Agency, without the consent of any other person, but following written notice to the Successor Agency and the Trustee, may terminate the services of DTC with respect to the Bonds. Upon the discontinuance or termination of the services of DTC with respect to the Bonds pursuant to the foregoing provisions, unless a substitute securities depository is appointed to undertake the functions of DTC hereunder, the Successor Agency, at the expense of the Successor Agency, is obligated to deliver Bond certificates to the beneficial owners of the Bonds, as described in this Indenture, and the Bonds shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the books of the Trustee in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of DTC, but may be registered in whatever name or name Bondowner transferring or exchanging Bonds shall designate to the Trustee in writing, in accordance with the provisions of this Indenture. The Successor Agency may determine that the Bonds shall be registered in the name of and deposited with a successor depository operating a securities depository system, qualified to act as such under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as may be acceptable to the Successor Agency, or such depository’s agent or designee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 172 -25- ARTICLE III DEPOSIT AND APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS OF BONDS; PARITY DEBT Section 3.01. Issuance of Bonds. Upon the execution and delivery of this Indenture, the Successor Agency shall execute and deliver the 2017A Bonds to the Trustee in the aggregate principal amount of _____ million _____ hundred _____ thousand dollars ($__________) and shall execute and deliver the 2017B Bonds to the Trustee in the aggregate principal amount of _____ million _____ hundred _____ thousand dollars ($__________), and the Trustee shall authenticate and deliver the Bonds upon the Written Request of the Successor Agency. Section 3.02. Application of Proceeds of Sale. (a) Upon the receipt of payment for the 2017A Bonds on the Closing Date of $___________, being the principal amount of the 2017A Bonds of $__________, less an underwriter’s discount of $___________, less an original issue discount of $___________, less $___________ being the premium for the 2017A Municipal Bond Insurance Policy and less $___________ being a portion of the premium for the Reserve Policy (which premiums were paid by the Original Purchaser as an accommodation to the Successor Agency), the Trustee shall deposit the proceeds of sale thereof in the Bond Proceeds Account and then apply such proceeds as follows: (i) The Trustee shall deposit the amount of $___________ in the Costs of Issuance Fund; (ii) The Trustee shall transfer the amount of $___________ to the Escrow Bank for deposit as follows: $___________ to the escrow fund established under the 1999 Escrow Agreement, $___________ to the escrow fund established under the 2003 Escrow Agreement, and $___________ to the escrow fund established under the 2007A and B Escrow Agreement. (b) Upon the receipt of payment for the 2017B Bonds on the Closing Date of $___________, being the principal amount of the 2017B Bonds of $__________, less an underwriter’s discount of $___________, less an original issue discount of $___________, less $___________ being the premium for the 2017B Municipal Bond Insurance Policy and less $___________ being a portion of the premium for the Reserve Policy (which premiums were paid by the Original Purchaser as an accommodation to the Successor Agency), the Trustee shall deposit the proceeds of sale thereof in the Bond Proceeds Account and then apply such proceeds as follows: (i) The Trustee shall deposit the amount of $___________ in the Costs of Issuance Fund; (ii) The Trustee shall transfer the amount of $___________ to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the escrow fund established under the 2007A-T Escrow Agreement. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 173 -26- (c) In addition to the foregoing, the Trustee, in its capacity as trustee under the 2007 Indenture, shall transfer on the Closing Date: (i) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.09 of the 2007 Indenture shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the General Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04; (ii) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Redevelopment Fund established under Section 11.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement referred to in clause (ii) of the second Recital to this Indenture shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the West Pittsburg Account of the Program Fund established under Section 3.04; (iii) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the Low and Moderate Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05; (iv) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 12.06 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement referred to in clause (iii) of the second recital to this Indenture shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05; (v) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 10.06 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement referred to in clause (iv) of the second recital to this Indenture shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05; and (vi) all amounts on deposit in the Taxable Account of the 2007 Low and Moderate Income Housing Account established under Section 7.06 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement referred to in clause (v) of the second recital to this Indenture shall be transferred to the Trustee for deposit by the Trustee in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established under Section 3.05. (d) Upon the application of the proceeds as set forth above, the Trustee shall close the Bond Proceeds Account. The Trustee may establish, as it deems necessary, a temporary fund or account on its records to facilitate the deposits and transfers set forth herein. Section 3.03. Costs of Issuance Fund. There is hereby established a separate fund to be known as the “Costs of Issuance Fund,” which shall be held by the Trustee in trust. The moneys in the Costs of Issuance Fund shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee from time to time to pay the Costs of Issuance upon submission of a Written Request of the Successor Agency stating the person to whom payment is to be made, the amount to be paid, the purpose for which the obligation was incurred and that such payment is a proper charge against said fund. Each such Written Request of the Successor Agency shall be sufficient evidence to the Trustee of the facts stated therein and the Trustee shall have no duty to confirm the accuracy of such facts. On the date which is four months after the Closing Date, or upon the earlier Written Request of the Successor Agency, any moneys remaining on deposit in the Costs of Issuance Fund shall be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 174 -27- withdrawn therefrom by the Trustee and transferred to the Interest Account and the Costs of Issuance Fund shall be closed. Section 3.04. Program Fund. (a) There is hereby established a separate fund to be known as the “Program Fund,” and within the Program Fund a “General Account” and a “West Pittsburg” account, which fund and accounts shall be held by the Trustee, and into which accounts funds shall be deposited as provided in Section 3.02(c)(i) and (ii), respectively. (b) The amounts in the General Account of the Program Fund shall be used by the Successor Agency from time to time to pay or reimburse the costs of public capital improvements upon submission to the Trustee of a Certificate of the Successor Agency stating (i) the person to whom payment is to be made, (ii) the amount to be paid, (iii) the purpose for which the obligation was incurred, (iv) that such payment is in respect of a public capital improvement eligible under the Act to be financed by the Successor Agency and consistent with the public hearing held pursuant to Section 6586.5(a)(2) of the Bond Law with respect to the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds, and (v) that such amount has not been the subject of a prior disbursement from the Program Fund. (c) The amounts in the West Pittsburg Account of the Program Fund shall be used by the Successor Agency to provide financing for the Redevelopment Project (as defined in the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement referred to in clause (ii) of the second recital to this Indenture) consistent with the improvements which were the subject of a public hearing pursuant to Section 6586.5(a)(2) of the Bond Law with respect to use of proceeds of the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds, upon the submission of a Certificate of the Successor Agency stating that the amount then requested to be withdrawn from such account is to be used by the Successor Agency for a purpose consistent with the foregoing provisions of this Section 3.04(c). (d) When no amounts remain in the General Account or the West Pittsburg Account of the Program Fund, the Program Fund shall be closed. Section 3.05. Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. There is hereby established a separate fund to be known as the “Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund” which shall be held by the Trustee, into which deposits shall be made as provided in Sections 3.02(c)(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi). The Trustee shall disburse to the Successor Agency amounts on deposit in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund upon receipt of a Certificate of the Successor Agency therefor, to the effect that the moneys being withdrawn will be used by the Successor Agency solely for low and moderate income housing purposes permitted under the Law consistent with the improvements which were the subject of a public hearing pursuant to Section 6586.5(a)(2) of the Bond Law with respect to use of proceeds of the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds. When no amounts remain in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund shall be closed. Section 3.06. Issuance of Parity Debt. In addition to the Bonds, the Successor Agency may issue or incur Parity Debt only to refund the Bonds or other Parity Debt in such principal amount as shall be determined by the Successor Agency, pursuant to a separate or Supplemental Indenture adopted or entered into by the Successor Agency and Trustee. The Successor Agency may issue or incur such Parity Debt subject to the following specific conditions precedent: (a) The Successor Agency will be in compliance with all covenants set forth in this Indenture; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 175 -28- (b) The Oversight Board shall have approved the issuance of the Parity Debt. (c) The Parity Debt will be on such terms and conditions as may be set forth in a separate or Supplemental Indenture, which will provide for bonds substantially in accordance with this Indenture, and the deposit of moneys or a surety bond or insurance policy into the Reserve Account in an amount sufficient, together with the balance of the Reserve Account, to equal the Reserve Requirement on all Bonds expected to be outstanding including the Parity Debt; (d) Receipt of a certificate or opinion of an Independent Financial Consultant stating that the total net interest cost to maturity of the Parity Debt plus the principal amount of the Parity Debt will not exceed the total net interest cost to maturity of the Bonds or previously issued Parity Debt to be refunded plus the principal amount of the Bonds or previously issued Parity Debt to be refunded. (e) The Parity Debt will mature on and interest will be payable on the same dates as the Bonds (except the first interest payment may be from the date of the Parity Debt until either the next succeeding August 1 or February 1). Section 3.07. Validity of Bonds. The validity of the authorization and issuance of the Bonds shall not be dependent upon the completion of the Redevelopment Project or upon the performance by any person of his obligation with respect to the Redevelopment Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 176 -29- ARTICLE IV SECURITY OF BONDS; FLOW OF FUNDS Section 4.01. Security of Bonds; Equal Security. Except as provided in Section 6.06, the Bonds and any additional Parity Debt shall be equally secured by a pledge and lien on all of the Tax Revenues and by a first and exclusive pledge and lien upon all of the moneys in the Debt Service Fund (including the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Reserve Account and the Redemption Account therein) without preference or priority for series, issue, number, dated date, sale date, date of execution or date of delivery. Except for the Tax Revenues and such moneys, no funds or properties of the Successor Agency shall be pledged to, or otherwise liable for, the payment of principal of or interest or redemption premium (if any) on the Bonds. Amounts in the Program Fund (including the General Account and the West Pittsburg Account therein) and amounts in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund are not pledged as security for the Bonds. In consideration of the acceptance of the Bonds by those who shall own the same from time to time, this Indenture shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between the Successor Agency and the Trustee for the benefit of the Owners from time to time of the Bonds, and the covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed on behalf of the Successor Agency shall be for the equal and proportionate benefit, security and protection of all Owners of the Bonds without preference, priority or distinction as to security or otherwise of any of the Bonds over any of the others by reason of the number or date thereof or the time of sale, execution and delivery thereof, or otherwise for any cause whatsoever, except as expressly provided therein or herein. Section 4.02. Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund; Deposit of Tax Revenues. There has been established a special trust fund known as the “Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund,” which shall be held by the Successor Agency pursuant to section 34170.5 of the Dissolution Act. There is hereby established a special trust fund known as the “Debt Service Fund” and the accounts therein referred to below which shall be held by the Trustee. The Successor Agency shall deposit all of the Tax Revenues received in any Bond Year in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund promptly upon receipt thereof by the Successor Agency, and promptly thereafter shall transfer amounts received therein to the Debt Service Fund established and held by the Trustee under this Indenture until such time during such Bond Year as the amounts so transferred to the Debt Service Fund hereunder equal the aggregate amounts required to be deposited by the Trustee into the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Reserve Account and the Redemption Account of the Debt Service Fund in such Bond Year pursuant to Section 4.03 of this Indenture and for deposit in such Bond Year in the funds and accounts established with respect to Parity Debt, as provided in any Supplemental Indenture. Any Tax Revenues received during a Bond Year and held in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund, to the extent remaining after making the foregoing transfers in such Bond Year, shall be released from the pledge and lien under this Indenture. Section 4.03. Deposit of Amounts by Trustee. There are hereby created accounts within the Debt Service Fund as set forth below, to be known respectively as the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Reserve Account and the Redemption Account. Moneys in the Debt Service Fund will be transferred by the Trustee in the following amounts at April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 177 -30- the following times, for deposit by the Trustee in the following respective accounts within the Debt Service Fund, in the following order of priority: (a) Interest Account. On or before the fifth Business Day preceding each Interest Payment Date, commencing with the February 1, 2018, Interest Payment Date, to the extent there are moneys available, the Trustee shall transfer funds from the Debt Service Fund for deposit in the Interest Account an amount which, when added to the amount contained in the Interest Account on that date, will be equal to the aggregate amount of the interest becoming due and payable on the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt on such Interest Payment Date. No such transfer and deposit need be made to the Interest Account if the amount contained therein is at least equal to the interest to become due on such Interest Payment Date upon all of the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt. Subject to this Indenture, all moneys in the Interest Account will be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of paying the interest on the Bonds and Parity Debt as it becomes due and payable (including accrued interest on any Bonds and Parity Debt redeemed prior to maturity pursuant to this Indenture). (b) Principal Account. On or before the fifth (5th) Business Day preceding each Interest Payment Date, commencing with the February 1, 2018, Interest Payment Date, to the extent there are monies available, the Trustee shall transfer funds from the Debt Service for deposit in the Principal Account an amount equal to one-half of the principal payments coming due and payable on the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Debt on the next August 1. No such transfer and deposit need be made to the Principal Account if the amount contained therein is at least equal to the principal to become due on the next August 1 on all Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Debt. All moneys in the Principal Account shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of paying the principal of the Bonds and any Parity Debt (including principal being paid pursuant to mandatory sinking fund redemption) as it shall become due and payable. (c) Sinking Account. On or before the fifth (5th) Business Day preceding each Interest Payment Date, commencing with the first such date which is six months prior to the date on which principal (or any mandatory sinking payment) is due on any Term Bonds, to the extent there are moneys available, the Trustee shall transfer funds from the Debt Service Fund for deposit in the Sinking Account an amount equal to one-half of the sinking account payments becoming due and payable on any Bonds and Parity Debt that constitute Term Bonds on the next August 1, to the extent monies on deposit in the Debt Service Fund are available therefor. No such transfer and deposit need be made to the Sinking Account if the amount contained therein is at least equal to the sinking account payments to become due on the next August 1 on all Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt that constitute Term Bonds. Subject to this Indenture, all moneys in the Sinking Account will be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of paying the aggregate principal amount of the Term Bonds and term bonds relating to Parity Debt required to be redeemed on such August 1 pursuant to the provisions of the document providing for the issuance of any Parity Debt that constitutes Term Bonds. (d) Reserve Account. (i) In lieu of a cash deposit to the Reserve Account, the Reserve Policy shall be delivered to the Trustee on the Closing Date. The prior written consent of the Municipal Bond Insurer shall be a condition precedent to the deposit of any credit instrument in lieu of a cash deposit into the Reserve Account. If, on any Interest Payment Date, the moneys available in the Interest Account and/or the Principal Account do not equal the amount of the principal or interest with April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 178 -31- respect to the Bonds then coming due and payable, the Trustee shall apply the moneys available in the Reserve Account to make delinquent amounts by transferring the amount necessary for this purpose to the Interest Account and/or the Principal Account or shall draw on the Reserve Policy and apply amounts received from such draw to make delinquent amounts by transferring the amount necessary for this purpose to the Interest Account and/or the Principal Account. To the extent there is cash or investments on deposit in the Reserve Account, such cash or investments shall be applied first before there is any draw on the Reserve Policy or any other credit facility credited to the Reserve Account in lieu of cash (a “Credit Facility”). Payment of any Policy Costs (hereinafter defined) shall be made prior to replenishment of any such cash amounts. Draws on all Credit Facilities (including the Reserve Policy) on which there is available coverage shall be made on a pro rata basis (calculated by reference to the coverage then available thereunder) after applying all available cash and investments in the Reserve Account. Payment of Policy Costs and reimbursement of amounts with respect to other Credit Facilities shall be made on a pro rata basis prior to replenishment of any cash drawn from the Reserve Account. For the avoidance of doubt, “available coverage” means the coverage then available for disbursement pursuant to the terms of the applicable alternative credit instrument without regard to the legal or financial ability or willingness of the provider of such instrument to honor a claim or draw thereon or the failure of such provider to honor any such claim or draw. Upon receipt of any delinquent amount with respect to which moneys have been advanced from the Reserve Account or there has been a draw on the Reserve Policy, such amount shall be deposited in the Reserve Account to the extent of such advance and first applied to reimburse a draw on the Reserve Policy and then to replenish any cash drawn therefrom. The Reserve Account may be maintained at the specific direction of the Successor Agency in the form of one or more separate sub-accounts which are established for the purpose of holding the proceeds of separate issues of the Bonds and Parity Debt in conformity with applicable provisions of the Tax Code. The Successor Agency has no obligation to replace the Reserve Policy or to fund the Reserve Account with cash if, at any time the Bonds are outstanding, amounts are unavailable under the Reserve Policy. (ii) The Successor Agency shall repay any draws under the Reserve Policy and pay all related reasonable expenses incurred by the Municipal Bond Insurer. Interest shall accrue and be payable on such draws and expenses from the date of payment by the Municipal Bond Insurer at the Late Payment Rate. Repayment of draws and payment of expenses and accrued interest thereon at the Late Payment Rate (collectively, the “Policy Costs”) shall commence in the first month following each draw, and each such monthly payment shall be in an amount at least equal to 1/12 of the aggregate of Policy Costs related to such draw. Amounts in respect of Policy Costs paid to the Municipal Bond Insurer shall be credited first to interest due, then to the expenses due and then to principal due. As and to the extent that payments are made to the Municipal Bond Insurer on account of principal due, the coverage under the Reserve Policy will be increased by a like amount, subject to the terms of the Reserve Policy. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 179 -32- All cash and investments in the Reserve Account shall be transferred to the Debt Service Fund for payment of the debt service on the Bonds before any drawing may be made on the Reserve Policy or any other Reserve Fund Credit Instrument in lieu of cash. Payment of any Policy Cost shall be made prior to replenishment of any cash amounts. Draws on all Reserve Fund Credit Instruments (including the Reserve Policy) on which there is available coverage shall be made on a pro-rata basis (calculated by reference to the coverage then available thereunder) after applying all available cash and investments in the Debt Service Reserve Fund. Payment of Policy Costs and reimbursement of amounts with respect to other Reserve Fund Credit Instruments shall be made on a pro rata basis prior to replenishment of any cash drawn from the Reserve Account. For the avoidance of doubt, “available coverage” means the coverage then available for disbursement pursuant to the terms of the applicable alternative credit instrument without regard to the legal or financial ability or willingness of the provider of such instrument to honor a claim or draw thereon or the failure of such provider to honor any such claim or draw. (iii) Draws under the Reserve Policy may only be used to make payments on Bonds (but not Parity Debt). (iv) If the Successor Agency shall fail to pay any Policy Costs in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a) above, the Municipal Bond Insurer shall be entitled to exercise any and all legal and equitable remedies available to it, including those provided under this Indenture other than (i) acceleration of the maturity of the Bonds, or (ii) remedies which would adversely affect owners of the Bonds. (v) This Indenture shall not be discharged until all Policy Costs owing to the Municipal Bond Insurer shall have been paid in full. The Successor Agency’s obligation to pay such amount shall expressly survive payment in full of the Bonds. (vi) The Trustee shall ascertain the necessity for a claim upon the Reserve Policy in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) hereof and provide notice to the Municipal Bond Insurer at least three business days prior to each date upon which interest or principal is due on the Bonds. (vii) The Reserve Policy shall expire on the earlier of the date the Bonds are no longer outstanding and the final maturity date of the Bonds. (e) Redemption Account. On or before the fifth Business Day preceding any date on which Bonds are, or any Parity Debt is, to be optionally redeemed, the Trustee shall withdraw from the Debt Service Fund and transfer to the Redemption Account (which the Trustee shall thereupon establish and hold in trust hereunder) an amount required to pay the principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds and any Parity Debt to be redeemed on such date, taking into account any funds then on deposit in the Redemption Account. The Trustee shall also deposit in the Redemption Account any other amounts received by it from the Successor Agency designated by the Successor Agency in writing to be deposited in the Redemption Account. All moneys in the Redemption Account shall be used and withdrawn by the Trustee solely for the purpose of paying the principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds and any Parity Debt to be redeemed on the respective dates set for such redemption. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 180 -33- ARTICLE V COVENANTS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY Section 5.01. Covenants of the Successor Agency. As long as the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, the Successor Agency shall (through its proper members, officers, agents or employees) faithfully perform and abide by all of the covenants, undertakings and provisions contained in this Indenture or in any Bond issued hereunder, including the following covenants and agreements for the benefit of the Bondowners which are necessary, convenient and desirable to secure the Bonds and any Parity Debt and will tend to make them more marketable; provided, however, that the covenants do not require the Successor Agency to expend any funds other than the Tax Revenues: (a) Use of Proceeds. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be deposited and used as provided in this Indenture. (b) No Priority. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will not issue any obligations payable, either as to principal or interest, from the Tax Revenues which have any lien upon the Tax Revenues prior or superior to the lien of the Bonds. Except as permitted by Section 3.04 hereof, it will not issue any obligations, payable as to principal or interest, from the Tax Revenues, which have any lien upon the Tax Revenues on a parity with the Bonds authorized herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Indenture shall prevent the Successor Agency (i) from issuing and selling pursuant to law, refunding obligations payable from and having any lawful lien upon the Tax Revenues, if such refunding obligations are issued for the purpose of, and are sufficient for the purpose of, refunding all of the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Debt, (ii) from issuing and selling obligations which have, or purport to have, any lien upon the Tax Revenues which is junior to the Bonds, or (iii) from issuing and selling bonds or other obligations which are payable in whole or in part from sources other than the Tax Revenues. As used herein “obligations” includes, without limitation, bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures or other obligations. (c) Punctual Payment. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will duly and punctually pay or cause to be paid the principal of and interest on each of the Bonds on the date, at the place and in the manner provided in the Bonds. (d) Payment of Taxes and Other Charges. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will from time to time pay and discharge, or cause to be paid and discharged, all payments in lieu of taxes, service charges, assessments or other governmental charges which may lawfully be imposed upon the Successor Agency or any of the properties then owned by it in the Redevelopment Project, or upon the revenues and income therefrom, and will pay all lawful claims for labor, materials and supplies which if unpaid might become a lien or charge upon any of the properties, revenues or income or which might impair the security of the Bonds or the use of Tax Revenues or other legally available funds to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, all to the end that the priority and security of the Bonds shall be preserved; provided, however, that nothing in this covenant shall require the Successor Agency to make any such payment so long as the Successor Agency in good faith shall contest the validity of the payment. (e) Books and Accounts; Financial Statements. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will at all times keep, or cause to be kept, proper and current books and accounts (separate from all other records and accounts) in which complete and accurate entries shall be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 181 -34- made of all transactions relating to the Redevelopment Project and the Tax Revenues and other funds relating to the Redevelopment Project. The Successor Agency will prepare within seven (7) months after the close of each of its Fiscal Years a post-audit of the financial transactions and records of the Successor Agency for the Fiscal Year to be made by an Independent Certified Public Accountant appointed by the Successor Agency, and will furnish a copy of the post-audit to the Trustee and any rating agency which maintains a rating on the Bonds, and, upon written request, to any Bondowner. The Trustee shall have no duty to review such post-audits. (f) Eminent Domain Proceeds. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that if all or any part of the Redevelopment Project should be taken from it without its consent, by eminent domain proceedings or other proceedings authorized by law, for any public or other use under which the property will be tax exempt, it shall take all steps necessary to adjust accordingly the base year property tax roll of the Redevelopment Project. (g) Disposition of Property. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will not dispose of land area in the Redevelopment Project (except property in effect on the date this Indenture is adopted as planned for public use, or property to be used for public streets, public off-street parking, sewage facilities, parks, easements or right-of-way for public utilities, or other similar uses) to public bodies or other persons or entities whose property is tax exempt, unless such disposition will not result in Tax Revenues to be less than 1.25 times Maximum Annual Debt Service, based upon the certificate or opinion of an Independent Financial Consultant appointed by the Successor Agency. (h) Protection of Security and Rights of Bondowners. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees to preserve and protect the security of the Bonds and the rights of the Bondowners and to contest by court action or otherwise (i) the assertion by any officer of any government unit or any other person whatsoever against the Successor Agency that (A) the Law is unconstitutional or (B) that the Tax Revenues pledged under this Indenture cannot be paid to the Successor Agency for the debt service on the Bonds or (ii) any other action affecting the validity of the Bonds or diluting the security therefor, including, with respect to the Tax Revenues, the senior lien position of the Bonds to the Statutory Pass-Through Amounts. (i) Tax Covenants. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Indenture, absent an opinion of Bond Counsel that the exclusion from gross income of interest with respect to the 2017A Bonds and tax-exempt Parity Debt will not be adversely affected for federal income tax purposes, the Successor Agency covenants to comply with all applicable requirements of the Code necessary to preserve such exclusion from gross income and specifically covenants, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, as follows: (i) Rebate Requirement. The Successor Agency shall take any and all actions necessary to assure compliance with section 148(f) of the Code, relating to the rebate of excess investment earnings, if any, to the federal government. In the event that the Successor Agency shall determine that any amounts are due and payable to the United States of America hereunder and that the Trustee has on deposit an amount of available moneys (excluding moneys on deposit in the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account and excluding any other moneys required to pay the principal of or interest or redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds) to make such payment, the Successor Agency shall promptly pay from available Tax Revenues or any other source of legally available funds the sum of (a) one hundred percent (100%) of the amounts determined to be due and payable to the United States of America as a result of the investment of amounts on deposit in any fund or account established hereunder, plus (b) all other amounts due and payable to the United States of America. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 182 -35- (ii) Private Business Use Limitation. The Successor Agency shall assure that the proceeds of the 2017A Bonds are not used in a manner which would cause the 2017A Bonds to become “private activity bonds” within the meaning of section 141(a) of the Tax Code. (iii) Private Loan Limitation. The Successor Agency shall assure that no more than five percent (5%) of the net proceeds of the 2017A Bonds are used, directly or indirectly, to make or finance a loan (other than loans constituting nonpurpose obligations as defined in the Code or constituting assessments) to persons other than state or local government units. (iv) Federal Guarantee Prohibition. The Successor Agency shall not take any action or permit or suffer any action to be taken if the result of the same would be to cause the 2017A Bonds to be “federally guaranteed” within the meaning of section 149(b) of the Code. (v) No Arbitrage. The Successor Agency shall not take, or permit or suffer to be taken by the Trustee or otherwise, any action with respect to the 2017A Bond proceeds which, if such action had been reasonably expected to have been taken, or had been deliberately and intentionally taken, on the Closing Date of the Bonds, would have caused the 2017A Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of section 148(a) of the Code. (j) Further Assurances. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees to adopt, make, execute and deliver any and all such further resolutions, instruments and assurances as may be reasonably necessary or proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the performance of this Indenture, and for the better assuring and confirming unto the Owners of the rights and benefits provided in this Indenture. (k) Compliance with Dissolution Act. The Successor Agency covenants that it will comply with the requirements of the Dissolution Act. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Successor Agency covenants and agrees to file all required statements and hold all public hearings required under the Dissolution Act to assure compliance by the Successor Agency with its covenants hereunder. (l) Processing ROPs. The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will take all actions required under the Dissolution Act to include in Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules for each ROPS Period scheduled debt service on the Bonds and any Parity Debt (including, without limitation, any mandatory redemption payments), as well as any amount required to replenish the Reserve Account of the Debt Service Fund or to pay any amounts owing to the Municipal Bond Insurer, all so as to enable the County’s Auditor-Controller to distribute from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund on each RPTTF Distribution Date amounts required for the Successor Agency to pay principal of, and interest on, the Bonds and any Parity Debt, and any amounts owing to the Municipal Bond Insurer coming due in the respective ROPS Payment Period corresponding to such RPTTF Distribution Date pursuant to the Dissolution Act (including but not limited to Section 34177 therein). Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Successor Agency additionally covenants and agrees that it will place on each periodic Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for distribution to the Successor Agency on the January 2 RPTTF Distribution Date April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 183 -36- covered by such Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and for approval by the Oversight Board and the State Department of Finance, amounts required for it to comply with the provisions of this Indenture, as well as amounts equal to the Annual Debt Service (including any amounts required to replenish the Reserve Account or to pay amounts due to the Municipal Bond Insurer and coming due and payable on the Bonds and any Parity Debt in the then current Bond Year that commenced on the August 2 immediately succeeding such January 2 (which includes the following February 1 interest payment and the following August 1 principal and interest payment on the Bonds and any Parity Debt for such Bond Year)). The Successor Agency further covenants and agrees that it will categorize and describe, as a separate line item, the portion of such Annual Debt Service that is due and payable on August 1 of such Bond Year on such Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (and with respect to the January 2 RPTTF Distribution Date) as a “reserve” to be held by the Successor Agency until the ROPS Payment Period corresponding to the next RPTTF Distribution Date, as contemplated by paragraph (1)(A) of subdivision (d) of Section 34171 of the Dissolution Act. To the extent amounts actually allocated to the Successor Agency on any January 2 RPTTF Distribution Date are insufficient for the Annual Debt Service for the applicable Bond Year, the Successor Agency will place the amount of the insufficiency for funding from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund on the next Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, relating to the succeeding June 1 RPTTF Distribution Date, for approval by the Oversight Board and the State Department of Finance. In addition, the Successor Agency covenants that, if the amount of Tax Revenues expected to be available with respect to a ROPS Payment Period will be insufficient to pay required debt service on the Bonds and any Parity Debt and all other required amounts payable from the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund during such ROPS Payment Period, it shall, on or before the May 1 or December 1, as applicable, preceding such ROPS Payment Period (or such other date as otherwise may be specified in the Dissolution Act), file a Notice of Insufficiency with the County Auditor-Controller in accordance with the Dissolution Act (including, but not limited to, paragraph (b) of Section 34183 therein). In the event the Successor Agency fails to provide a ROPs to the Oversight Board for approval, or provide the State Department of Finance with an Oversight Board-approved ROPS, by the statutory deadlines relating to the Bonds for any period, the Successor Agency designates the Municipal Bond Insurer as its attorney in fact with the power to make such a request relating to the Bonds. The Successor Agency agrees to amend any ROPS filing for any period during which amounts owed to the Municipal Bond Insurer with respect to the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy are not included on such ROPS, to the extent possible under the Dissolution Act. The Successor Agency will not, without the prior written consent of the Municipal Bond Insurer, approve or submit for approval by the Oversight Board or the State Department of Finance any Last and Final ROPS. (m) Dissolution Act Invalid; Maintenance of Tax Revenues. In the event that the applicable property tax revenues provisions of the Dissolution Act are determined by a court in a final judicial decision to be invalid and, in place of the invalid provisions, provisions of the Law or the equivalent become applicable to the Bonds, the Successor Agency shall comply with all requirements of the Law or the equivalent to insure the allocation and payment to it of the Tax Revenues, including without limitation the timely filing of any necessary statements of indebtedness with appropriate officials of the County and, in the case of amounts payable by the State, appropriate officials of the State. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 184 -37- (n) Continuing Disclosure. The Successor Agency hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Indenture, failure of the Successor Agency to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate shall not be an Event of Default hereunder. However, any Participating Underwriter or any holder or beneficial owner of the Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking specific performance by court order, to cause the Successor Agency to comply with its obligations under this Section 5.01(n). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 185 -38- ARTICLE VI THE TRUSTEE Section 6.01. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Trustee. (a) The Trustee shall, prior to the occurrence of an Event of Default, and after the curing or waiver of all Events of Default which may have occurred, perform such duties and only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Indenture and no implied covenants, duties or obligations shall be read into this Indenture against the Trustee. The Trustee shall, during the existence of any Event of Default (which has not been cured or waived), exercise such of the rights and powers vested in it by this Indenture, and use the same degree of care and skill in their exercise, as a reasonable person would exercise or use under the circumstances in the conduct of its own affairs. (b) The Successor Agency may remove the Trustee at any time and shall remove the Trustee (i) if at any time requested to do so by an instrument or concurrent instruments in writing signed by the Owners of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding (or their attorneys duly authorized in writing), or (ii) if at any time the Successor Agency has knowledge that the Trustee shall cease to be eligible in accordance with subsection (e) of this Section 6.01, or shall become incapable of acting, or shall be adjudged a bankrupt or insolvent, or a receiver of the Trustee or its property shall be appointed, or any public officer shall take control or charge of the Trustee or of its property or affairs for the purpose of rehabilitation, conservation or liquidation. In each case such removal shall be accomplished by the giving of written notice of such removal by the Successor Agency to the Trustee, whereupon the Successor Agency shall immediately appoint a successor Trustee by an instrument in writing. (c) The Trustee may at any time resign by giving written notice of such resignation to the Successor Agency and by giving the Owners notice of such resignation by first class mail, postage prepaid, at their respective addresses shown on the Registration Books. Upon receiving such notice of resignation, the Successor Agency shall promptly appoint a successor Trustee by an instrument in writing. (d) Any removal or resignation of the Trustee and appointment of a successor Trustee shall become effective only upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Trustee. If no successor Trustee shall have been appointed and have accepted appointment within forty-five (45) days of giving notice of removal or notice of resignation as aforesaid, the resigning Trustee or any Owner (on behalf of such Owner and all other Owners) may petition any court of competent jurisdiction at the expense of the Successor Agency for the appointment of a successor Trustee, and such court may thereupon, after such notice (if any) as it may deem proper, appoint such successor Trustee. Any successor Trustee appointed under this Indenture shall signify its acceptance of such appointment by executing, acknowledging and delivering to the Successor Agency and to its predecessor Trustee a written acceptance thereof, and thereupon such successor Trustee, without any further act, deed or conveyance, shall become vested with all the moneys, estates, properties, rights, powers, trusts, duties and obligations of such predecessor Trustee, with like effect as if originally named Trustee herein; but, nevertheless at the Written Request of the Successor Agency or the request of the successor Trustee, such predecessor Trustee shall execute and deliver any and all instruments of conveyance or further assurance and do such other things as may reasonably be required for more fully and certainly vesting in and confirming to such successor Trustee all the right, title April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 186 -39- and interest of such predecessor Trustee in and to any property held by it under this Indenture and shall pay over, transfer, assign and deliver to the successor Trustee any money or other property subject to the trusts and conditions herein set forth. Upon request of the successor Trustee, the Successor Agency shall execute and deliver any and all instruments as may be reasonably required for more fully and certainly vesting in and confirming to such successor Trustee all such moneys, estates, properties, rights, powers, trusts, duties and obligations. Upon acceptance of appointment by a successor Trustee as provided in this subsection, the Successor Agency shall mail a notice of the succession of such Trustee to the trusts hereunder to each rating agency which then has a current rating on the Bonds and to the Owners at their respective addresses shown on the Registration Books. If the Successor Agency fails to mail such notice within fifteen (15) days after acceptance of appointment by the successor Trustee, the successor Trustee shall cause such notice to be mailed at the expense of the Successor Agency. (e) Any Trustee appointed under the provisions of this Section 6.01 in succession to the Trustee shall be a financial institution having a corporate trust office in the State, having (or in the case of a corporation, national banking association or trust company included in a bank holding company system, the related bank holding company shall have) a combined capital and surplus of at least $75,000,000, and subject to supervision or examination by federal or state authority. If such financial institution publishes a report of condition at least annually, pursuant to law or to the requirements of any supervising or examining authority above referred to, then for the purpose of this subsection the combined capital and surplus of such financial institution shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of condition so published. In case at any time the Trustee shall cease to be eligible in accordance with the provisions of this subsection (e), the Trustee shall resign immediately in the manner and with the effect specified in this Section 6.01. Section 6.02. Merger or Consolidation. Any bank, national banking association, corporation or trust company into which the Trustee may be merged or converted or with which either of them may be consolidated or any bank, national banking association, corporation or trust company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any bank, national banking association, corporation or trust company to which the Trustee may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such bank, national banking association, corporation or trust company shall be eligible under subsection (e) of Section 6.01, shall be the successor to such Trustee without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding. Section 6.03. Liability of Trustee. (a) The recitals of facts herein and in the Bonds contained shall be taken as statements of the Successor Agency, and the Trustee shall not assume responsibility for the correctness of the same, nor make any representations as to the validity or sufficiency of this Indenture or of the security for the Bonds or the tax status of interest thereon nor shall incur any responsibility in respect thereof, other than as expressly stated herein. The Trustee shall, however, be responsible for its representations contained in its certificate of authentication on the Bonds. The Trustee shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder, except for its own negligence or intentional misconduct. The Trustee shall not be liable for the acts of any agents of the Trustee selected by it with due care. The Trustee and its officers and employees may become the Owner of any Bonds with the same rights it would have if they were not Trustee and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as a member of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 187 -40- the rights of the Owners, whether or not such committee shall represent the Owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding. (b) The Trustee shall not be liable for any error of judgment made by a responsible employee or officer, unless the Trustee shall have been negligent in ascertaining the pertinent facts. (c) The Trustee shall not be liable with respect to any action taken or omitted to be taken by it in good faith in accordance with the direction of the Owners of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds at the time Outstanding relating to the time, method and place of conducting any proceeding for any remedy available to the Trustee, or exercising any trust or power conferred upon the Trustee under this Indenture. (d) The Trustee shall not be liable for any action taken by it and believed by it to be authorized or within the discretion or rights or powers conferred upon it by this Indenture, except for actions arising from the negligence or intentional misconduct of the Trustee. The permissive right of the Trustee to do things enumerated hereunder shall not be construed as a mandatory duty. (e) The Trustee shall not be deemed to have knowledge of any Event of Default hereunder unless and until a Responsible Officer shall have actual knowledge thereof, or shall have received written notice thereof from the Successor Agency at its Principal Corporate Trust Office. In the absence of such actual knowledge or notice, the Trustee may conclusively assume that no default has occurred and is continuing under this Indenture. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Trustee shall not be bound to ascertain or inquire as to the performance or observance of any of the terms, conditions, covenants or agreements herein or of any of the documents executed in connection with the Bonds, or as to the existence of an Event of Default thereunder. The Trustee shall not be responsible for the validity or effectiveness of any collateral given to or held by it. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Trustee may rely conclusively on the Successor Agency’s certificates to establish the Successor Agency’s compliance with its financial covenants hereunder, including, without limitation, its covenants regarding the deposit of Tax Revenues into the Special Fund and the investment and application of moneys (other than its covenants to transfer such moneys to the Trustee when due hereunder). The Trustee shall have no liability or obligation to the Bond Owners with respect to the payment of debt service by the Successor Agency or with respect to the observance or performance by the Successor Agency to the other conditions, covenants and terms contained in this Indenture, or with respect to the investment of any moneys in any fund or account established, held or maintained by the Successor Agency pursuant to this Indenture or otherwise. No provision of this Indenture shall require the Trustee to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers. The Trustee shall be entitled to interest on all amounts advanced by it at the maximum rate permitted by law. The Trustee may execute any of the trusts or powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents, attorneys or receivers and shall be entitled to opinion and advice of counsel concerning all matters of trust and its duties hereunder. The Trustee shall not be responsible for any action taken or not taken on the part of any agent, attorney or receiver appointed with due care by it hereunder. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 188 -41- The Trustee shall have no responsibility, opinion, or liability with respect to any information, statements or recital in any offering memorandum or other disclosure material prepared or distributed with respect to the issuance of these Bonds. Before taking any action under Article VIII or this Article at the written request of a majority of the Owners, the Trustee may require that a satisfactory indemnity bond be furnished by the Owners for the reimbursement of all expenses to which it may be put and to protect it against all liability, except liability which is adjudicated to have resulted from its negligence or willful misconduct in connection with any action so taken. Under no circumstances shall the Trustee be liable in its individual capacity for the obligations evidenced by the Bonds. The Trustee shall not be accountable for the use or application by the Successor Agency or any other party of any funds which the Trustee has released in accordance with the terms of this Indenture. The immunities and exceptions from liability of the Trustee shall extend to its officers, directors, employees, agents and attorneys. Whether or not expressly so provided, every provision of this Indenture relating to the conduct or affecting the liability of the Trustee shall be subject to the provisions of this Article VI. The Trustee shall not be considered in breach of or in default in its obligations hereunder or progress in respect thereto in the event of delay in the performance of such obligations due to unforeseeable causes beyond its control and without its fault or negligence, including, but not limited to, Acts of God or of the public enemy or terrorists, acts of a government, acts of the other party, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, earthquakes, explosion, mob violence, riot, inability to procure or general sabotage or rationing of labor, equipment, facilities, sources of energy, material or supplies in the open market, litigation or arbitration involving a party or others relating to zoning or other governmental action or inaction pertaining to the project, malicious mischief, condemnation, and unusually severe weather or delays of suppliers or subcontractors due to such causes or any similar event and/or occurrences beyond the control of the Trustee. Section 6.04. Right to Rely on Documents and Opinions. The Trustee shall be protected in acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, opinion or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or prescribed by the proper party or parties, and shall not be required to make any investigation into the facts or matters contained thereon. The Trustee may consult with counsel, including, without limitation, counsel of or to the Successor Agency, with regard to legal questions, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by the Trustee hereunder in accordance therewith. Whenever in the administration of the trusts imposed upon it by this Indenture the Trustee shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action hereunder, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed) may be deemed to be conclusively proved and established by a Written Certificate of the Successor Agency, which shall be full warrant to the Trustee for any action taken or suffered under the provisions of this Indenture in reliance upon such Written Certificate, but in its discretion the Trustee may, in lieu thereof, accept other evidence of such matter or may require such additional evidence as to it may deem reasonable. The Trustee may conclusively rely on any certificate or Report of any Independent Accountant or Independent Redevelopment Consultant appointed by the Successor Agency. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 189 -42- The Trustee agrees to accept and act upon instructions or directions pursuant to this Indenture sent by unsecured e-mail, facsimile transmission or other similar unsecured electronic methods, provided, however, that, the Trustee shall have received an incumbency certificate listing persons designated to give such instructions or directions and containing specimen signatures of such designated persons, which such incumbency certificate shall be amended and replaced whenever a person is to be added or deleted from the listing. If the Authority or Successor Agency elects to give the Trustee e-mail or facsimile instructions (or instructions by a similar electronic method) and the Trustee acts upon such instructions, the Trustee’s understanding of such instructions shall be deemed controlling. The Trustee shall not be liable for any losses, costs or expenses arising directly or indirectly from the Trustee’s reliance upon and compliance with such instructions notwithstanding such instructions conflict or are inconsistent with a subsequent written instruction. The Authority and the Successor Agency agrees to assume all risks arising out of the use of such electronic methods to submit instructions and directions to the Trustee, including without limitation the risk of the Trustee acting on unauthorized instructions, and the risk of interception and misuse by third parties. Section 6.05. Preservation and Inspection of Documents. All documents received by the Trustee under the provisions of this Indenture shall be retained in its possession as provided in Section 6.08 hereof and shall be subject at all reasonable times upon reasonable notice to the inspection of the Successor Agency and any Owner, and their agents and representatives duly authorized in writing, during regular business hours and under reasonable conditions. Section 6.06. Compensation and Indemnification. The Successor Agency shall pay to the Trustee from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under this Indenture in accordance with the letter proposal from the Trustee approved by the Successor Agency and also all reasonable expenses, charges, legal and consulting fees and other disbursements and those of its attorneys (including the allocated costs and disbursement of in- house counsel to the extent such services are not redundant with those provided by outside counsel), agents and employees, incurred in and about the performance of its powers and duties under this Indenture. The Trustee shall have a first lien on the Tax Revenues and all funds and accounts held by the Trustee hereunder to secure the payment to the Trustee of all fees, costs and expenses, including reasonable compensation to its experts, attorneys and counsel (including the allocated costs and disbursement of in-house counsel to the extent such services are not redundant with those provided by outside counsel). The Successor Agency further covenants and agrees to indemnify, defend and save the Trustee and its officers, directors, agents and employees, harmless from and against any loss, expense and liabilities, including legal fees and expenses, which it may incur arising out of or in connection with the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses of defending against any claim of liability, but excluding any and all losses, expenses and liabilities which are due to the negligence or intentional misconduct of the Trustee, its officers, directors, agents or employees. The obligations of the Successor Agency and the rights of the Trustee under this Section 6.06 shall survive resignation or removal of the Trustee under this Indenture and payment of the Bonds and discharge of this Indenture. Section 6.07. Deposit and Investment of Moneys in Funds. Subject to the provisions of Article V hereof, all moneys held by the Trustee in the Debt Service Fund, Costs of Issuance Fund or the Redemption Account, shall, at the written direction of the Successor Agency, be invested only in Permitted Investments. If the Trustee receives no written directions from the Successor Agency as to the investment of moneys held in any fund or account, the Trustee shall request such written direction from the Successor Agency and, pending receipt of instructions, shall invest such moneys solely in Permitted Investments described in subsection (d) of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 190 -43- definition thereof; provided, however, that any such investment shall be made by the Trustee only if, prior to the date on which such investment is to be made, the Trustee shall have received a written direction from the Successor Agency specifying a specific money market fund and, if no such written direction is so received, the Trustee shall hold such moneys uninvested. (a) Moneys in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund shall be invested by the Successor Agency only in obligations permitted by the Law which will by their terms mature not later than the date the Successor Agency estimates the moneys represented by the particular investment will be needed for withdrawal from the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund. (b) Moneys in the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account and the Redemption Account of the Debt Service Fund shall be invested only in obligations which will by their terms mature on such dates as to ensure that before each interest and principal payment date, there will be in such account, from matured obligations and other moneys already in such account, cash equal to the interest and principal payable on such payment date. (c) Moneys in the Reserve Account shall be invested in (i) obligations which will by their terms mature on or before the date of the final maturity of the Bonds or five (5) years from the date of investment, whichever is earlier or (ii) an investment agreement which permits withdrawals or deposits without penalty at such time as such moneys will be needed or in order to replenish the Reserve Account. Obligations purchased as an investment of moneys in any of the funds or accounts shall be deemed at all times to be a part of such respective Fund or Account and the interest accruing thereon and any gain realized from an investment shall be credited to such Fund or Account and any loss resulting from any authorized investment shall be charged to such Fund or Account without liability to the Trustee. The Successor Agency or the Trustee, as the case may be, shall sell or present for redemption any obligation purchased whenever it shall be necessary to do so in order to provide moneys to meet any payment or transfer from such Fund or Account as required by this Indenture and shall incur no liability for any loss realized upon such a sale. All interest earnings received on any monies invested in the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Redemption Account or the Reserve Account, to the extent they exceed the amount required to be in such Account, shall be transferred on each Interest Payment Date to the Debt Service Fund. The Trustee may purchase or sell to itself or any affiliate, as principal or agent, investments authorized by this Section 6.07. The Trustee shall not be responsible or liable for any loss suffered in connection with any investment of funds made by it in accordance with Section 6.07 hereof. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Trustee will furnish the Successor Agency, at least monthly, cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Trustee hereunder. The Trustee or any of its affiliates may act as sponsor, advisor or manager in connection with any investments made by the Trustee hereunder. The value of Permitted Investments shall be determined as follows: (i) as to investments the bid and asked prices of which are published on a regular basis in The Wall Street Journal (or, if not there, then in The New York Times): the average of the bid and asked prices for such April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 191 -44- investments so published on or most recently prior to such time of determination; (ii) as to investments the bid and asked prices of which are not published on a regular basis in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times: the average bid price at such time of determination for such investments by any two nationally recognized government securities dealers (selected by the Successor Agency in its absolute discretion) at the time making a market in such investments or the bid price published by a nationally recognized pricing service; (iii) as to certificates of deposit and bankers acceptances: the face amount thereof, plus accrued interest; and (iv) as to any investment not specified above: the value thereof established by prior agreement between the Successor Agency and the Trustee. If more than one provision of this definition of “value” shall apply at any time to any particular investment, the value thereof at such time shall be determined in accordance with the provision establishing the lowest value for such investment; provided, notwithstanding the foregoing, in making any valuations hereunder, the Trustee may utilize and conclusively rely upon such pricing services as may be regularly available to it, including, without limitation, those within its regular accounting system. Section 6.08. Accounting Records and Financial Statements. The Trustee shall at all times keep, or cause to be kept, proper books of record and account, prepared in accordance with corporate trust industry standards, in which complete and accurate entries shall be made of all transactions relating to the proceeds of the Bonds made by it and all funds and accounts held by the Trustee established pursuant to this Indenture. Such books of record and account shall be available for inspection by the Successor Agency upon reasonable prior notice, at reasonable hours and under reasonable circumstances. The Trustee shall furnish to the Successor Agency, at least monthly, an accounting of all transactions in the form of its customary statements relating to the proceeds of the Bonds and all funds and accounts held by the Trustee pursuant to this Indenture and which include detail for all investment transactions effected by the Trustee or brokers selected by the Successor Agency. Upon the Successor Agency’s election, such statements will be delivered via the Trustee’s online service and upon electing such service, paper statements will be provided only upon request. The Successor Agency waives the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions effected by the Trustee as they occur, to the extent permitted by law. The Successor Agency further understands that trade confirmations for securities transactions effected by the Trustee will be available upon request and at no additional cost and other trade confirmations may be obtained from the applicable broker. The Trustee shall maintain and store such records for a period of one year after the stated maturity of the Bonds. Section 6.09. Appointment of Co-Trustee or Agent. It is the purpose of this Indenture that there shall be no violation of any law of any jurisdiction (including particularly the law of the State) denying or restricting the right of banking corporations or associations to transact business as Trustee in such jurisdiction. It is recognized that in the case of litigation under this Indenture, and in particular in case of the enforcement of the rights of the Trustee on default, or in the case the Trustee deems that by reason of any present or future law of any jurisdiction it may not exercise any of the powers, rights or remedies herein granted to the Trustee or hold title to the properties, in trust, as herein granted, or take any other action which may be desirable or necessary in connection therewith, it may be necessary that the Trustee appoint an additional individual or institution as a separate trustee or co-trustee. The following provisions of this Section 6.09 are adopted to these ends. In the event that the Trustee appoints an additional individual or institution as a separate or co-trustee, each and every remedy, power, right, claim, demand, cause of action, immunity, estate, title, interest and lien expressed or intended by this Indenture to be exercised by or vested in or conveyed to the Trustee with respect thereto shall be exercisable by and vest in such separate or co-trustee but only to the extent necessary to enable such separate or co- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 192 -45- trustee to exercise such powers, rights and remedies, and every covenant and obligation necessary to the exercise thereof by such separate or co-trustee shall run to and be enforceable by either of them; provided, however, in no event shall the Trustee be responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of any co-trustee. Should any instrument in writing from the Successor Agency be required by the separate trustee or co-trustee so appointed by the Trustee for more fully and certainly vesting in and confirming to it such properties, rights, powers, trusts, duties and obligations, any and all such instruments in writing shall, on request, be executed, acknowledged and delivered by the Successor Agency. In case any separate trustee or co-trustee, or a successor to either, shall become incapable of acting, resign or be removed, all the estates, properties, rights, powers, trusts, duties and obligations of such separate trustee or co-trustee, so far as permitted by law, shall vest in and be exercised by the Trustee until the appointment of a new trustee or successor to such separate trustee or co-trustee. Section 6.10. Other Transactions with Successor Agency. The Trustee, either as principal or agent, may engage in or be interested in any financial or other transaction with the Successor Agency. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 193 -46- ARTICLE VII MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THIS INDENTURE Section 7.01. Amendment. This Indenture and the rights and obligations of the Successor Agency and of the Owners may be modified or amended at any time by a Supplemental Indenture which shall become binding upon adoption, without the consent of any Owners, to the extent permitted by law and only for any one or more of the following purposes: (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of the Successor Agency in this Indenture contained, other covenants and agreements thereafter to be observed, or to limit or surrender any rights or powers herein reserved to or conferred upon the Successor Agency; or (b) to make such provisions for the purpose of curing any ambiguity, or of curing, correcting or supplementing any defective provision contained in this Indenture, or in any other respect whatsoever as the Successor Agency may deem necessary or desirable, provided under any circumstances that such modifications or amendments shall not, in the reasonable determination of the Successor Agency, materially adversely affect the interests of the Owners; or (c) to provide for the issuance of Parity Debt in accordance with Section 3.04; or (d) to amend any provision hereof relating to the requirements of or compliance with the Code, to any extent whatsoever but only if and to the extent such amendment will not adversely affect the exemption from federal income taxation of interest on any of the 2017A Bonds, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel. Except as set forth in the preceding paragraph, this Indenture and the rights and obligations of the Successor Agency and of the Owners may be modified or amended at any time by a Supplemental Indenture which shall become binding when the written consent of the Owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding are filed with the Trustee. No such modification or amendment shall (a) extend the maturity of or reduce the interest rate on any Bond or otherwise alter or impair the obligation of the Successor Agency to pay the principal, interest or redemption premiums (if any) at the time and place and at the rate and in the currency provided therein of any Bond without the express written consent of the Owner of such Bond, or (b) reduce the percentage of Bonds required for the written consent to any such amendment or modification. In no event shall any Supplemental Indenture modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee without its prior written consent. In addition, the Trustee shall be entitled to an opinion of counsel concerning the Supplemental Indenture’s lack of any material adverse effect on the Owners and that all conditions precedent for any supplement or amendment have been satisfied. The Municipal Bond Insurer shall have the right to consent to amendments and supplements to this Indenture as provided in Article X hereof. Section 7.02. Effect of Supplemental Indenture. From and after the time any Supplemental Indenture becomes effective pursuant to this Article VII, this Indenture shall be deemed to be modified and amended in accordance therewith, the respective rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto or thereto and all Owners, as the case may be, shall thereafter be determined, exercised and enforced hereunder subject in all respects to such modification and amendment, and all the terms and conditions of any Supplemental Indenture shall be deemed to be part of the terms and conditions of this Indenture for any and all purposes. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 194 -47- Section 7.03. Endorsement or Replacement of Bonds After Amendment. After the effective date of any amendment or modification hereof pursuant to this Article VII, the Successor Agency may determine that any or all of the Bonds shall bear a notation, by endorsement in form approved by the Successor Agency, as to such amendment or modification and in that case upon demand of the Successor Agency, the Owners of such Bonds shall present such Bonds for that purpose at the Principal Corporate Trust Office, and thereupon a suitable notation as to such action shall be made on such Bonds. In lieu of such notation, the Successor Agency may determine that new Bonds shall be prepared at the expense of the Successor Agency and executed in exchange for any or all of the Bonds, and in that case, upon demand of the Successor Agency, the Owners of the Bonds shall present such Bonds for exchange at the Principal Corporate Trust Office, without cost to such Owners. Section 7.04. Amendment by Mutual Consent. The provisions of this Article VII shall not prevent any Owner from accepting any amendment as to the particular Bond held by such Owner, provided that due notation thereof is made on such Bond and the Municipal Bond Insurer consents thereto.. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 195 -48- ARTICLE VIII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF OWNERS Section 8.01. Events of Default. The following events shall constitute Events of Default hereunder: (a) if default shall be made by the Successor Agency in the due and punctual payment of the principal or sinking fund payment of or interest or redemption premium (if any) on any Bond when and as the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity as therein expressed, by declaration or otherwise; (b) if default shall be made by the Successor Agency in the observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part in this Indenture or in the Bonds contained, other than a default described in the preceding clause (a), and such default shall have continued for a period of sixty (60) days following receipt by the Successor Agency of written notice from the Trustee or any Owner of the occurrence of such default provided that if in the reasonable opinion of the Successor Agency the failure stated in the notice can be corrected, but not within such 60 day period, such failure will not constitute an event of default if corrective action is instituted by the Successor Agency within such 60 day period and the Successor Agency thereafter diligently and in good faith cures such failure within 120 days; or (c) if the Successor Agency files a petition seeking reorganization or arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or if a court of competent jurisdiction will approve a petition seeking reorganization under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or, if under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors, any court of competent jurisdiction will approve a petition, seeking reorganization under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or, if under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors, any court of competent jurisdiction will assume custody or control of the Successor Agency or of the whole or any substantial part of its property. Section 8.02. Remedies of Bondowners. Any Bondowner shall have the right, for the equal benefit and protection of all Bondowners similarly situated: (a) by mandamus, suit, action or proceeding, to compel the Successor Agency and its Board members, officers, agents or employees to perform each and every term, provision and covenant contained in this Resolution and in the Bonds, and to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the Successor Agency and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon it; (b) by suit, action or proceeding in equity, to enjoin any acts or things which are unlawful, or the violation of any of the Bondowners’ rights; or (c) upon the happening of any Event of Default, by suit, action or proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, to require the Successor Agency and its Board members and employees to account as if it and they were the trustees of an express trust. Nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize the Trustee to authorize or consent to or accept or adopt on behalf of any Bondowner any plan of reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, or composition affecting the Bonds or the rights of any Bondowner thereof, or to April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 196 -49- authorize the Trustee to vote in respect of the claim of any Bondowner in any such proceeding without the approval of the Bondowners so affected. Section 8.03. Application of Funds . All of the Tax Revenues and all sums in the funds and accounts established and held by the Trustee hereunder upon the date of the declaration of, and during the continuation of, an Event of Default, and all sums thereafter received by the Trustee hereunder, shall be applied by the Trustee in the following order: First, to the payment of the fees, costs and expenses of the Trustee in declaring such Event of Default and in exercising the rights and remedies set forth in this Article VIII, including reasonable compensation to its agents, attorneys (including the allocated costs and disbursements of its in-house counsel to the extent such services are not redundant with those provided by outside counsel) and counsel and any outstanding fees, expenses of the Trustee; Second, to the payment of the whole amount then owing and unpaid upon the Bonds for principal and interest, with interest on the overdue principal and installments of interest at the net effective rate then borne by the Outstanding Bonds (to the extent that such interest on overdue installments of principal and interest shall have been collected), and in case such moneys shall be insufficient to pay in full the whole amount so owing and unpaid upon the Bonds, then to the payment of such principal and interest without preference or priority of principal over interest, or interest over principal, or of any installment of interest over any other installment of interest, ratably to the aggregate of such principal and interest; and Third, to pay amounts owed the Municipal Bond Insurer in connection with the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy and the Reserve Policy. Section 8.04. Limitation on Owner’s Right to Sue. No Owner of any Bond issued hereunder shall have the right to institute any suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity, for any remedy under or upon this Indenture, unless (a) such Owner shall have previously given to the Trustee written notice of the occurrence of an Event of Default; (b) the Owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of all the Bonds then Outstanding shall have made Written Request upon the Trustee to exercise the powers hereinbefore granted or to institute such action, suit or proceeding in its own name; (c) said Owners shall have tendered to the Trustee indemnity reasonably acceptable to the Trustee against the costs, expenses and liabilities to be incurred in compliance with such request; and (d) the Trustee shall have refused or omitted to comply with such request for a period of sixty (60) days after such Written Request shall have been received by, and said tender of indemnity shall have been made to, the Trustee. Such notification, request, tender of indemnity and refusal or omission are hereby declared, in every case, to be conditions precedent to the exercise by any Owner of any remedy hereunder; it being understood and intended that no one or more Owners shall have any right in any manner whatever by his or their action to enforce any right under this Indenture, except in the manner herein provided, and that all proceedings at law or in equity to enforce any provision of this Indenture shall be instituted, had and maintained in the manner herein provided and for the equal benefit of all Owners of the Outstanding Bonds. The right of any Owner of any Bond to receive payment of the principal of (and premium, if any) and interest on such Bond as herein provided, shall not be impaired or affected without the written consent of such Owner, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 8.04 or any other provision of this Indenture. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 197 -50- Section 8.05. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Article VIII or in any other provision of this Indenture or in the Bonds, shall affect or impair the obligation of the Successor Agency, which is absolute and unconditional, to pay from the Tax Revenues and other amounts pledged hereunder, the principal of and interest and redemption premium (if any) on the Bonds to the respective Owners on the respective Interest Payment Dates, as herein provided, or affect or impair the right of action, which is also absolute and unconditional, of the Owners or the Trustee to institute suit to enforce such payment by virtue of the contract embodied in the Bonds. A waiver of any default by any Owner or the Trustee shall not affect any subsequent default or impair any rights or remedies on the subsequent default. No delay or omission of any Owner to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein, and every power and remedy conferred upon the Owners and the Trustee by the Law or by this Article VIII may be enforced and exercised from time to time and as often as shall be deemed expedient by the Owners and the Trustee. If a suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy shall be abandoned or determined adversely to the Owners or the Trustee, the Successor Agency, the Trustee and the Owners shall be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if such suit, action or proceeding had not been brought or taken. Section 8.06. Actions by Trustee as Attorney-in-Fact. Any suit, action or proceeding which any Owner shall have the right to bring to enforce any right or remedy hereunder may be brought by the Trustee for the equal benefit and protection of all Owners similarly situated and the Trustee is hereby appointed (and the successive respective Owners by taking and holding the Bonds or Parity Debt shall be conclusively deemed so to have appointed it) the true and lawful attorney-in-fact of the respective Owners for the purpose of bringing any such suit, action or proceeding and to do and perform any and all acts and things for and on behalf of the respective Owners as a class or classes, as may be necessary or advisable in the opinion of the Trustee as such attorney-in-fact; provided, however, the Trustee shall have no duty or obligation to exercise any such right or remedy unless it has been indemnified to its satisfaction from any loss, liability or expense (including fees and expenses of its outside counsel and the allocated costs and disbursements of its in-house counsel). Section 8.07. Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Owners is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy. Every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing, at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise, and may be exercised without exhausting and without regard to any other remedy conferred by the Law or any other law. The exercise of remedies hereunder shall be subject to the rights of the Municipal Bond Insurer under Article X hereof. Section 8.08. Parties Interested Herein. Nothing in this Indenture expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon, or to give to, any person or entity, other than the Successor Agency, the Trustee, the Municipal Bond Insurer, their officers, employees and agents, and the Owners any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Indenture, or any covenant, condition or stipulation of this Indenture, and all covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements in this Indenture shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Successor Agency, the Trustee, their officers, employees and agents, and the Owners. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 198 -51- ARTICLE IX PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURER AND THE MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE POLICY Section 9.01. Provisions Relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer and the Municipal Bond Insurance Policy. [to come] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 199 -52- ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS Section 10.01. Benefits Limited to Parties. Nothing in this Indenture, expressed or implied, is intended to give to any person other than the Successor Agency, the Trustee, the Municipal Bond Insurer and the Owners, any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Indenture. Any covenants, stipulations, promises or agreements in this Indenture contained by and on behalf of the Successor Agency shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Trustee, the Municipal Bond Insurer and the Owners. Section 10.02. Successor is Deemed Included in All References to Predecessor. Whenever in this Indenture or any Supplemental Indenture either the Successor Agency or the Trustee is named or referred to, such reference shall be deemed to include the successors or assigns thereof, and all the covenants and agreements in this Indenture contained by or on behalf of the Successor Agency or the Trustee shall bind and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns thereof whether so expressed or not. Section 10.03. Discharge of Indenture. If the Successor Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all Bonds or any portion thereof in any one or more of the following ways: (a) by well and truly paying or causing to be paid the principal of and interest and premium (if any) on all or the applicable portion of Outstanding Bonds, as and when the same become due and payable; (b) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or an escrow agent, in trust or in escrow, as applicable, at or before maturity, money which, together with the available amounts then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to this Indenture, is fully sufficient to pay all or the applicable portion of Outstanding Bonds, including all principal, interest and redemption premiums, or; (c) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations in such amount as an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to this Indenture, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all Bonds or the applicable portion of (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity; and, if such Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption shall have been given pursuant to Section 2.03(c) or provision satisfactory to the Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the election of the Successor Agency, and notwithstanding that any Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in this Indenture and all other obligations of the Trustee and the Successor Agency under this Indenture shall cease and terminate with respect to all Outstanding Bonds or, if applicable, with respect to that portion of the Bonds which has been paid and discharged, except only (a) the covenants of the Successor Agency hereunder with respect to the Code, (b) the obligation of the Trustee to transfer and exchange Bonds hereunder, (c) the obligations of the Successor Agency under Section 6.06 hereof, and (d) the obligation of the Successor Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Owners, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee, all sums due thereon and to pay the Trustee all fees, expenses April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 200 -53- and costs of the Trustee. In the event the Successor Agency shall, pursuant to the foregoing provision, pay and discharge any portion or all of the Bonds then Outstanding, the Trustee shall be authorized to take such actions and execute and deliver to the Successor Agency all such instruments as may be necessary or desirable to evidence such discharge, including, without limitation, selection by lot of Bonds of any maturity of the Bonds that the Successor Agency has determined to pay and discharge in part. In the case of a defeasance or payment of all of the Bonds Outstanding, any funds thereafter held by the Trustee which are not required for said purpose or for payment of amounts due to the Trustee pursuant to Section 6.06 shall be paid over to the Successor Agency. Section 10.04. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Owners. Any request, declaration or other instrument which this Indenture may require or permit to be executed by any Owner may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be executed by such Owner in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the fact and date of the execution by any Owner or his attorney of such request, declaration or other instrument, or of such writing appointing such attorney, may be proved by the certificate of any notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the state in which he purports to act, that the person signing such request, declaration or other instrument or writing acknowledged to him the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such notary public or other officer. The ownership of Bonds and the amount, maturity, number and date of ownership thereof shall be proven by the Registration Books. Any request, declaration or other instrument or writing of the Owner of any Bond shall bind all future Owners of such Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the Successor Agency or the Trustee and in accordance therewith, provided, however, that the Trustee shall not be deemed to have knowledge that any Bond is owned by or for the account of the Successor Agency unless the Successor Agency is the registered Owner or the Trustee has received written notice that any other registered Owner is such an affiliate. Section 10.05. Disqualified Bonds. In determining whether the Owners of the requisite aggregate principal amount of Bonds have concurred in any demand, request, direction, consent or waiver under this Indenture, Bonds which are owned or held by or for the account of the Successor Agency or the City (but excluding Bonds held in any employees’ retirement fund) shall be disregarded and deemed not to be Outstanding for the purpose of any such determination. Upon request of the Trustee, the Successor Agency shall specify to the Trustee those Bonds disqualified pursuant to this Section 10.05. Section 10.06. Waiver of Personal Liability. No member of the governing board, officer, agent or employee of the Successor Agency shall be individually or personally liable for the payment of the principal of or interest or any premium on the Bonds; but nothing herein contained shall relieve any such member, officer, agent or employee from the performance of any official duty provided by law. Section 10.07. Destruction of Canceled Bonds. Whenever in this Indenture provision is made for the surrender to the Trustee of any Bonds which have been paid or canceled pursuant to the provisions of this Indenture, the Trustee shall destroy such bonds and upon request of the Successor Agency provide the Successor Agency a certificate of destruction. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 201 -54- Section 10.08. Notices. Any notice, request, complaint, demand, communication or other paper shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or mailed by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or sent by overnight mail, courier, fax or other electronic transmission, addressed as follows: If to the Successor Agency: Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street, ____ Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Treasurer with a copy to: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Community Development Bond Program Manager If to the Trustee: U.S. Bank National Association 1 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attention: Global Corporate Trust Services If to the Municipal Bond Insurer: The Successor Agency and the Trustee, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates or other communications will be sent. Notices to the Municipal Bond Insurer shall be provided as required by Sections 9.01(__), (__) and (__). Section 10.09. Partial Invalidity. If any Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Indenture shall for any reason be held illegal, invalid or unenforceable. such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Indenture. The Successor Agency hereby declares that it would have adopted this Indenture and each and every other Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof and authorized the issue of the Bonds pursuant thereto irrespective of the fact that any one or more Sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Indenture may be held illegal, invalid or unenforceable. If, by reason of the judgment of any court, the Trustee is rendered unable to perform its duties hereunder, all such duties and all of the rights and powers of the Trustee hereunder shall, pending appointment of a successor Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.01 hereof, be assumed by and vest in the Treasurer of the Successor Agency in trust for the benefit of the Owners. The Successor Agency covenants for the direct benefit of the Owners that its Treasurer in such case shall be vested with all of the rights and powers of the Trustee hereunder, and shall assume all of the responsibilities and perform all of the duties of the Trustee hereunder, in trust for the benefit of the Bonds, pending appointment of a successor Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.01 hereof. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 202 -55- Section 10.10. Unclaimed Moneys. Anything contained herein to the contrary notwithstanding, any money held by the Trustee for the payment and discharge of the interest or premium (if any) on or principal of the Bonds which remains unclaimed for two (2) years after the date when the payments of such interest, premium and principal have become payable, if such money was held by the Trustee at such date, or for two (2) years after the date of deposit of such money if deposited with the Trustee after the date when the interest and premium (if any) on and principal of such Bonds have become payable, shall be repaid by the Trustee to the Successor Agency as its absolute property free from trust, and the Trustee shall thereupon be released and discharged with respect thereto and the Bond Owners shall look only to the Successor Agency for the payment of the principal of and interest and redemption premium (if any) on of such Bonds. Section 10.11. Execution in Counterparts. This Indenture may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 10.12. Governing Law. This Indenture shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State applicable to covenants made and performed in the State. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 203 -56- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, has caused this Indenture to be signed in its name by its Executive Director and attested by its Secretary, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION in token of its acceptance of the trusts created hereunder, has caused this Indenture to be signed in its corporate name by its officer thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: David Twa, Executive Director ATTEST: By: Secretary U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Officer April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 204 A-1 EXHIBIT A FORM OF 2017A BOND NUMBER R-___ ***$________*** United States of America State of California County of Contra Costa SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2017A INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP ______% August 1, ____ ______, 2017 _________ ___ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: ___________________________________________ DOLLARS The SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner stated above, or registered assigns (the “Registered Owner”), on the Maturity Date stated above (subject to any right of prior redemption hereinafter provided for), the Principal Sum stated above, in lawful money of the United States of America, and to pay interest thereon in like lawful money from the Interest Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) next preceding the date of authentication of this Bond, unless (i) this Bond is authenticated on or before an Interest Payment Date and after the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the month immediately preceding an Interest Payment Date (the “Record Date”), in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date, or (ii) this Bond is authenticated on or before January 15, 2018, in which event it shall bear interest from the Dated Date above; provided however, that if at the time of authentication of this Bond, interest is in default on this Bond, this Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment on this Bond, until payment of such Principal Sum in full, at the Interest Rate per annum stated above, payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 2018 (each an “Interest Payment Date”), calculated on the basis of 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Principal hereof and premium, if any, upon early redemption hereof are payable upon surrender of this Bond at the Principal Corporate Trust Office (as such term is defined in the Indenture) of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), or at such other place as designated by the Trustee. Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check of the Trustee mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the Interest Payment Date to the Registered Owner hereof at the Registered Owner’s address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Trustee as of the Record Date for which such Interest Payment Date occurs; provided however, that payment of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 205 A-2 interest may be by wire transfer to an account in the United States of America to any registered owner of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more upon written instructions of any such registered owner filed with the Trustee for that purpose on or before the Record Date preceding the applicable Interest Payment Date. This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of bonds of the Successor Agency designated as “Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017” (the “Bonds”), of an aggregate principal amount of __________ million __________ hundred __________ thousand dollars ($___________), all of like tenor and date (except for such variation, if any, as may be required to designate varying series, numbers, maturities, interest rates, or redemption and other provisions) and all issued pursuant to the provisions of section 34177.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and section 53580 et seq. of the California Government Code and pursuant to a resolution of the Successor Agency adopted on April 25, 2017, a resolution of the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, adopted on May 3, 2017, and an Indenture of Trust, dated as of ________ 1, 2017, entered into by and between the Successor Agency and the Trustee (the “Indenture”), authorizing the issuance of the Bonds. The Indenture provides for the issuance of 2017B Bonds that are secured under the Indenture on a parity with the Bonds. Additional bonds or other obligations (referred to in the Indenture as “Parity Debt”) may be issued on a parity with the Bonds and the 2017B Bonds, but only subject to the terms of the Indenture. Reference is hereby made to the Indenture (copies of which are on file at the office of the Successor Agency) and all indentures supplemental thereto and to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Redevelopment Law”) for a description of the terms on which the Bonds are issued, the provisions with regard to the nature and extent of the Tax Revenues (as that term is defined in the Indenture), and the rights thereunder of the registered owners of the Bonds and the rights, duties and immunities of the Trustee and the rights and obligations of the Successor Agency thereunder, to all of the provisions of which Indenture the Registered Owner of this Bond, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of (a) providing funds to the Successor Agency to refinance certain outstanding obligations incurred by the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), as identified in the Indenture, (b) paying a portion of the cost of a reserve fund insurance policy for the Bonds and the 2017B Bonds, and (c) paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Bonds and the 2017B Bonds. The Bonds are special obligations of the Successor Agency and this Bond and the interest hereon and on all other Bonds and the interest thereon (to the extent set forth in the Indenture), are payable from, and are secured by a pledge of, security interest in and lien on the Tax Revenues being the moneys deposited from time to time in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund established pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 34172 the California Health and Safety Code, as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 of the California Health and Safety Code. If, and to the extent, that the provisions of section 34172 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 the California Health and Safety Code are invalidated by a final judicial decision, then Tax Revenues shall include all tax revenues allocated to the payment of indebtedness pursuant to section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code or such other section as may be in effect at the time providing for the allocation of tax increment revenues in accordance with Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution. There has been created and will be maintained by the Successor Agency, the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund (as defined in the Indenture) into which Tax Revenues shall be deposited and from which the Successor Agency shall transfer amounts to April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 206 A-3 the Trustee for payment of the principal of and the interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds, the 2017B Bonds and any future Parity Debt when due. As and to the extent set forth in the Indenture, all such Tax Revenues are exclusively and irrevocably to and constitute a trust fund, in accordance with the terms hereof and the provisions of the Indenture and the Redevelopment Law, for the security and payment or redemption of, including any premium upon early redemption, and for the security and payment of interest on, the Bonds, the 2017B Bonds and any future Parity Debt. In addition, the Bonds, the 2017B Bonds and any future Parity Debt are additionally secured at all times by a first and exclusive pledge of, security interest in and lien upon all of the moneys in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund, the Debt Service Fund, the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Reserve Account and the Redemption Account (as such terms are defined in the Indenture). Except for the Tax Revenues and such moneys, no funds or properties of the Successor Agency shall be to, or otherwise liable for, the payment of principal of or interest or redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds. The Bonds maturing on or before August 1, ____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, ____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, ____, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____ at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____ at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 207 A-4 As provided in the Indenture, notice of redemption shall be given by first class mail no less than twenty (20) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date to the respective registered owners of any Bonds designated for redemption at their addresses appearing on the Bond registration books maintained by the Trustee, but neither failure to receive such notice nor any defect in the notice so mailed shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for redemption. Notices of optional redemption may be conditioned upon receipt by the Trustee of sufficient moneys to redeem the Bonds on the anticipated redemption date, and if the Trustee does not receive sufficient funds by the scheduled redemption date the redemption shall not occur and the Bonds for which notice of redemption was given shall remain outstanding for all purposes of the Indenture. If this Bond is called for redemption and payment is duly provided therefor as specified in the Indenture, interest shall cease to accrue hereon from and after the date fixed for redemption. The Bonds are issuable as fully registered Bonds without coupons in denominations of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. Subject to the limitations and conditions and upon payment of the charges, if any, as provided in the Indenture, Bonds may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized denominations and of the same maturity. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Indenture, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon registration of such transfer a new fully registered Bond or Bonds, of any authorized denomination or denominations, for the same aggregate principal amount and of the same maturity will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. The Trustee may refuse to transfer or exchange (a) any Bonds during the fifteen (15) days prior to the date established for the selection of Bonds for redemption, or (b) any Bonds selected for redemption. The Successor Agency and the Trustee may treat the Registered Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes, and the Successor Agency and the Trustee shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. The rights and obligations of the Successor Agency and the registered owners of the Bonds may be modified or amended at any time in the manner, to the extent and upon the terms provided in the Indenture, but no such modification or amendment shall (a) extend the maturity of or reduce the interest rate on any Bond or otherwise alter or impair the obligation of the Successor Agency to pay the principal, interest or redemption premiums (if any) at the time and place and at the rate and in the currency provided herein of any Bond without the express written consent of the registered owner of such Bond, (b) reduce the percentage of Bonds required for the written consent to any such amendment or modification or (c) without its written consent thereto, modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee. This Bond is not a debt of the County of Contra Costa, the State of California, or any of its political subdivisions, and neither said County, said State, nor any of its political subdivisions is liable hereon, nor in any event shall this Bond be payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the Successor Agency. The Bonds do not constitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 208 A-5 It is hereby certified that all of the things, conditions and acts required to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have happened or have been performed in due and regular time and manner as required by the Redevelopment Law and the laws of the State of California, and that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the Successor Agency, does not exceed any limit prescribed by the Redevelopment Law or any laws of the State of California, and is not in excess of the amount of Bonds permitted to be issued under the Indenture. Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company; a New York corporation (“DTC”), to the Successor Agency or the Trustee for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. This Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Indenture or become valid or obligatory for any purpose until the Trustee’s Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Trustee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 209 A-6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency has caused this Bond to be executed in its name and on its behalf with the facsimile signature of its Chair and attested by the facsimile signature of its Secretary, all as of Dated Date stated above. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Chair ATTEST: By: Secretary TRUSTEE’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Indenture. Authentication Date: ________________ U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Signatory April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 210 A-7 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (Name, Address and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignee) the within Bond and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint , attorney, to transfer the same on the registration books of the Trustee, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: __________________ Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (banks, stock brokers, savings and loan associations and credit unions with membership in an approved signature guarantee medallion program) pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 17 Ad-15. NOTICE: The signature(s) on this Assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 211 A-8 STATEMENT OF INSURANCE [to come] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 212 B-1 EXHIBIT B FORM OF 2017B BONDS NUMBER R-___ ***$________*** United States of America State of California County of Contra Costa SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2017B INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP ______% August 1, ____ ______, 2017 _________ ___ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: ___________________________________________ DOLLARS The SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner stated above, or registered assigns (the “Registered Owner”), on the Maturity Date stated above (subject to any right of prior redemption hereinafter provided for), the Principal Sum stated above, in lawful money of the United States of America, and to pay interest thereon in like lawful money from the Interest Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) next preceding the date of authentication of this Bond, unless (i) this Bond is authenticated on or before an Interest Payment Date and after the close of business on the fifteenth (15th) day of the month immediately preceding an Interest Payment Date (the “Record Date”), in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date, or (ii) this Bond is authenticated on or before January 15, 2018, in which event it shall bear interest from the Dated Date above; provided however, that if at the time of authentication of this Bond, interest is in default on this Bond, this Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment on this Bond, until payment of such Principal Sum in full, at the Interest Rate per annum stated above, payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 2018 (each an “Interest Payment Date”), calculated on the basis of 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Principal hereof and premium, if any, upon early redemption hereof are payable upon surrender of this Bond at the Principal Corporate Trust Office (as such term is defined in the Indenture) of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), or at such other place as designated by the Trustee. Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check of the Trustee mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the Interest Payment Date to the Registered Owner hereof at the Registered Owner’s address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Trustee as of the Record Date for which such Interest Payment Date occurs; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer to an account in the United States of America to any registered April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 213 B-2 owner of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more upon written instructions of any such registered owner filed with the Trustee for that purpose on or before the Record Date preceding the applicable Interest Payment Date. This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of bonds of the Successor Agency designated as “Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B” (the “Bonds”), of an aggregate principal amount of __________ million __________ hundred __________ thousand dollars ($_____________), all of like tenor and date (except for such variation, if any, as may be required to designate varying series, numbers, maturities, interest rates, or redemption and other provisions) and all issued pursuant to the provisions of section 34177.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and section 53580 et seq. of the California Government Code and pursuant to a resolution of the Successor Agency adopted on April 25, 2017, a resolution of the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, adopted on May 3, 2017, and an Indenture of Trust, dated as of ________ 1, 2017, entered into by and between the Successor Agency and the Trustee (the “Indenture”), authorizing the issuance of the Bonds. The Indenture provides for the issuance of 2017A Bonds that are secured under the Indenture on a parity with the Bonds. Additional bonds or other obligations (referred to in the Indenture as “Parity Debt”) may be issued on a parity with the Bonds and the 2017A Bonds, but only subject to the terms of the Indenture. Reference is hereby made to the Indenture (copies of which are on file at the office of the Successor Agency) and all indentures supplemental thereto and to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, constituting Part 1 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (the “Redevelopment Law”) for a description of the terms on which the Bonds are issued, the provisions with regard to the nature and extent of the Tax Revenues (as that term is defined in the Indenture), and the rights thereunder of the registered owners of the Bonds and the rights, duties and immunities of the Trustee and the rights and obligations of the Successor Agency thereunder, to all of the provisions of which Indenture the Registered Owner of this Bond, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. The Bonds are being issued for the purpose of (a) providing funds to the Successor Agency to refinance certain outstanding obligations incurred by the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), as identified in the Indenture, (b) paying a portion of the cost of a reserve fund insurance policy for the Bonds and the 2017A Bonds, and (c) paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Bonds and the 2017A Bonds. The Bonds are special obligations of the Successor Agency and this Bond and the interest hereon and on all other Bonds and the interest thereon (to the extent set forth in the Indenture), are payable from, and are secured by a pledge of, security interest in and lien on the Tax Revenues being the moneys deposited from time to time in the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund established pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 34172 the California Health and Safety Code, as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 of the California Health and Safety Code. If, and to the extent, that the provisions of section 34172 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of section 34183 the California Health and Safety Code are invalidated by a final judicial decision, then Tax Revenues shall include all tax revenues allocated to the payment of indebtedness pursuant to section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code or such other section as may be in effect at the time providing for the allocation of tax increment revenues in accordance with Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution. There has been created and will be maintained by the Successor Agency, the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund (as defined in the Indenture) into which Tax Revenues shall be deposited and from which the Successor Agency shall transfer amounts to the Trustee for payment of the principal of and the interest and redemption premium, if any, on April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 214 B-3 the Bonds, the 2017A Bonds and any future Parity Debt when due. As and to the extent set forth in the Indenture, all such Tax Revenues are exclusively and irrevocably to and constitute a trust fund, in accordance with the terms hereof and the provisions of the Indenture and the Redevelopment Law, for the security and payment or redemption of, including any premium upon early redemption, and for the security and payment of interest on, the Bonds, the 2017A Bonds and any future Parity Debt. In addition, the Bonds, the 2017A Bonds and any future Parity Debt are additionally secured at all times by a first and exclusive pledge of, security interest in and lien upon all of the moneys in the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund, the Debt Service Fund, the Interest Account, the Principal Account, the Sinking Account, the Reserve Account and the Redemption Account (as such terms are defined in the Indenture). Except for the Tax Revenues and such moneys, no funds or properties of the Successor Agency shall be to, or otherwise liable for, the payment of principal of or interest or redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds. The Bonds maturing on or before August 1, ____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, ____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, ____, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount As provided in the Indenture, notice of redemption shall be given by first class mail no less than twenty (20) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date to the respective registered owners of any Bonds designated for redemption at their addresses April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 215 B-4 appearing on the Bond registration books maintained by the Trustee, but neither failure to receive such notice nor any defect in the notice so mailed shall affect the sufficiency of the proceedings for redemption. Notices of optional redemption may be conditioned upon receipt by the Trustee of sufficient moneys to redeem the Bonds on the anticipated redemption date, and if the Trustee does not receive sufficient funds by the scheduled redemption date the redemption shall not occur and the Bonds for which notice of redemption was given shall remain outstanding for all purposes of the Indenture. If this Bond is called for redemption and payment is duly provided therefor as specified in the Indenture, interest shall cease to accrue hereon from and after the date fixed for redemption. The Bonds are issuable as fully registered Bonds without coupons in denominations of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. Subject to the limitations and conditions and upon payment of the charges, if any, as provided in the Indenture, Bonds may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized denominations and of the same maturity. This Bond is transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the Principal Corporate Trust Office of the Trustee, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Indenture, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon registration of such transfer a new fully registered Bond or Bonds, of any authorized denomination or denominations, for the same aggregate principal amount and of the same maturity will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. The Trustee may refuse to transfer or exchange (a) any Bonds during the fifteen (15) days prior to the date established for the selection of Bonds for redemption, or (b) any Bonds selected for redemption. The Successor Agency and the Trustee may treat the Registered Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes, and the Successor Agency and the Trustee shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. The rights and obligations of the Successor Agency and the registered owners of the Bonds may be modified or amended at any time in the manner, to the extent and upon the terms provided in the Indenture, but no such modification or amendment shall (a) extend the maturity of or reduce the interest rate on any Bond or otherwise alter or impair the obligation of the Successor Agency to pay the principal, interest or redemption premiums (if any) at the time and place and at the rate and in the currency provided herein of any Bond without the express written consent of the registered owner of such Bond, (b) reduce the percentage of Bonds required for the written consent to any such amendment or modification or (c) without its written consent thereto, modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee. This Bond is not a debt of the County of Contra Costa, the State of California, or any of its political subdivisions, and neither said County, said State, nor any of its political subdivisions is liable hereon, nor in any event shall this Bond be payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the Successor Agency. The Bonds do not constitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. It is hereby certified that all of the things, conditions and acts required to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have happened or have been performed in due and regular time and manner as required by the Redevelopment Law and the laws of the State of California, and that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the Successor Agency, does not exceed any limit April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 216 B-5 prescribed by the Redevelopment Law or any laws of the State of California, and is not in excess of the amount of Bonds permitted to be issued under the Indenture. Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company; a New York corporation (“DTC”), to the Successor Agency or the Trustee for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. This Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Indenture or become valid or obligatory for any purpose until the Trustee’s Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Trustee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 217 B-6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency has caused this Bond to be executed in its name and on its behalf with the facsimile signature of its Chair and attested by the facsimile signature of its Secretary, all as of Dated Date stated above. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: Chair ATTEST: By: Secretary TRUSTEE’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Indenture. Authentication Date: ________________ U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Signatory April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 218 B-7 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (Name, Address and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignee) the within Bond and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint , attorney, to transfer the same on the registration books of the Trustee, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: _______________ Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution (banks, stock brokers, savings and loan associations and credit unions with membership in an approved signature guarantee medallion program) pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 17 Ad-15. NOTICE: The signature(s) on this Assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 219 B-8 STATEMENT OF INSURANCE [to come] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 220   2175 North California Blvd., Suite 422, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone (925) 256-9797 Facsimile (925) 256-9795 April 10, 2017 Redevelopment Administration California Department of Finance 915 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814-3706 E-mail: Redevelopment_Administration@dof.ca.gov Re: Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Request for Determination and Approval of Oversight Board Action To whom it may concern: As the Independent Financial Advisor to the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”), Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC (“MDA”) is required per Assembly Bill No. 1484 to review any refinancing proposal submitted by the Successor Agency to the Department of Finance (“DOF”) for approval. The Agency currently administers five outstanding tax allocation revenue bond series which are secured by 12 underlying tax increment loans (“Project Area Loans”) from five different project areas together with funds held by the trustee. The Agency intends to issue tax-exempt and taxable tax allocation refunding bonds (the “Refunding Bonds”) to refund all 12 underlying tax increment loans, the proceeds of which, in turn will be used to refund all five outstanding bond series (“Related Bond Series”). In the current rate environment, this proposed refunding is expected to generate refinancing savings for the Agency and other stakeholders, as well as greatly simplify future Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”) reporting. A list of the Project Area Loans and Related Bond Series is provided as Table 1. We examined the methodology and assumptions provided to the Agency by the underwriter, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (“Stifel”), regarding the issuance of the Refunding Bonds as shown in Table 2. MDA independently verified that Stifel’s calculations of projected refunding savings are correct (presented as Table 3). We determined that the combined principal and interest payments on the Refunding Bonds are expected to be less than those of the Related Bond Series, in accordance with 34177.5. (a) (1) of the Health and Safety Code. While MDA represents that the interest rates assumed by Stifel are a reasonable representation of those available in the municipal bond market on April 4, 2017, we provide no assurances that these interest rate assumptions will represent the municipal bond market on the date of sale, currently anticipated for mid-June 2017. Lastly, we note that certain structuring decisions regarding the use of financial guarantee insurance and debt service reserve surety bonds, etc. will April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 221 2    be made on a basis which ensures the best economic outcome. Sincerely, Natalie Perkins Managing Director April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 222   3    Table 1: Project Area Loans and Related Bond Series Table 2: Refunding Assumptions Refunding Assumptions Delivery Date 7/13/2017 Interest Rates as of 4/4/2017 Credit Rating AA insured (A+ underlying) Underwriter's Discount $3.59 per bond Cost of Issuance $350,000 Bond Insurance 0.85% of total debt service Surety Premium 2.75% of reserve requirement Table 3: Projected Refunding Results Series 2017A Series 2017B (Tax-Exempt) (Taxable) Total Refunded Par $76,550,000 $22,865,000 $99,415,000 Refunding Par $54,855,000 $23,490,000 $78,345,000 Cash Flow Savings* $18,178,038 $7,333,953 $25,511,991 Net Present Value (NPV) Savings** $9,429,066 $4,446,958 $13,876,024 NPV Savings (% of refunded par) 12.3% 19.4% 14.0% Refunded Bonds' Average Coupon 5.04% 6.13% 5.33% Refunding All-in TIC 3.61% 4.32% 3.81% * Cash flow savings have been adjusted to account for $15.6 million in existing reserves and prepaid principal expected to be contributed to the refunding escrow ** Cash flow savings discounted to 7/13/2017 using a yield of 3.53%. Project Area Loans 1999 2003 2007 Non-Hsg 2007 Hsg 2007 Total Grand Total Contra Costa Centre 6,995,000$ 5,550,000$ 32,645,000$ -$ 32,645,000$ 45,190,000$ Bay Point 175,000 - 19,115,000 4,520,000 23,635,000 23,810,000 North Richmond - - 2,800,000 3,500,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 Rodeo - - 5,265,000 3,465,000 8,730,000 8,730,000 Montalvin Manor - - 1,390,000 680,000 2,070,000 2,070,000 Total 7,170,000$ 5,550,000$ 61,215,000$ 12,165,000$ 73,380,000$ 86,100,000$ Related Bond Series 1999 2003 2007A 2007AT 2007B 2007 Total Grand Total Par 7,170,000$ 5,550,000$ 50,725,000$ 22,865,000$ 13,105,000$ 86,695,000$ 99,415,000$ Prepaid Fund Balances Held by Trustee (13,315,000) (13,315,000) (13,315,000) Net Par 7,170,000$ 5,550,000$ 37,410,000$ 22,865,000$ 13,105,000$ 73,380,000$ 86,100,000$ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 223 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 19134.01:J14595 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 1999 Loan and a WP 1999 Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo and Redevelopment Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 224 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 1999 Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), the Fomer Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “PH 1999 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $21,138,030.52 of which $6,995,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement,” and together with the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the “Prior Loan Agreements”), the Former Agency incurred a 1999 Loan (the “WP 1999 Loan,” and together with the PH Loan, the “Prior Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $8,029,984.60 of which $175,000 is outstanding; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement and Section 8.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the PH 1999 Loan and the WP 1999 Loan, respectively, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) (the “1999 Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 1999 (as amended, the “1999 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association (formerly known as U.S. Bank Trust National Association), as trustee (the “1999 Trustee”), proceeds of which 1999 Authority Bonds were used to fund the Prior Loans; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 225 -2- WHEREAS, Section 7.05(a) of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 1999 Loan and Section 8.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the WP 1999 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Prior Loan Agreements effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 1999 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 1999 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 1999 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 1999 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 1999 Trustee pursuant to the 1999 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 1999 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 1999 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 1999 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 1999 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 1999 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 1999 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 1999 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 1999 Authority Indenture with respect to all 1999 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 1999 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 1999 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 226 -3- WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 1999 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 1999 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 1999 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 1999 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 1999 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 227 -4- Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 1999 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 1999 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 1999 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 1999 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 1999 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 1999 Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 1999 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 1999 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 1999 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 1999 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 1999 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 1999 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 1999 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 1999 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 1999 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 228 -5- Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 1999 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 1999 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 1999 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 1999 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 1999 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 1999 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 229 -6- deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 1999 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 1999 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 1999 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 1999 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 1999 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 1999 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 1999 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 230 -7- Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 1999 Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 231 -8- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14595 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 232 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 233 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 1999 AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 234 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2019 $ 212262 CD9 August 1, 2028 212262 CE7 August 1, 2028 212262 CF4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2019 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 235 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2019 $ 100% 5.125% 212262 CD9 August 1, 2028 100 5.250 212262 CE7 August 1, 2028 100 5.450 212262 CF4 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 236 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 19134.01:J14608 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 2003 Loan, as referenced herein, from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 237 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2003 Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred, pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), a 2003 Loan (the “PH 2003 Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $19,195,000 of which $5,550,000 is outstanding; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the PH 2003 Loan, which payments are a source of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) (the “2003 Authority Bonds”) issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of August 1, 2003 (as amended, the “2003 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2003 Trustee”), proceeds of which 2003 Authority Bonds were used to fund the PH 2003 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 8.05 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 2003 Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement effectively provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2003 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with respect to the Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 238 -2- amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with respect to the Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2003 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2003 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2003 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2003 Trustee pursuant to the 2003 Authority Indenture and the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2003 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2003 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2003 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2003 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2003 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2003 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2003 Authority Indenture with respect to all 2003 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2003 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, refund the 2003 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 239 -3- Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, the 2003 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the PH 2003 Loan and, thereby, the 2003 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement and the 2003 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve fund held by the 2003 Trustee under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________; (iii) from the special fund held by the Successor Agency under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2003 Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2003 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 240 -4- redemption of the remaining outstanding 2003 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2003 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2003 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2003 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2003 Authority Bonds or the PH 2003 Loan, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2003 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2003 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2003 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2003 Authority Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2003 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2003 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2003 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve fund held by the 2003 Trustee under the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2003 Authority Indenture and the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2003 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2003 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2003 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2003 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2003 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 2003 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 241 -5- Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 242 -6- termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2003 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2003 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 2003 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2003 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2003 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2003 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2003 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2003 Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 243 -7- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14608 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 244 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 245 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2003 AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 246 Exhibit C EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) Maturity Amount CUSIP Date Defeased Number* August 1, 2023 $ 212262 DV8 August 1, 2033 212262 DW6 August 1, 2033 212262 ER6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing on and after August 1, 2023 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. *Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. DATED this ____ day of _____________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 247 Exhibit D EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price (1) Rate Number* August 1, 2023 $ 100% 5.500% 212262 DV8 August 1, 2033 100 5.625 212262 DW6 August 1, 2033 100 5.850 212262 ER6 (1) Accrued interest to be added. NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. *Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. Dated: ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 248 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 19134.01:J14609 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank dated as of __________ 1, 2017 relating to: prepayment of a PH 2007A Loan, a portion of a WP 2007A Loan, a WP 2007B Loan, a NR 2007A Loan, a portion of a NR 2007B Loan, an R 2007A Loan, a portion of an R 2007B Loan and a MM 2007A Loan, as referenced herein, each from the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority to the former County of Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency and the refunding of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) and the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 249 -1- ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT This ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (this “Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, a joint exercise of powers authority organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Authority”), the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, as successor to the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Successor Agency”), and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, as trustee with respect to the hereinafter described 2007A Authority Bonds and as escrow bank hereunder (the “Escrow Bank”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, in order to finance redevelopment and housing activities of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the Former Agency incurred the following obligations: (i) pursuant to a Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Authority and the Former Agency (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2017, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority, the “Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “PH 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $37,775,000 of which $32,645,000 is outstanding; and (ii) pursuant to a West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of December 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2017, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “West Pittsburg Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “WP 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $24,195,000 of which $19,115,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “WP 2007B Loan,” and together with the WP 1999 Loan and the WP 2007A Loan, the “West Pittsburg Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $5,015,000 of which $4,520,000 is outstanding; and (iii) pursuant to a North Richmond Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1992, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of June 1, 1995, by a Second Supplement dated as of March 1, 1999, by a Third Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Sixth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Seventh Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “North Richmond Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “NR 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $16,685,000 of which $2,800,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “NR 2007B Loan,” and together with the NR 2007A Loan, the “North April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 250 -2- Richmond Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,975,000 of which $3,500,000 is outstanding; and (iv) pursuant to a Rodeo Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Second Supplement dated as of August 1, 2003, by a Third Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, by a Fourth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007, and by a Fifth Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Rodeo Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a 2007A Loan (the “R 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $9,775,000 of which $5,265,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “R 2007B Loan,” and together with the R 2007A Loan, the “Rodeo Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $3,930,000 of which $3,465,000 is outstanding; and (v) pursuant to a Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, between the Former Agency and the Authority (as amended and supplemented by a First Supplement dated as of May 1, 2007 and by a Second Supplement dated as of May 1, 2012, each between the Former Agency and the Authority, the “Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement”), the Former Agency incurred a Loan (the “MM 2007A Loan”) in the initial principal amount of $2,195,000 of which $1,390,000 is outstanding, and a 2007B Loan (the “MM 2007B Loan,” and together with the MM 2007A Loan, the “Montalvin Manor Loans”) in the initial principal amount of $790,000 of which $680,000 is outstanding (the PH 2007A Loan, the West Pittsburg Loans, the North Richmond Loans, the Rodeo Loans and the Montalvin Manor Loans are collectively referred to herein as the “Prior Loans”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.04 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, Sections 11.04 and 12.04 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, Sections 10.04 and 11.04 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement, Sections 9.04 and 10.04 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement, and Sections 2.03 and 7.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement, the Successor Agency is obligated to repay the Prior Loans, which payments are sources of revenue to pay the debt service on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A Authority Bonds”) and on the Authority’s County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007B Authority Bonds,” and together with the 2007A Authority Bonds, the “2007 Authority Bonds”), both issued pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 2017 (as amended, the “2007 Authority Indenture”), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2007 Trustee”), proceeds of which 2007 Authority Bonds were used to fund all or a portion of the Prior Loans; WHEREAS, Section 9.05 of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the PH 2007A Loan, Sections 11.05 and 12.05 of the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement allow for the prepayment of the WP 2007A Loan and the WP 2007B Loan, respectively, Sections 11.05 and 12.05 of the North Richmond Loan Agreement allow for prepayment of the NR 2007A Loan and the NR 2007B Loan, respectively, Sections 9.05 and 10.05 of the Rodeo Loan Agreement allow for the prepayment of the R 2007A Loan and the R 2007B Loan, respectively, and Section 2.04 of the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement allows for the prepayment of the MM 2007A Loan; WHEREAS, Section 6.03 of each of the Pleasant Hill Loan Agreement, the West Pittsburg Loan Agreement, the North Richmond Loan Agreement, the Rodeo Loan Agreement and the Montalvin Manor Loan Agreement (collectively, the “Prior Loan Agreements”), effectively April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 251 -3- provides that, if the Agency shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (capitalized terms in this paragraph and not otherwise defined in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, being as defined in the respective Prior Loan Agreement) by irrevocably depositing with the Trustee or any other fiduciary, in trust, Federal Securities in such amount as Bond Counsel or an Independent Accountant shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established pursuant to the 2007 Authority Indenture or the Loan Agreement, as applicable, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on the respective Prior Loan (including all principal, interest and prepayment premiums) at or before maturity, then at the election of the Agency but only if all other amounts then due and payable under the Loan Agreement shall have been paid or provision for their payment has been made, the pledge of and lien upon the Tax Revenues and other funds provided for in the Loan Agreement and all other obligations of the Trustee, the Authority and the Agency under the Loan Agreement with regard to the respective Prior Loan shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Agency to pay or cause to be paid to the Trustee, from the amounts so deposited with the Trustee or such other fiduciary, all sums due with regard to the respective Prior Loan and all expenses and costs of the Trustee; WHEREAS, Section 9.03(c) of the 2007 Authority Indenture provides that if the Authority shall pay and discharge the entire indebtedness on all 2007 Authority Bonds by irrevocably depositing with the 2007 Trustee or another fiduciary, in trust, Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) in such amount as an Independent Accountant or Bond Counsel (as such terms are defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) shall determine will, together with the interest to accrue thereon and available moneys then on deposit in the funds and accounts established with the 2007 Trustee pursuant to the 2007 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, be fully sufficient to pay and discharge the indebtedness on all 2007 Authority Bonds (including all principal, interest and redemption premiums) at or before maturity, and if the 2007 Authority Bonds are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption is given pursuant to Section 2.02(c) of the 2007 Authority Indenture or provision satisfactory to the 2007 Trustee shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then, at the request of the Authority, and notwithstanding that any 2007 Authority Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, the pledge of the Revenues (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) and other funds provided for in the 2007 Authority Indenture and all other pecuniary obligations of the Authority under the 2007 Authority Indenture with respect to all 2007 Authority Bonds shall cease and terminate, except only the obligation of the Authority to pay or cause to be paid to the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds not so surrendered and paid all sums due thereon and all expenses and costs of the 2007 Trustee; WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has determined that, due to prevailing financial market conditions, it is in the best interests of the Successor Agency at this time to prepay the Prior Loans and, thereby, refund the 2007 Authority Bonds at this time; WHEREAS, to raise funds necessary to effectuate such prepayment and refunding, and for other purposes, the Successor Agency has issued its Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017 Bonds”), pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, (the “2017 Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “2017 Trustee”); WHEREAS, the Authority and the Successor Agency wish to make a deposit with the Escrow Bank and to enter into this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement for the purpose of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 252 -4- providing the terms and conditions for the deposit and application of amounts so deposited; and WHEREAS, the Escrow Bank has full powers to act with respect to the irrevocable escrow and trust created herein and to perform the duties and obligations to be undertaken by it pursuant to this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Appointment of Escrow Bank. The Authority and the Successor Agency hereby appoint the Escrow Bank as escrow bank for all purposes of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement and in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, and the Escrow Bank hereby accepts such appointment. Section 2. Establishment of Escrow Fund. There is hereby created by the Authority and the Successor Agency with, and to be held by, the Escrow Bank, as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007 Authority Bonds, as hereinafter set forth, an irrevocable escrow to be maintained in trust by the Escrow Bank on behalf of the Authority and the Successor Agency and for the benefit of the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds, said escrow to be designated the “Escrow Fund.” All moneys deposited in the Escrow Fund shall constitute a special fund for the payment of the principal of, and interest on the Prior Loans and, thereby, the 2007 Authority Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Prior Loan Agreements and the 2007 Authority Indenture, respectively. If at any time the Escrow Bank shall receive actual knowledge that the moneys in the Escrow Fund will not be sufficient to make any payment required by Section 4 hereof, the Escrow Bank shall notify the Successor Agency of such fact and the Successor Agency shall immediately cure such deficiency with any lawfully available funds of the Successor Agency. Section 3. Deposit into Escrow Fund; Investment of Amounts. (a) Concurrent with delivery of the 2017 Bonds, the Successor Agency shall cause to be transferred to the Escrow Bank for deposit into the Escrow Fund the amount of $__________, derived as follows: (i) from the proceeds of the 2017 Bonds, $__________; (ii) from the reserve funds held by the 2007 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; (iii) from the special funds held by the Successor Agency under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________; and (iv) from funds held by the Successor Agency, $__________. (b) The Escrow Bank shall invest $__________ of the moneys deposited into the Escrow Fund pursuant to the preceding paragraph in the Defeasance Obligations (as defined in the 2007 Authority Indenture) described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the “Escrowed Federal Securities”) and shall hold the remaining $__________ in cash, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 253 -5- uninvested. The Escrowed Federal Securities shall be deposited with and held by the Escrow Bank in the Escrow Fund solely for the uses and purposes set forth herein. The Successor Agency acknowledges that to the extent regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency or other applicable regulatory entity grant the Successor Agency the right to receive brokerage confirmations of security transactions as they occur, the Successor Agency specifically waives receipt of such confirmations to the extent permitted by law. The Escrow Bank will furnish the Successor Agency periodic cash transaction statements which shall include detail for all investment transactions made by the Escrow Bank hereunder. (c) The Escrow Bank may rely upon the conclusion of Causey Demgen & Moore, P.C., as contained in its opinion and accompanying schedules (the “Report”) dated _____, 2017, that the Escrowed Federal Securities mature and bear interest payable in such amounts and at such times as, together with cash on deposit in the Escrow Fund, will be sufficient to provide for the payment of the scheduled debt service on the 2007 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017, and the redemption of the remaining outstanding 2007 Authority Bonds on August 1, 2017 in full, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. (d) The Escrow Bank shall not be liable or responsible for any loss resulting from its full compliance with the provisions of this Escrow Agreement. Section 4. Instructions as to Application of Deposit. (a) The amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund pursuant to Section 3 shall be applied by the Escrow Bank for the sole purpose of (i) paying the scheduled debt service on the 2007 Authority Bonds due on August 1, 2017, and (ii) redeeming the 2007 Authority Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to such date, all as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. Following the redemption of the 2007 Authority Bonds, the Escrow Bank shall transfer any remaining amounts held by it relating to the 2007 Authority Bonds or the Prior Loans, to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. (b) The Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007 Trustee, is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank, in its capacity as 2007 Trustee, hereby agrees to give notice of the defeasance of the 2007 Authority Bonds in the form of defeasance notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. (c) The Escrow Bank is hereby requested, and the Escrow Bank hereby agrees, to give notice of the redemption of the 2007 Authority Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 in full on August 1, 2017, said notice to be given not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the Redemption Date in accordance with Section 2.02(d) of the 2007 Authority Indenture and a redemption notice substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. Section 5. Application of 2007 Funds. (a) The Escrow Bank, as 2007 Trustee, is hereby directed to transfer to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the Escrow Fund, from the reserve funds held by the 2007 Trustee under the Prior Loan Agreements, $__________. (b) Any amounts remaining on deposit in any fund or account established under the 2007 Authority Indenture and the Prior Loan Agreements, including any investment earnings received after the date of original delivery of the 2017 Bonds, shall be transferred by the Escrow Bank to the 2017 Trustee for deposit in the Debt Service Fund established under the 2017 Indenture. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 254 -6- Section 6. Application of Certain Terms of 2007 Authority Indenture. All of the terms of the 2007 Authority Indenture relating to the making of payments of principal and interest on, and redeeming, the 2007 Authority Bonds are incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein. The provisions of the 2007 Authority Indenture relating to the limitations from liability and protections afforded the 2007 Trustee and the resignation and removal of the 2007 Trustee are also incorporated in this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as if set forth in full herein and shall be the procedure to be followed with respect to any resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank hereunder. Section 7. Compensation to Escrow Bank. The Successor Agency shall pay the Escrow Bank full compensation for its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs such as publication costs, prepayment or redemption expenses, legal fees and other costs and expenses relating hereto. Under no circumstances shall amounts deposited in the Escrow Fund be deemed to be available for said purposes. Section 8. Liabilities and Obligations of Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank shall have no obligation to make any payment or disbursement of any type or incur any financial liability in the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement unless the Successor Agency shall have deposited sufficient funds with the Escrow Bank. The Escrow Bank may rely and shall be protected in acting upon the written instructions of the Successor Agency or its agents relating to any matter or action as Escrow Bank under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants shall not be held to any personal liability whatsoever, in tort, contract, or otherwise, in connection with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the acceptance of the moneys deposited therein, the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys held hereunder to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof, or any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or by reason of any non-negligent act, non-negligent omission or non-negligent error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties. The recitals of fact contained in the “whereas” clauses herein shall be taken as the statement of the Successor Agency and the Authority, and the Escrow Bank assumes no responsibility for the correctness thereof. The Escrow Bank makes no representations as to the sufficiency of the uninvested moneys to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4 hereof or to the validity of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement as to the Successor Agency or the Authority and, except as otherwise provided herein, the Escrow Bank shall incur no liability in respect thereof. The Escrow Bank shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement except for its own negligence, willful misconduct or default, and the duties and obligations of the Escrow Bank shall be determined by the express provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. The Escrow Bank may consult with counsel, who may or may not be counsel to the Successor Agency or the Authority, and in reliance upon the written opinion of such counsel shall have full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken, suffered or omitted by it in good faith in accordance therewith. Whenever the Escrow Bank shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking, suffering, or omitting any action under this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, such matter (except the matters set forth herein as specifically requiring a certificate of a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants or an opinion of counsel) may be deemed to be conclusively established by a written certification of the Successor Agency or the Authority. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 255 -7- The Successor Agency hereby assumes liability for, and hereby agrees (whether or not any of the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated), to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Escrow Bank and its respective successors, assigns, agents and servants from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses and disbursements (including legal fees and disbursements) of whatsoever kind and nature which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against, at any time, the Escrow Bank (whether or not also indemnified against by any other person under any other agreement or instrument) and in any way relating to or arising out of the execution and delivery of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, the establishment of the Escrow Fund, the retention of the moneys therein and any payment, transfer or other application of moneys by the Escrow Bank in accordance with the provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, or as may arise by reason of any act, omission or error of the Escrow Bank made in good faith in the conduct of its duties; provided, however, that the Successor Agency shall not be required to indemnify the Escrow Bank against its own negligence or misconduct. The indemnities contained in this Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement or the resignation or removal of the Escrow Bank. Section 9. Amendment. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement which shall become effective when the written consents of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) in aggregate principal amount of the 2007 Authority Bonds shall have been filed with the Escrow Bank. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be modified or amended at any time by a supplemental agreement, without the consent of any such owners, but only (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of any party hereto, other covenants to be observed, or to surrender any right or power herein or therein reserved to the Authority and the Successor Agency, (b) to cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained herein, (c) in regard to questions arising hereunder as the parties hereto may deem necessary or desirable and which, in the opinion of counsel, shall not materially adversely affect the interests of the owners of the 2007 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds, and that such amendment will not cause interest on the 2007 Authority Bonds or the 2017 Bonds to become subject to federal income taxation. In connection with any amendment or modification of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, written notice thereof and copies of the applicable legal documents shall be provided by the Successor Agency to each rating agency then rating the 2007 Authority Bonds. Section 10. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or provision of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, sentence clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement. Section 11. Notice of Escrow Bank, Agency and Authority. Any notice to or demand upon the Escrow Bank may be served and presented, and such demand may be made, at the Trust Office of the Escrow Bank as specified by the Escrow Bank as 2007 Trustee in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.13 of the 2007 Authority Indenture. Any notice to or demand upon the Successor Agency and the Authority, respectively, shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes by being mailed by first class mail, and deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letter box, addressed to such party as provided in the 2007 Authority Indenture (or such other address as may have been filed in writing by the Successor Agency or the Authority with the Escrow Bank). Section 12. Merger or Consolidation of Escrow Bank. Any company into which the Escrow Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated or any April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 256 -8- company resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which it shall be a party or any company to which the Escrow Bank may sell or transfer all or substantially all of its corporate trust business, provided such company shall be eligible to act as trustee under the 2007A Authority Indenture, shall be the successor hereunder to the Escrow Bank without the execution or filing of any paper or any further act. Section 13. Execution in Several Counterparts. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original; and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 14. Governing Law. This Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 257 -9- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, the SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its name by its Executive Director, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank, in token of its acceptance of the trust created hereunder, has caused this Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement to be signed in its corporate name by its officer identified below, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY By: David Twa, Executive Director Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: David Twa, Executive Director U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank By: Authorized Officer 19134.01:J14609 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 258 Exhibit A EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF ESCROWED FEDERAL SECURITIES Type Maturity Coupon Principal Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 259 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007A AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE 2007B AUTHORITY BONDS Payment Date Interest Maturing Principal Called Principal Total Payment August 1, 2017 $ $ $ $ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 260 Exhibit C Page 1 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF DEFEASANCE County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Date Amount Defeased CUSIP Number* August 1, 2018 $ 212262 HE2 August 1, 2019 212262 HF9 August 1, 2020 212262 HG7 August 1, 2021 212262 HH5 August 1, 2022 212262 HJ1 August 1, 2023 212262 HK8 August 1, 2024 212262 HL6 August 1, 2025 212262 HM4 August 1, 2030 212262 HP7 August 1, 2037 212262 HQ5 August 1, 2014 212262 HX0 August 1, 2019 212262 JC4 August 1, 2026 212262 JK6 August 1, 2037 212262 JM2 and County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Date Amount Defeased CUSIP Number* August 1, 2018 $ 212262 KC2 August 1, 2019 212262 KD0 August 1, 2020 212262 KE8 August 1, 2021 212262 KF5 August 1, 2026 212262 KK4 August 1, 2030 212262 KL2 August 1, 2035 212262 KM0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, on behalf of the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) to the owners of the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) and the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (collectively, the “Bonds”), that pursuant to the indenture of trust, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance of the Bonds (the “Indenture”), the lien * Neither the Authority nor U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Defeasance. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 261 Exhibit C Page 2 of the Indenture with respect to the Bonds has been discharged through the irrevocable deposit of cash and U.S. Treasury securities in an escrow fund (the “Escrow Fund”). The Escrow Fund has been established and is being maintained pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of __________ 1, 2017, by and among the Authority, the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank. As a result of such deposit, the Bonds are deemed to have been paid and defeased in accordance with the Indenture. The pledge of the funds provided for under the Indenture and all other obligations of the Authority to the owners of the Bonds shall hereafter be limited to the application of moneys in the Escrow Fund for the payment of the principal and interest with respect to the Bonds as the same become due and payable as described below. The maturing U.S. Treasury securities, the interest thereon and the cash deposited in the Escrow Fund are calculated to provide sufficient moneys to pay the scheduled debt service on the Bonds on August 1, 2017, and to redeem the Bonds maturing after August 1, 2017 in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal thereof plus accrued interest to such date. DATED this ______ day of ______________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Bank April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 262 Exhibit D Page 1 EXHIBIT D FORM OF NOTICE OF REDEMPTION NOTICE OF FULL/FINAL REDEMPTION County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price(1) Rate Number(2) August 1, 2018 $ 100% 5.000% 212262 HE2 August 1, 2019 100 5.000 212262 HF9 August 1, 2020 100 5.000 212262 HG7 August 1, 2021 100 5.000 212262 HH5 August 1, 2022 100 5.000 212262 HJ1 August 1, 2023 100 5.000 212262 HK8 August 1, 2024 100 5.000 212262 HL6 August 1, 2025 100 5.000 212262 HM4 August 1, 2030 100 5.000 212262 HP7 August 1, 2037 100 5.000 212262 HQ5 August 1, 2014 100 4.000 212262 HX0 August 1, 2019 100 4.350 212262 JC4 August 1, 2026 100 4.750 212262 JK6 August 1, 2037 100 4.750 212262 JM2 and County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) Maturity Amount Redemption Interest CUSIP Date Called Price(1) Rate Number(2) August 1, 2018 $ 100% 4.125% 212262 KC2 August 1, 2019 100 4.250 212262 KD0 August 1, 2020 100 4.350 212262 KE8 August 1, 2021 100 4.375 212262 KF5 August 1, 2026 100 5.000 212262 KK4 August 1, 2030 100 5.000 212262 KL2 August 1, 2035 100 5.000 212262 KM0 NOTICE is hereby given that the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority has called for redemption on August 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”), the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay (1) Accrued interest to be added. (2) Neither the Successor Agency nor U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, shall be held responsible for the selection or use of CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness as shown in this Notice of Full/Final Redemption. They are included solely for convenience of the owners. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 263 Exhibit D Page 2 Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas), described above (the “Bonds”), at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption (the “Redemption Price”). On the Redemption Date, the Redemption Price will become due and payable upon each Bond and interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue from and after the Redemption Date. Payment of principal will be made upon presentation on and after August 1, 2017, at the following addresses: If by Mail: (Registered Bonds) U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 If by Hand or Overnight Mail: U.S. Bank National Association Attn: Global Corporate Trust Services 111 Fillmore Avenue E St. Paul, MN 55107 Owners of Bonds presenting their certificates in person for the same day payment must surrender their certificate by 1:00 p.m. on the prepayment date and a check will be available for pickup after 2:00 p.m. Checks not picked up by 4:30 p.m. will be mailed to the Bondholder by first class mail. Interest with respect to the principal amount designated to be redeemed shall cease to accrue on and after the Redemption Date. If payment of the Redemption Price is to be made to the registered owner of the Bond you are not required to endorse the Bond to collect the Redemption Price. Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 1995 (the “Act”) 28% of the Redemption Price will be withheld if tax identification number is not properly certified. The Form W-9 may be obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. Dated: ___________________, 2017 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 264 Quint & Thimmig LLP 3/28/17 4/11/17 19134.01:J14598 $__________ SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017A $__________ SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017B BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT ____________, 2017 Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Ladies and Gentlemen: Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated (the “Underwriter”) offers to enter into this Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) with the Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Successor Agency”), which will be binding upon the Successor Agency and the Underwriter upon the acceptance hereof by the Successor Agency. This offer is made subject to its acceptance by the Successor Agency by execution of this Bond Purchase Agreement and its delivery to the Underwriter on or before 11:59 P.M., California time, on the date hereof. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Indenture, described below. 1. Purchase and Sale. Upon the terms and conditions and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and covenants herein, the Successor Agency hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter and the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the Successor Agency for offering to the public, all (but not less than all) of the $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “2017A Bonds”), at the purchase price of $__________ (being the principal amount of the Bonds of $__________, less an Underwriter’s discount of $__________, and less/plus a net original issue discount/premium of $__________). As an accommodation to the Successor Agency, the Underwriter will pay, from the purchase price of the 2017A Bonds, the sum of $__________ to ______________ (the “Municipal Bond Insurer”) as the premium for its municipal bond insurance policy issued for the 2017A Bonds (the “2017A Municipal Bond Insurance Policy”) and the sum April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 265 -2- of $__________ to the Municipal Bond Insurer as a portion of the premium for its reserve fund municipal bond insurance policy (the “Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy”) issued for the Bonds (hereinafter defined). The net purchase proceeds of the 2017A Bonds in the amount of $__________ will be delivered to the Trustee, on behalf of the Successor Agency. Upon the terms and conditions and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and covenants herein, the Successor Agency hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter and the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the Successor Agency for offering to the public, all (but not less than all) of the $__________ Successor Agency to the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B (the “2017B Bonds” and, with the 2017A Bonds, the “Bonds”), at the purchase price of $__________ (being the principal amount of the 2017B Bonds of $__________, less an Underwriter’s discount of $__________, and less/plus a net original issue discount/premium of $__________). As an accommodation to the Successor Agency, the Underwriter will pay, from the purchase price of the 2017B Bonds, the sum of $__________ to the Municipal Bond Insurer as the premium for its municipal bond insurance policy issued for the 2017B Bonds (the “2017B Municipal Bond Insurance Policy” and, with the 2017A Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, the “Municipal Bond Insurance Policies”) and the sum of $__________ to the Municipal Bond Insurer as a portion of the premium for the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy. The net purchase proceeds of the 2017B Bonds in the amount of $__________ will be delivered to the Trustee, on behalf of the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency acknowledges and agrees that (i) the purchase and sale of the Bonds pursuant to this Bond Purchase Agreement is an arm’s-length commercial transaction between the Successor Agency and the Underwriter; (ii) in connection with such transaction, including the process leading thereto, the Underwriter is acting solely as a principal and not as an agent or a fiduciary of the Successor Agency; (iii) the Underwriter has neither assumed an advisory or fiduciary responsibility in favor of the Successor Agency with respect to the offering of the Bonds or the process leading thereto (whether or not the Underwriter, or any affiliate of the Underwriter, has advised or is currently advising the Successor Agency on other matters) nor has it assumed any other obligation to the Successor Agency except the obligations expressly set forth in this Bond Purchase Agreement, (iv) the Underwriter has financial and other interests that differ from those of the Successor Agency; and (v) the Successor Agency has consulted with its own legal and financial advisors to the extent it deemed appropriate in connection with the offering of the Bonds. The Successor Agency hereby acknowledges receipt from the Underwriter of disclosures required by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) Rule G-17 (as set forth in MSRB Notice 2012-25 (May 7, 2012), relating to disclosures concerning the Underwriter’s role in the transaction, disclosures concerning the Underwriter’s compensation, conflict disclosures, if any, and disclosures concerning complex municipal securities financing, if any. The Bonds shall be dated the Closing Date and shall bear interest at the rates and shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts, all as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 266 -3- The 2017A Bonds are being issued for the purpose of (a) providing funds to the Successor Agency to prepay the Pleasant Hill Loans, the WP 1999 Loan, the WP 2007B Loan and a portion of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007A Loan and a portion of the NR 2007B Loan, the R 2007A Loan and a portion of the R 2007B Loan, and the MM 2007A Loan, all as referenced in the second Recital to the Indenture, and thereby currently refund (i) the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 1999 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds (Pleasant Hill BART, North Richmond, Bay Point, Oakley and Rodeo Redevelopment Project Areas) (the “1999 Bonds”); (ii) the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2003 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Multiple Project Areas) (the “2003 Bonds”); (iii) the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A Bonds”) and the outstanding County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series B (Contra Costa Centre, North Richmond, Bay Point, Rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007B Bonds”); (b) paying a portion of the cost of the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, and (c) paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Bonds. The 2017B Bonds are being issued for the purpose of (a) providing funds to the Successor Agency to prepay portions of the WP 2007A Loan, the NR 2007B Loan and the Rodeo 2007B Loan and all of the MM 2007B Loan, all as referenced in the second Recital to the Indenture, and thereby currently refund the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority 2007 Taxable Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds, Series A-T (North Richmond, Bay Point, rodeo and Montalvin Manor Project Areas) (the “2007A-T Bonds”); (b) paying a portion of the cost of the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, and (c) paying a portion of the costs of issuing the Bonds. The Bonds are being issued under and pursuant to that certain Indenture of Trust, dated as of __________ 1, 2017 (the “Indenture”), by and between the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”), and are special, limited obligations of the Successor Agency, payable from, and secured by a lien on Tax Revenues. The payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds, when due, will be insured by the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies issued by the Municipal Bond Insurer concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds. Pursuant to four separate escrow agreements (collectively, the “Escrow Agreements”), each by and among the County of Contra Costa Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”), the Successor Agency and U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow bank (the “Escrow Bank”), provision will be made for (a) the payment of the scheduled debt service due on August 1, 2017 on the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A-T Bonds; and (b) the redemption of (i) the 1999 Bonds, (ii) the 2003 Bonds, (iii) the 2007A Bonds and the 2007B Bonds, and (iv) the 2007 A-T Bonds, respectively, maturing after August 1, 2017, each in full on August 1, 2017, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to such date. Issuance of the Bonds is authorized by a resolution of the Successor Agency, adopted on April 25, 2017 (the “Successor Agency Resolution”), and a resolution of the Oversight Board of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 267 -4- the Successor Agency for the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Oversight Board”), adopted on May 4, 2017 (the “Oversight Board Resolution”). 2. Bona Fide Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all of the Bonds, at prices not in excess of the initial public offering yields or prices set forth on the cover page of the Official Statement (defined below). The Bonds may be offered and sold to certain dealers at prices lower than such initial public offering prices; provided, however, that the Underwriter may offer a portion of the Bonds for sale to selected dealers who are members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and who agree to resell the Bonds to the public on terms consistent with this Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Underwriter reserves the right to change such offering prices or yields as the Underwriter shall deem necessary in connection with the marketing of the Bonds and to offer and sell the Bonds to certain dealers (including dealers depositing the Bonds into investment trusts) and others at prices lower than the initial offering prices or at yields higher than the initial yields set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. The Underwriter also reserves the right to over-allot or effect transactions that stabilize or maintain the market price of the Bonds at a level above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market and to discontinue such stabilizing, if commenced, at any time. None of such activities shall affect the principal amounts, maturity dates, interest rates, redemption or other provision of the Bonds or the amount to be paid by the Underwriter to the Successor Agency for the Bonds. 3. Establishment of Issue Price. (a) The Underwriter agrees to assist the Successor Agency in establishing the issue price of the 2017A Bonds and shall execute and deliver to the Successor Agency on the Closing Date an “issue price” or similar certificate substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, with such modifications as may be appropriate or necessary, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, the Successor Agency and Bond Counsel, to accurately reflect, as applicable, the sales price or prices or the initial offering price or prices to the public of the 2017A Bonds. (b) [Except as otherwise set forth in Schedule 1 attached to Exhibit B,] the Successor Agency will treat the first price at which 10% of each maturity of the 2017A Bonds (the “10% test” [see drafter’s note below]) is sold to the public as the issue price of that maturity (if different interest rates apply within a maturity, each separate CUSIP number within that maturity will be subject to the 10% test). If the 10% test has not been satisfied as to any maturity of the 2017A Bonds, the Underwriter agrees to promptly report to the Successor Agency or to the Successor Agency’s municipal advisor the prices at which it sells 2017A Bonds of that maturity to the public. That reporting obligation shall continue, whether or not the Closing Date has occurred, until the 10% test has been satisfied as to the 2017A Bonds of that maturity or until all 2017A Bonds of that maturity have been sold. [Schedule [I] and subsection (c) shall apply only if the Underwriter agrees to apply the hold-the- offering-price rule, as described below.] (c) Schedule 1 attached to Exhibit B sets forth the maturities, if any, of the 2017A Bonds for which the 10% test has not been satisfied and for which the Successor Agency and the Underwriter agree that the restrictions set forth in the next sentence shall apply, which will allow the Successor Agency to treat the initial offering price to the public of each such maturity as of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 268 -5- the sale date as the issue price of that maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”). So long as the hold-the-offering-price rule remains applicable to any maturity of the 2017A Bonds, the Underwriter will neither offer nor sell that maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the initial offering price to the public during the period starting on the sale date and ending on the earlier of the following: (i) the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date; or (ii) the date on which the Underwriter has sold at least 10% of that maturity of the 2017A Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public. The Underwriter shall promptly advise the Successor Agency or the Successor Agency’s municipal advisor when it has sold 10% of that maturity of the 2017A Bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price to the public, if that occurs prior to the close of the fifth (5th) business day after the sale date. (d) The Underwriter acknowledges that sales of any 2017A Bonds to any person that is a related party to the Underwriter shall not constitute sales to the public for purposes of this Section 3. Further, for purposes of this Section 3: (i) “public” means any person other than an underwriter or a related party, (ii) “underwriter” means (A) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the Successor Agency (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the 2017A Bonds to the public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of the 2017A Bonds to the public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the 2017A Bonds to the public), and (iii) a purchaser of any of the 2017A Bonds is a “related party” to an underwriter if the Underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to more than 50% common ownership. 4. Official Statement. The Successor Agency shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Underwriter promptly after acceptance of this Bond Purchase Agreement copies of the Official Statement relating to the Bonds, dated the date hereof (the “Official Statement”). The Successor Agency authorizes the Official Statement, including the cover page and Appendices thereto and the information contained therein, to be used in connection with the sale of the Bonds and ratifies, confirms and approves the use and distribution by the Underwriter for such purpose, prior to the date hereof, of the Preliminary Official Statement dated ____________, 2017 (the “Preliminary Official Statement”). The Successor Agency deems such Preliminary Official Statement final as of its date for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Rule 15c2-12”), except for information allowed to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The Successor Agency also agrees to deliver to the Underwriter, at the Successor Agency’s sole cost and at such address as the Underwriter shall specify, as many copies of the Official Statement as the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 269 -6- Underwriter shall reasonably request as necessary to comply with paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 15c2- 12 with Rule G-32 and all other applicable rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The Successor Agency agrees to deliver such copies of the Official Statement within seven (7) business days after the date hereof. The Underwriter agrees to promptly file a copy of the final Official Statement, including any supplements prepared by the Successor Agency, with a nationally recognized municipal securities information repository, and to take any and all other actions necessary to comply with applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules governing the offering, sale and delivery of the Bonds to the ultimate purchasers thereof. 5. Representations, Warranties and Agreements of the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency represents and warrants to the Underwriter that, as of the Closing Date: (a) The Successor Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “State”), and is authorized, among other things, (i) to issue the Bonds, and (ii) to secure the Bonds in the manner contemplated by the Indenture. (b) The Successor Agency has the full right, power and authority (i) to enter into the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and this Bond Purchase Agreement, (ii) to issue, sell and deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter as provided herein, and (iii) to carry out and consummate all other transactions on its part contemplated by each of the aforesaid documents, and the Successor Agency has complied with all provisions of applicable law in all matters relating to such transactions. (c) The Successor Agency has duly authorized (i) the execution and delivery of the Bonds and the execution, delivery and due performance by the Successor Agency to the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and this Bond Purchase Agreement, (ii) the distribution and use of the “deemed final” Preliminary Official Statement and the execution, delivery and distribution of the final Official Statement, and (iii) the taking of any and all such action as may be required on the part of the Successor Agency to carry out, give effect to and consummate the transactions on its part contemplated by such instruments. All consents or approvals necessary to be obtained by the Successor Agency in connection with the foregoing have been received, and the consents or approvals so received are still in full force and effect. (d) The information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement (excluding therefrom for any information relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies, the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, DTC and its book- entry system included therein and the information therein under the caption “UNDERWRITING”) is true and correct in all material respects, and the Preliminary Official Statement did not on the date thereof contain any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact relating to the Successor Agency or the County or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 270 -7- (e) The information contained in the Official Statement (excluding therefrom for any information relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies, the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, DTC and its book-entry system included therein and the information therein under the caption “UNDERWRITING”) is true and correct in all material respects, and the Official Statement will not contain any untrue or misleading statement of a material fact relating to the Successor Agency or the County or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (f) Neither the execution and delivery by the Successor Agency to the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, this Bond Purchase Agreement and of the Bonds nor the consummation of the transactions on the part of the Successor Agency contemplated herein or therein or the compliance with the provisions hereof or thereof will conflict with, or constitute on the part of the Successor Agency a violation of, or a breach of or default under, (i) any statute, indenture, mortgage, note or other agreement or instrument to which the Successor Agency is a party or by which it is bound, (ii) any provision of the State Constitution, or (iii) any existing law, rule, regulation, ordinance, judgment, order or decree to which the Successor Agency (or the members of the governing board of the Successor Agency or any of its officers in their respective capacities as such) is subject. (g) The Successor Agency has never been in default at any time, as to principal of or interest on any obligation which it has issued except as otherwise specifically disclosed in the Official Statement; and the Successor Agency has not entered into any contract or arrangement of any kind which might give rise to any lien or encumbrance on the Tax Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) pledged to the payment of the Bonds except as is specifically disclosed in the Official Statement. (h) Except as will be specifically disclosed in the Official Statement, there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, public board or body, which has been served on the Successor Agency or, to the best knowledge of the Successor Agency, threatened, which in any way questions the powers of the Successor Agency referred to in paragraph (b) above, or the validity of any proceeding taken by the Successor Agency in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, or wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding could materially adversely affect the transactions contemplated by the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, the Escrow Agreements, this Bond Purchase Agreement or the Indenture, or which, in any way, could adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Indenture, the Bonds, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate or this Bond Purchase Agreement or, to the knowledge of the Successor Agency, which in any way questions the exclusion from gross income of the recipients thereof the interest on the 2017A Bonds for federal income tax purposes or in any other way questions the status of the Bonds under state tax laws or regulations or which in any way could materially adversely affect the availability of Tax Revenues. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 271 -8- (i) Any certificate signed by any official of the Successor Agency and delivered to the Underwriter in connection with the offer or sale of the Bonds shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the Successor Agency to the Underwriter as to the truth of the statements therein contained. (j) The Successor Agency has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. (k) The Successor Agency will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter and at the expense of the Underwriter as the Underwriter may reasonably request in order (i) to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Underwriter may designate and (ii) to determine the eligibility of the Bonds for investment under the laws of such states and other jurisdictions, and will use its best efforts to continue such qualifications in effect so long as required for the distribution of the Bonds; provided, however, that the Successor Agency will not be required to execute a special or general consent to service of process or qualify as a foreign corporation in connection with any such qualification in any jurisdiction. (l) All authorizations, approvals, licenses, permits, consents, elections, and orders of or filings with any governmental authority, legislative body, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction in the matters which are required by the Closing Date (defined below) for the due authorization of, which would constitute a condition precedent to or the absence of which would adversely affect the due performance by the Successor Agency to, its obligations in connection with the Indenture, the Escrow Agreement have been duly obtained or made and are in full force and effect. (m) Between the date of this Bond Purchase Agreement and the Closing Date, other than the Bonds, the Successor Agency will not offer or issue any bonds, notes or other obligations for borrowed money not previously disclosed to the Underwriter. (n) The Successor Agency will apply the proceeds of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture. (o) Except as otherwise described in the Official Statement, as of the Closing Date, the Successor Agency will not have outstanding any indebtedness which indebtedness is secured by a lien on the Tax Revenues on a parity with or senior to the lien provided for in the Indenture on the Tax Revenues. (p) Except as described in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, and based on a review of their previous undertakings, neither the Former Agency nor the Successor Agency has failed, within the last five years, to comply in all material respects with any undertaking of the Successor Agency or the Former Agency, respectively, pursuant to Rule 15c2-12. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 272 -9- (q) If between the date hereof and the date which is 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, an event occurs which would cause the information contained in the Official Statement, as then supplemented or amended, to contain an untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make such information herein, in the light of the circumstances under which it was presented, not misleading, the Successor Agency will notify the Underwriter, and, if in the opinion of the Underwriter or the Successor Agency, or respective counsel, such event requires the preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the Official Statement, the Successor Agency will cooperate in the preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement in a form and manner approved by the Underwriter, and shall pay all expenses thereby incurred. For the purposes of this subsection, between the date hereof and the date which is 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, the Successor Agency will furnish such information with respect to itself as the Underwriters may from time to time reasonably request. As used herein, the term “End of the Underwriting Period” means the later of such time as: (i) the Successor Agency delivers the Bonds to the Underwriter; or (ii) the Underwriter does not retain, directly or as a member of an underwriting syndicate, an unsold balance of the Bonds for sale to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless the Underwriter gives notice to the contrary, the “End of the Underwriting Period” shall be the Closing Date. (r) If the information contained in the Official Statement is amended or supplemented pursuant to paragraph (l) hereof, at the time of each supplement or amendment thereto and (unless subsequently again supplemented or amended pursuant to such subparagraph) at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the date which is 25 days after the End of the Underwriting Period for the Bonds, the portions of the Official Statement so supplemented or amended (including any financial and statistical data contained therein) will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make such information therein in the light of the circumstances under which it was presented, not misleading. (s) The Oversight Board has duly adopted the Oversight Board Resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds and no further Oversight Board approval or consent is required for the issuing of the Bonds or the consummation of the transactions on the part of the Successor Agency described in the Official Statement. (t) The Department of Finance of the State (the “Department of Finance”) has issued a letter, dated ____________, 2017, approving the Oversight Board Resolution. No further Department of Finance approval or consent is required for the issuance of the Bonds or the consummation of the transactions on the part of the Successor Agency described in the Official Statement. The Successor Agency has received its Finding of Completion from the Department of Finance. (u) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the Closing Date, the Successor Agency has complied with the filing requirements of the Law, including, without limitation, the filing of all Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules as required by the Law, as well as sections 33080 to 33080.6 of the Law. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 273 -10- 6. Covenants of the Successor Agency. The Successor Agency covenants with the Underwriter as of the Closing Date as follows: (a) The Successor Agency covenants and agrees that it will execute the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, constituting an undertaking to provide ongoing disclosure about the Successor Agency, for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds as required by section (b)(5)(i) of Rule 15c2-12. (b) The Successor Agency agrees to cooperate with the Underwriter in the preparation of any supplement or amendment to the Official Statement deemed necessary by the Underwriter to comply with the Rule and any applicable rule of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (c) The Successor Agency will not knowingly take or omit to take any action, which action or omission will in any way cause the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds to be applied in a manner other than as provided in the Indenture or which would cause the interest on the Bonds to be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. 7. Closing. On __________, 2017, or at such other date and times as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Successor Agency and the Underwriter (the “Closing Date”), the Successor Agency will deliver or cause to be delivered the Bonds to the Underwriter, and the Successor Agency shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Underwriter the certificates, opinions and documents hereinafter mentioned, each of which shall be dated as of the Closing Date. The activities relating to the execution and delivery of the Bonds, opinions and other instruments as described in Section 8 of this Bond Purchase Agreement shall occur on the Closing Date. The delivery of the certificates, opinions and documents as described herein shall be made at the offices Quint & Thimmig LLP, in Larkspur, California (“Bond Counsel”), or at such other place as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Successor Agency and the Underwriter. Such delivery is herein called the “Closing.” The Bonds will be prepared and physically delivered to the Trustee on the Closing Date in the form of a separate single fully registered bond for each of the maturities of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be registered in the name of the Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee for The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). The Bonds will be authenticated by the Trustee in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Indenture and shall be delivered to DTC prior to the Closing Date as required by DTC to assure delivery of the Bonds on the Closing Date. It is anticipated that CUSIP identification numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such number on any Bonds nor any error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for a failure or refusal by the Underwriter to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement. At or before 8:00 a.m., Pacific Daylight time, on the Closing Date, the Successor Agency will deliver, or cause to be delivered, the Bonds to DTC, in definitive form duly executed and authenticated by the Trustee, and the Underwriter will pay the Purchase Price of the Bonds by delivering to the Trustee, for the account of the Successor Agency a wire transfer in federal funds of the Purchase Price payable to the order of the Trustee. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 274 -11- 8. Closing Conditions. The obligations of the Underwriter hereunder shall be subject to the performance by the Successor Agency to its obligations hereunder at or prior to the Closing Date and are also subject to the following conditions: (a) the representations, warranties and covenants of the Successor Agency contained herein shall be true and correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date; (b) as of the Closing Date, there shall have been no material adverse change in the financial condition of the Successor Agency; (c) as of the Closing Date, all official action of the Successor Agency relating to this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and the Indenture shall be in full force and effect; (d) as of the Closing Date, the Underwriter shall receive the following certificates, opinions and documents, in each case satisfactory in form and substance to the Underwriter: (i) a copy of the Indenture, as duly executed and delivered by the Successor Agency and the Trustee; (ii) a copy of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, as duly executed and delivered by the Successor Agency; (iii) a copy of each of the Escrow Agreements, duly executed and delivered by the Successor Agency and the Escrow Bank; (iv) an opinion of Bond Counsel, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter, in the form attached to the Official Statement as APPENDIX ___—FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL. accompanied by a letter of Bond Counsel to the effect that such opinion may be relied upon by the Underwriter to the same extent as if such opinion was addressed to it; (v) a certificate, dated the Closing Date, of the Successor Agency executed by the Executive Director (or other duly appointed officer of the Successor Agency authorized by the Successor Agency by resolution of the Successor Agency) to the effect that (A) there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body which has been served on the Successor Agency or, to the knowledge of the Successor Agency, threatened against or affecting the Successor Agency to restrain or enjoin the Successor Agency’s participation in, or in any way contesting the existence of the Successor Agency or the powers of the Successor Agency with respect to, the transactions on the part of the Successor Agency contemplated by this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Escrow Agreements or the Indenture, and consummation of such transactions; and (B) the representations and warranties of the Successor Agency contained in this Bond Purchase Agreement are true and correct in all material respects, and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 275 -12- the Successor Agency has complied with all agreements and covenants and satisfied all conditions to be satisfied at or prior to the Closing Date as contemplated by the Indenture and this Bond Purchase Agreement, provided that all references to the Preliminary Official Statement shall be to the Official Statement; (vi) an opinion of the County Counsel of the County, acting as general counsel to the Successor Agency, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter to the effect that: (A) the Successor Agency is a public body, organized and existing under the laws of the State; (B) the Successor Agency has full legal power and lawful authority to enter into the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and this Bond Purchase Agreement; (C) the Successor Agency Resolution approving and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Bonds, the Indenture, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, the Escrow Agreements and this Bond Purchase Agreement has been duly adopted at a meeting of the governing body of the Successor Agency, which was called and held pursuant to the law and with all public notice required by law and at which a quorum was present and acting throughout and the Successor Agency Resolution is in full force and effect and has not been modified, amended or rescinded; (D) the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate and this Bond Purchase Agreement have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Successor Agency and, assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the other parties thereof, constitute the valid, legal and binding agreements of the Successor Agency enforceable in accordance with their terms; (E) The information in the Official Statement under the captions “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS,” “THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,” “FINANCIAL INFORMATION,” and “THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY,” insofar as such statements purport to summarize information with respect to the Successor Agency fairly and accurately summarizes the information presented therein; and (F) Except as otherwise disclosed in the Official Statement, there is no litigation, action, suit, proceeding or investigation (or any basis therefor) at law or in equity before or by any court, governmental agency or body, pending by way of a summons served against the Successor Agency or, to our knowledge, threatened against the Successor Agency, challenging the creation, organization or existence of the Successor Agency, or the validity of the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 276 -13- Continuing Disclosure Certificate or this Bond Purchase Agreement or seeking to restrain or enjoin any of the transactions referred to therein or contemplated thereby or contesting the authority of the Successor Agency to enter into or perform its obligations under the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate or this Bond Purchase Agreement, or under which a determination adverse to the Successor Agency would have a material adverse effect upon the availability of Tax Revenues, or which, in any manner, questions the right of the Successor Agency to enter into, and perform under, the Indenture, the Escrow Agreements, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate or this Bond Purchase Agreement; (vii) an opinion of counsel to the Trustee, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter, to the effect that: (A) The Trustee is a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, having full power to enter into, accept and administer the trust created under the Indenture; (B) The Indenture has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Trustee and the Indenture constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Trustee enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by the application of equitable principles, if equitable remedies are sought; and (C) No consent, approval, authorization or other action by any governmental or regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Trustee that has not been obtained is or will be required for the execution and delivery of the Indenture or the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Indenture; (viii) an opinion of counsel to the Escrow Bank, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter, to the effect that: (A) The Escrow Bank is a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, having full power to enter into, accept and administer the obligations under the Escrow Agreement; (B) The Escrow Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Escrow Bank and the Escrow Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Escrow Bank enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting the enforcement of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 277 -14- creditors’ rights generally and by the application of equitable principles, if equitable remedies are sought; and (C) No consent, approval, authorization or other action by any governmental or regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Escrow Bank that has not been obtained is or will be required for the execution and delivery by the Escrow Bank of the Escrow Agreement or the consummation of the transactions on the part of the Escrow Bank contemplated by the Escrow Agreement; (ix) a certificate, dated the Closing Date, of the Trustee, signed by a duly authorized officer of the Trustee, to the effect that (A) the Trustee is duly organized and validly existing as a national banking association, with full corporate power to undertake the trust of the Indenture; (B) the Trustee has duly authorized, executed and delivered the Indenture and by all proper corporate action has authorized the acceptance of the trust of the Indenture; and (C) to the best of such officer’s knowledge, there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body which has been served on the Trustee (either in state or federal courts), or to the knowledge of the Trustee which would restrain or enjoin the execution or delivery of the Indenture, or which would affect the validity or enforceability of the Indenture, or the Trustee’s participation in, or in any way contesting the powers or the authority of the Trustee with respect to, the transactions contemplated by the Indenture, or any other agreement, document or certificate related to such transactions; (x) a certificate, dated the Closing Date, of the Escrow Bank, signed by a duly authorized officer of the Escrow Bank, to the effect that (A) the Escrow Bank is duly organized and validly existing as a national banking association, with full corporate power to undertake of its obligations under the Escrow Agreement; (B) the Escrow Bank has duly authorized, executed and delivered the Escrow Agreement and by all proper corporate action has authorized the acceptance of the obligations of the Escrow Bank under the Escrow Agreement; and (C) there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation at law or in equity before or by any court, public board or body which has been served on the Escrow Bank (either in state or federal courts), or to the knowledge of the Escrow Bank threatened against the Escrow Bank which would restrain or enjoin the execution or delivery of the Escrow Agreement, or which would affect the validity or enforceability of the Escrow Agreement or the Escrow Bank’s participation in, or in any way contesting the powers or the authority of the Escrow Bank with respect to, the transactions contemplated by the Escrow Agreement or any other agreement, document or certificate related to such transactions; (xi) a supplemental opinion of Bond Counsel, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter, to the effect that: (A) this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Escrow Agreements, the Debt Service Reserve Agreement, dated the Closing Date, by and between April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 278 -15- the Municipal Bond Insurer and the Successor Agency, and the Continuing Disclosure Certificate have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by the Successor Agency, and assuming the valid execution and delivery by the other parties thereto, are valid and binding upon the Successor Agency, subject to the laws relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization of creditors’ rights generally and to the application of equitable principles; (B) the Bonds are exempt from registration pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Indenture is exempt from qualification pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended; and (C) the statements contained in the Official Statement under the captions “THE BONDS,” “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS,” and “LEGAL MATTERS—Tax Matters” and in “APPENDIX ___—SUMMARY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURE” and in “APPENDIX ___—FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL” are accurate insofar as such statements purport to expressly summarize certain provisions of the Bonds, the Indenture and Bond Counsel’s opinion concerning federal tax matters relating to the Bonds; (xii) a letter of Quint & Thimmig LLP, as disclosure counsel to the Successor Agency, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter stating that based upon its participation in the preparation of the Official Statement and without having undertaken to determine independently the fairness, accuracy or completeness of the statements contained in the Official Statement, such counsel has no reason to believe that, as of the date of the Closing, the Official Statement (excluding therefrom for any information relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies, the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy, DTC and its book-entry system included therein, the information therein under the caption “UNDERWRITING” and the reports, financial and statistical data and forecasts therein, the information included in the Appendices thereto, as to which no opinion need be expressed) contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (xiii) an Arbitrage Certificate in the form satisfactory to Bond Counsel; (xiv) the final Official Statement executed by an authorized officer of the Successor Agency; (xv) certified copies of the Successor Agency Resolution and the Oversight Board Resolution; (xvi) specimen Bonds; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 279 -16- (xvii) evidence that the federal tax information form 8038-G for the Bonds has been prepared by Bond Counsel for filing; (xviii) a copy of each of the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies; (xix) a copy of the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy; (xx) an opinion of counsel to the Municipal Bond Insurer, addressed to the Successor Agency and the Underwriter to the effect that: (A) the descriptions of the Municipal Bond Insurer, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies and the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy included in the Official Statement are accurate; (B) the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies and the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Municipal Bond Insurer, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as the enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws or equitable principles relating to or limiting creditor’s rights generally and by the application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought, and (C) as to such other matters as the Successor Agency or the Underwriter may reasonably request; (xxi) a certificate of the Municipal Bond Insurer, signed by an authorized officer of the Municipal Bond Insurer, to the effect that: (A) the information contained in the Official Statement relating to the Municipal Bond Insurer, the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies and the Reserve Fund Municipal Bond Insurance Policy is true and accurate and (B) as to such other matters as the Successor Agency or the Underwriter may reasonably request; (xxii) satisfactory evidence that the Bonds have been rated assigned the underlying rating of “______” from Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings and that the Bonds have been assigned the insured rating of “______” by Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings (based on the provision of the Municipal Bond Insurance Policies); (xxiii) evidence of required filings with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission; April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 280 -17- (xxiv) a defeasance opinion or opinions of Bond Counsel with respect to the 1999 Bonds, the 2003 Bonds, the 2007A Bonds, the 2007B Bonds and the 2007A- T Bonds, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Successor Agency, the Trustee, the Escrow Bank and the Underwriter, in form and substance satisfactory to the Underwriter; (xxv) A certificate of Fraser & Associates, as Fiscal Consultant, dated the date of the Closing, in form and substance acceptable to the Underwriter, consenting to the inclusion of such firm’s Fiscal Consultant’s Report in the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement, and certifying as to the accuracy of APPENDIX ____—FISCAL CONSULTANT’S REPORT and the information in the Official Statement under the caption “THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT” attributed to the Fiscal Consultant, and stating that to the best of such firm’s knowledge, but without having conducted any investigation with respect thereto, nothing has come to such firm’s attention between the date of such report and the date hereof which would materially alter any of the conclusions set forth in such report and information attributed to the Fiscal Consultant contained in the Official Statement; (xxvi) A certificate of Montague DeRose and Associates, LLC, as Municipal Advisor, dated the date of the Closing, confirming satisfaction of the savings requirements set forth in section 34177.5(a) of the Dissolution Act and that the Savings Parameters have been achieved, as required by Oversight Board Resolution; and (xxvii) such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may reasonably deem necessary to evidence the truth and accuracy as of the time of the Closing Date of the representations and warranties of the Successor Agency contained in this Bond Purchase Agreement and the due performance or satisfaction by the Successor Agency at or prior to such time of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the Successor Agency pursuant to this Bond Purchase Agreement. 9. Termination. The Underwriter shall have the right to cancel its obligations to purchase the Bonds if between the date hereof and the Closing Date: (a) a decision with respect to legislation shall be reached by a committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Congress of the United States, or legislation shall be favorably reported by such a committee or be introduced, by amendment or otherwise, in or be passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate, or recommended to the Congress of the United States for passage by the President of the United States, or be enacted or a decision by a federal court of the United States or the United States Tax Court shall have been rendered, or a ruling, release, order, regulation or offering circular by or on behalf of the United States Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service or other governmental agency shall have been made or proposed to be made having the purpose or effect, or any other action or event shall have occurred which has the purpose or effect, directly or indirectly, of adversely affecting the federal income tax consequences April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 281 -18- of owning the Bonds, including causing interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation, or imposing federal income taxation upon revenues other income of the general character to be derived by the Successor Agency or by any similar body under the Indenture or similar documents or upon interest received on obligations of the general character of the Bonds, or the Bonds which, in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the market price of or market for the Bonds; or (b) legislation shall have been enacted, or considered for enactment with an effective date prior to the Closing Date, or a decision by a court of the United States shall have been rendered, the effect of which is that of the Bonds, including any underlying obligations, or the Indenture, as the case may be, is not exempt from the registration, qualification or other requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and as then in effect, or the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended and as then in effect; or (c) a stop order, ruling, regulation or offering circular by the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter shall have been issued or made or any other event occurs, the effect of which is that the issuance, offering or sale of the Bonds, including any underlying obligations, or the execution of the Indenture, as contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement, is or would be in violation of any provisions of the federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and as then in effect, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and as then in effect, or the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended and as then in effect; or (d) any event shall have occurred or any information shall have become known to the Underwriter which causes the Underwriter to reasonably believe that the Official Statement as then amended or supplemented includes an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (e) there shall have occurred any outbreak of hostilities or any national or international calamity or crisis, including a financial crisis, the effect of which on the financial markets of the United States is such as, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, would materially adversely affect the market for or market price of the Bonds; or (f) there shall be in force a general suspension of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, the effect of which on the financial markets of the United States is such as, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, would materially adversely affect the market for or market price of the Bonds; or (g) a general banking moratorium shall have been declared by federal, New York or California authorities; or April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 282 -19- (h) any proceeding shall be pending or threatened by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the Successor Agency; or (i) additional material restrictions not in force as of the date hereof shall have been imposed upon trading in securities generally by any governmental authority or by any national securities exchange; or (j) the New York Stock Exchange or other national securities exchange, or any governmental or regulatory authority, shall impose, as to the Bonds or obligations of the general character of the Bonds, any material restrictions not now in force, or increase materially those now in force, with respect to the extension of credit by, or the charge to the net capital requirements of the Underwriter; or (k) any downgrade or placement on credit watch of any rating on the Bonds; or (l) any change, which in the reasonable opinion of the Underwriter, materially adversely affects the marketability of the Bonds or, the financial condition of the Successor Agency. 10. Contingency of Obligations. The obligations of the Successor Agency hereunder are subject to the performance by the Underwriter of its obligations hereunder. 11. Duration of Representations, Warranties, Agreements and Covenants. All representations, warranties, agreements and covenants of the Successor Agency shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of any investigations made by or on behalf of the Underwriter or the Successor Agency and shall survive the Closing Date. 12. Expenses. The Successor Agency will pay or cause to be paid all reasonable expenses incident to the performance of its obligations under this Bond Purchase Agreement, including, but not limited to, mailing or delivery of the Bonds, costs of printing the Bonds, printing, distribution and delivery of the Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement and any amendment or supplement thereto, the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel, Disclosure Counsel, and counsel to the Successor Agency, the fees and expenses of the Successor Agency’s accountants and fiscal consultants, fees of the Financial Advisor, any fees charged by investment rating agencies for the rating of the Bonds, the premiums to be paid to the Municipal Bond Insurer and fees of the Trustee and the Escrow Bank. In the event this Bond Purchase Agreement shall terminate because of the default of the Underwriter, the Successor Agency will, nevertheless, pay, or cause to be paid, all of the expenses specified above. The Underwriter shall pay the fees and expenses of any counsel retained by it, all advertising expenses incurred in connection with the public offering of the Bonds, CDIAC fees, CUSIP fees and all other expenses incurred by it in connection with the public offering and distribution of the Bonds. 13. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Successor Agency under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to the Executive Director of the Successor Agency at its address indicated on the first page of this Bond Purchase Agreement, and any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Stifel, Nicolaus & April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 283 -20- Company Incorporated, One Montgomery Street, 35th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 Attention: Eileen Gallagher, Managing Director. 14. Parties in Interest. This Bond Purchase Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Successor Agency and the Underwriter (including the successors or assigns of the Underwriter) and no other person, including any purchaser of the Bonds, shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. 15. Governing Law. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and performed in California. 16. Headings. The headings of the paragraphs of this Bond Purchase Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to be a part hereof. 17. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof. 18. Effectiveness. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance hereof by the Successor Agency. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 284 -21- 19. Counterparts. This Bond Purchase Agreement may be executed in several counterparts which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Very truly yours, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY INCORPORATED , as Underwriter By: Its: Accepted and agreed to as of the date first above written: SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: David Twa, Executive Director Time of Execution: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 285 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A TO THE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT $__________ SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017A MATURITY SCHEDULE Maturity Date Principal Interest Reoffering (August 1) Amount Rate Yield Price REDEMPTION PROVISIONS Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or before August 1, ____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, ____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, ____, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____ at a redemption price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 286 Exhibit A Page 2 equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____ at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount $__________ SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017B MATURITY SCHEDULE Maturity Date Principal Interest Reoffering (August 1) Amount Rate Yield Price April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 287 Exhibit A Page 3 REDEMPTION PROVISIONS Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or before August 1, ____, are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, ____, are subject to redemption, at the option of the Successor Agency on any date on or after August 1, ____, as a whole or in part, by such maturities as shall be determined by the Successor Agency (and, in lieu of such determination, pro rata among maturities), and by lot within a maturity, from any available source of funds, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, without premium. Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on each August 1 thereafter, to and including August 1, ____, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount The Bonds maturing on August 1, ____, are also subject to mandatory redemption from sinking fund payments made by the Successor Agency, in part by lot, on August 1, ____, and on August 1, ____, at April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 288 Exhibit A Page 4 a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium, as set forth in the following table: Redemption Date Principal (August 1) Amount April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 289 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B TO THE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FORM OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE [insert form here] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 290 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE public hearing. 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/148, DECLARING Contra Costa County's intent to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County excluding the areas of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding related to development of a proposed Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the subbasin, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: To date, the Department of Conservation and Development has prepared the maps for the cooperating entities use and has participated in the preparation of the MOU, prepared staff reports and supporting materials for the Board's consideration in this matter. The outside technical/consultant costs associated with developing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan will be shared equally among the eight parties and is estimated at $625,000. However, the County, at its sole discretion, may satisfy its share of GSP costs ($78,125) by providing in-kind services, which may include additional mapping, graphics, and database management services. Other Departments have regulatory authority and/or expertise relevant to the issue, have been involved to date, will likely be involved in the future (e.g. Environmental Health Division) and their involvement may contribute to the County's in-kind services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ryan Hernandez/925-674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Consider Establishing a Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 291 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) All in-kind services will be accomplished through existing staff resources and no augmentation to current budget levels is anticipated. At this time, staff cannot anticipate the cost to the County of implementing and enforcing a groundwater sustainability plan, but that further information will be provided when the Board is asked to consider approving the plan. BACKGROUND: In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), which established a statewide framework for the sustainable management of groundwater resources. That framework focuses on granting new authorities and responsibility to local agencies while holding those agencies accountable. The framework also provides for state intervention where a local agency fails to develop a groundwater sustainability plan in a timely manner. SGMA requires all high-priority and medium-priority groundwater basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), be managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). A local public agency, or combination of local public agencies overlying a designated basin, may become a GSA if the agency(ies) has(ve) water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin. A combination of local public agencies may form a GSA by way of Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding, or other legal document. (Wat. Code, §§ 10723(a), 10723.6.) SGMA provides that if no public agency becomes the GSA for a portion of the underlying basin, the County becomes the GSA by default unless it takes action to decline the responsibility, in which case the State would regulate. Becoming a GSA does not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and does not constitute a Project under Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The Tracy Subbasin is referred to as DWR Basin 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley and is shown on Exhibit A. The Tracy Subbasin is located in eastern Contra Costa County, as well as San Joaquin County and Alameda County, and is a medium-priority groundwater basin. SGMA sets deadlines for the formation of GSAs and the adoption of Groundwater Sustainably Plan (GSPs) which, if not met, will allow the State to intervene. By June 30, 2017, all high-priority or medium-priority groundwater basins are required to have a single GSA or multiple GSAs that cover the entire basin. All high-priority or medium-priority groundwater basins must adopt a single GSP or a coordinated set of GSPs by January 31, 2022. On April 12, 2016, the Board declared its intent to become a member of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County (CCC) and sustainably manage groundwater resources within the county in compliance of the SGMA. The Board’s decision in April 2016 contemplated a single GSA collectively managed by the County, Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the Discovery Bay Community Services District. However, as interagency discussions continued, it was determined that the creation of individual GSAs coordinated through a memorandum of understanding was more appropriate initially in order to avoid creating a new legal entity before a GSP had even been drafted. During development of the GSP the parties will revisit the governance structure. The County intends to act as a GSA to manage the portions of the Subbasin located within those areas shown in Exhibit C. The East County entities have prepared a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the development of a single Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Exhibit D, with the intent that each GSA will adopt the same GSP. The purpose of this MOU is to coordinate the above entities activities related to each party becoming a GSA, development of the GSP for the Tracy Subbasin within CCC and each entity’s future consideration of whether to adopt the GSP. The MOU provides that the ultimate governance structure will be reassessed during development of the GSP. The GSAs in the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County are shown on Exhibit B. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 292 From the start, the County preferred to collaborate in an effort to ensure sustainable groundwater management, manage the groundwater basin as efficiently as practicable balancing financial resources, while retaining the County’s existing land use and groundwater management authority. The MOU accomplishes these goals for the period during which the GSP is prepared. The MOU states the GSP will be drafted in a manner that preserves land use authority of each city or county, or the statutory authority of each special district. It also states the GSP must include provisions for consultation between a GSA and any public agency that the GSA overlaps before the GSA takes any action that may relate to the public agency’s exercise of its statutory authority. The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends the Board become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County excluding the areas of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District and authorize the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding and enter into an agreement with East Contra Costa County member agencies that will develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not adopt the resolution, the County would not affirmatively decide to become a GSA for the portion of the Tracy Subbasin shown on Exhibit C to the resolution, and there would be no coordination agreement among the overlying agencies regarding the development of a groundwater sustainability plan for the subbasin. If another agency does not elect to become the GSA for that portion of the subbasin, Water Code section 10724 would require the County to either serve as the GSA, or notify the state that it will not serve in that capacity, which would result in state intervention in local groundwater management. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Chris Christian, resident of Brentwood; Steve Larsen, resident of Byron. CLOSED the hearing; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2017/148, DECLARING Contra Costa County's intent to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Tracy Subbasin within Contra Costa County excluding the areas of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District, and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding related to development of a proposed Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the subbasin. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/148 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D- MOU MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017/148 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 293 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/148 RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECIDING TO BE THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY FOR PORTIONS OF THE TRACY SUBBASIN LOCATED IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Recitals A. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ("Act") authorizes local agencies to manage groundwater in a sustainable fashion. The Act requires all high- and medium-priority groundwater basins, as designated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), to be managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("GSA"). B. The Tracy Subbasin ("Subbasin"), identified by DWR as Subbasin ID No. 5-22.15, of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, has been designated by DWR as a medium-priority basin and a map of which is attached as Exhibit A.The Subbasin underlies portions of Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Alameda Counties. C. The Act authorizes a local public agency, or a combination of local public agencies, with water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin to become a GSA. The County, and the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District (together, “Overlying Agencies”), are coordinating activities authorized by the Act. Each Overlying Agency will consider becoming a GSA for a portion of the Subbasin within that agency’s jurisdiction, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit B. D. Contra Costa County intends to act as a GSA to manage the portions of the Subbasin located within those areas shown in Exhibit C, which are within the County and outside the jurisdictions of the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, Diablo Water District, Discovery Bay Community Services District, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District. E. On April 25, 2017, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing to consider whether it should decide to become and act as a GSA for those portions of the Subbasin that are located in the County and are shown in Exhibit C. Notice of the hearing was published in the East Bay Times, in accordance with Water Code section 10723 and Government Code section 6066. The Board of Supervisors considered all written and oral comments submitted before and at the hearing. F. Water Code section 10727(b) authorizes multiple GSAs overlying a single groundwater basin to develop and adopt a single groundwater sustainability plan (“GSP”) for the basin. The County intends to work cooperatively with the Overlying Agencies under the MOU attached as Exhibit D to develop a GSP for the portion of the Subbasin within Contra Costa County. The County and Overlying Agencies also intend to consider entering into one or more agreements with GSAs for those portions of the Subbasin outside of Contra Costa County to coordinate the development and implementation of their GSPs for the Subbasin as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors as follows: 1. Contra Costa County hereby decides to be the groundwater sustainability agency for those portions of the Tracy Subbasin (ID No. 5-22.15) that are located in Contra Costa County and are shown on Exhibit C. The Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, is directed to provide notice of this decision to the Department of Water Resources, in accordance 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 294 with Water Code section 10723.8. 2. The Memorandum of Understanding for the Development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the East Contra Costa County Portion of the Tracy Subbasin (DWR Basin 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley) (“MOU”), attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby approved. The Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, is authorized to execute, on behalf of the County, the MOU. 3. The Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, is directed to work with the Overlying Agencies, and the GSAs for the portions of the Subbasin within San Joaquin and Sacramento Counties, to determine how their groundwater sustainability plans could be coordinated, and to determine what other future discretionary actions this Board may need to take under the Act to coordinate the groundwater sustainability plans. Attachments: Exhibit A – Map: Subbasin within Contra Costa County Exhibit B – Map: Proposed boundaries of GSAs Exhibit C – Map: Proposed County GSA boundaries Exhibit D – Memorandum of Understanding Contact: Ryan Hernandez/925-674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 295 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 296 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 297 SanJoaquinCounty AlamedaCounty SolanoCounty StanislausCounty SacramentoCounty ContraCostaCounty SanJoaquinCounty SanJoaquinCounty §¨¦55 §¨¦580 §¨¦205 §¨¦680 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ8484 ÄÅ3333 ÄÅ9999 ÄÅ8888 ÄÅ2626 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ8484 ÄÅ160 ÄÅ132 ÄÅ120 ÄÅ113 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ44 §¨¦580 §¨¦55 §¨¦55 §¨¦55 ÄÅ9999 ÄÅ160 BethelIsland Byron Knightsen DiscoveryBay UnionIsland RobertsIsland StatenIsland ShermanIsland TylerIsland TerminousTract RindgeTract VictoriaIsland WebbTract BrannanIsland BaconIsland BouldinIsland AndrusIsland ByronTract GrandIsland StewartTract McDonaldIsland HollandTract KingIsland DrexlerTract EmpireIsland JonesTract VeniceIsland TwitchellIs WrightTract OrwoodTract JerseyIsland MandevilleIsland PalmTract BradfordIsland VealeTract Wood-wardIsland ConeyIsland MedfordIslandQuimbyIsland Stockton Tracy Lodi Livermore Lathrop Pleasanton Manteca Dublin RioVista Isleton Oakley Antioch Brentwood Pittsburg San J o aquin RiverSacramento RiverOld Ri ver Old R i v e r San Joaq uin River FranksTract BigBreak CliftonCourtForebayLosVaquerosReservoir Middle River ShermanLake San J o a q uin River Delt a M e n d o t a C a n a l Cali f o r n i a A q u e d u c t ®0 6 123 MilesMap created 03/22/2017by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservationand Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. Exhibit A - Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation Portion of Tracy Subbasin managed byEast CC County GSAs Tracy Subbasin California SanJoaquinValley TracySubbasin SanJoaquinValley TracySubbasin April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 298 AlamedaCounty SolanoCounty SacramentoCounty ContraCostaCounty SanJoaquinCounty ContraCostaCounty ÄÅ44 ÄÅ160 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ44 BethelIsland Byron Knightsen ShermanIsland WebbTract BaconIsland VictoriaIslandByronTract HollandTract JerseyIsland MandevilleIsland UnionIsland BouldinIsland TwitchellIsland PalmTract BradfordIsland VeniceIsland OrwoodTract Veale Tract AndrusIsland WoodwardIsland ConeyIsland QuimbyIsland DeckerIsland WinterIsland Oakley City ofAntiochGSA City ofBrentwoodGSA Pittsburg BixlerTractSan J o a q uin RiverOld RiverOld RiverMiddle River False River Dutch Slough Conne c t i o n S l o u g h Pi p e r S l o u g h T a y l o r S l o u g h Rock SloughSand Mound SloughHolland CutFisherman's CutIndian Slou g h Woodward CanalSheep SloughFranksTract BigBreak ShermanLake CliftonCourtForebay LosVaquerosReservoir Broad Slough Little FranksTract ContraLomaReservoir AntiochMunicipalReservoir MarshCreekReservoir Dredgers Cut Victoria CanalItalian SloughWest Cana l Grant Line Canal California AqueductDelta Mendota CanalMokelumne River Sacramento RiverDiabloWaterDistrictGSA Discovery BayCommunity Services District GSA ContraCostaCountyGSA East ContraCostaIrrigationDistrictGSA ByronBethanyIrrigation DistrictGSA Exhibit B - Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation 0 3 61.5 MilesMap created 03/22/2017by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservationand Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.® Diablo Water District GSA Brentwood GSA Antioch GSA Byron-Bethany Irrigation District GSA East Contra Costa Irrigation District GSA Discovery Bay Community Services District GSA Water Providing District Irrigation District City Contra Costa County Contra Costa County GSA Tracy Subbasin City Limit GSAs within East CC County Portion of Tracy Subbasin April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 299 AlamedaCounty SolanoCounty SacramentoCounty ContraCostaCounty SanJoaquinCounty ContraCostaCounty ÄÅ44 ÄÅ160 ÄÅ1212 ÄÅ44 ÄÅ44 BethelIsland Byron Knightsen ShermanIsland WebbTract BaconIsland VictoriaIslandByronTract HollandTract JerseyIsland MandevilleIsland UnionIsland BouldinIsland TwitchellIsland PalmTract BradfordIsland VeniceIsland OrwoodTract Veale Tract AndrusIsland WoodwardIsland ConeyIsland QuimbyIsland DeckerIsland WinterIsland Oakley Pittsburg BixlerTract Antioch BrentwoodSan J o a q uin RiverOld RiverOld RiverMiddle River False River Dutch Slough Conne c t i o n S l o u g h Pi p e r S l o u g h T a y l o r S l o u g h Rock SloughSand Mound SloughHolland CutFisherman's CutIndian Slou g h Woodward CanalSheep SloughFranksTract BigBreak ShermanLake CliftonCourtForebay LosVaquerosReservoir Broad Slough Little FranksTract ContraLomaReservoir AntiochMunicipalReservoir MarshCreekReservoir Dredgers Cut Victoria CanalItalian SloughWest Cana l Grant Line Canal California AqueductDelta Mendota CanalMokelumne River Sacramento RiverExhibit C - Contra Costa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency Formation 0 3 61.5 MilesMap created 03/21/2017by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W This map or dataset was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservationand Development with data from the Contra Costa County GIS Program. Some base data, primarily City Limits, is derived from the CA State Board of Equalization'stax rate areas. While obligated to use this data the County assumes no responsibility forits accuracy. This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information.® Contra Costa County Contra Costa County GSA Tracy Subbasin Portion of Tracy Subbasinwithin Contra Costa County City Limit April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 300 Exhibit D Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 1 2 Development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3 for the East Contra Costa County Portion of the 4 Tracy Subbasin, (DWR Basin 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley) 5 6 This Memorandum of Understanding for the Development of a Groundwater 7 Sustainability Plan for the East Contra Costa County portion of the Tracy Subbasin, (DWR Basin 8 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley) (“MOU”) is entered into and effective this _____ day of 9 _________________, 2017 (“Effective Date”) by and among the City of Antioch (“Antioch”), 10 City of Brentwood (“Brentwood”), Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (“BBID”), Contra Costa 11 Water District (“CCWD”), Contra Costa County (“County”), Diablo Water District (“DWD”), 12 East Contra Costa Irrigation District (“ECCID”), and Discovery Bay Community Services 13 District (“Discovery Bay”). Each of the foregoing parties to this MOU is sometimes referred to 14 herein as a “Party” and are collectively sometimes referred to as the “Parties.” 15 Recitals 16 A. In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater 17 Management Act of 2014 (“SGMA”), which established a statewide framework for the 18 sustainable management of groundwater resources. That framework focuses on granting new 19 authorities and responsibility to local agencies while holding those agencies accountable. The 20 framework also provides for state intervention where a local agency fails to develop a 21 groundwater sustainability plan in a timely manner. 22 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 301 Exhibit D Page 2 of 15 B. The Tracy Subbasin (“Basin”) is referred to as DWR Basin 5-22.15, San Joaquin Valley 23 and is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as if 24 set forth in full. The Tracy Subbasin is located in eastern Contra Costa County and in San 25 Joaquin County, and Alameda County. The portion of the Basin within Contra Costa County is 26 referred to herein as the “East CC Basin,” the portion of the Basin within San Joaquin County is 27 referred to herein as the “SJ Basin, and the portion of the Basin within Alameda County is 28 referred to herein as the “Alameda Basin.” The Parties collectively overlie all of the East CC 29 Basin. 30 C. Under SGMA, one or more local agencies may form a groundwater sustainability agency 31 (“GSA”), by memorandum of agreement, joint exercise of powers agreement, or other 32 agreement. (Wat. Code, §§ 10723(a), 10723.6.) The Parties desire for each Party to be the GSA 33 within all or a portion of that Party’s boundary. The Parties further desire to develop a 34 governance structure for the East CC Basin to be considered during development of the 35 groundwater sustainability plan (a “GSP”) for the East CC Basin (the “East CC Basin GSP”). 36 The Parties further desire to resolve areas of jurisdictional overlap so that no two Parties serve as 37 GSAs over the same area. The purpose of this MOU is to coordinate the Parties’ activities 38 related to each Party becoming a GSA, development of the East CC Basin GSP, and each Party’s 39 future consideration of whether to adopt a GSP for the East CC Basin. 40 D. The Parties wish to collaborate in an effort to ensure sustainable groundwater 41 management for the East CC Basin, manage the groundwater basin as efficiently as practicable 42 balancing the financial resources of the agencies with the principles of effective and safe 43 groundwater management, while retaining groundwater management authority within their 44 respective jurisdictions. The Parties desire to share responsibility for East CC Basin 45 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 302 Exhibit D Page 3 of 15 management under SGMA. The Parties recognize that the key to success in this effort will be 46 the coordination of activities under SGMA, and the collaborative development of the East CC 47 Basin GSP, which each Party may consider adopting and implementing within its GSA 48 management area. The Parties also will need to confer with GSAs for the SJ Basin and Alameda 49 Basin regarding the terms of an agreement that coordinates the East CC Basin GSP with the 50 GSP(s) of the GSA(s) for the SJ Basin and the Alameda Basin. 51 E. The Basin has been designated by the California Department of Water Resources 52 (“DWR”) as a medium-priority groundwater basin, which, under the terms of SGMA, means that 53 the Parties must submit an East CC Basin GSP to DWR by January 31, 2022. 54 F. The Parties wish to memorialize their commitments by means of this MOU. 55 Understandings 56 1. Term. The term of this MOU begins on the Effective Date, which shall occur upon 57 execution of this MOU by all eight of the parties, and this MOU shall remain in full force 58 and effect until the earliest of the following events: (i) January 31, 2022, (ii) the date 59 upon which the Parties submit an East CC Basin GSP to DWR, or (iii) the date upon 60 which the Parties then party to the MOU execute a document jointly terminating the 61 provisions of this MOU. An individual Party’s obligations under this MOU terminate 62 when the Party withdraws from the MOU in accordance with Section 4. 63 2. Development of the GSP 64 a. Parties to Become GSAs. Each Party, except Contra Costa Water District, agrees 65 to take the necessary actions to become the GSA for all or a portion of that area of 66 the East CC Basin that it overlies, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, no later 67 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 303 Exhibit D Page 4 of 15 than April 1, 2017, or shortly thereafter. The Parties shall jointly submit the 68 Parties’ individual elections to become GSAs and this MOU to DWR prior to 69 April 1, 2017, or shortly thereafter. The Parties further agree to develop a 70 governance structure for the East CC Basin to be considered during development 71 of the East CC Basin GSP 72 b. Single GSP. The Parties will collaborate to develop a single East CC Basin GSP 73 that, at a minimum, satisfies the GSP requirements in the SGMA and the 74 regulations promulgated under the SGMA. The East CC Basin GSP must include 75 an analysis of implementation costs and revenue sources, and must include an 76 analysis of governance structure options. The East CC Basin GSP shall be drafted 77 in a manner that preserves, and does not purport to supersede, the land use 78 authority of each city or county, or the statutory authority of each special district, 79 that is a party to this MOU. The East CC Basin GSP must include provisions for 80 consultation between a GSA and any public agency that the GSA overlaps before 81 the GSA takes any action that may relate to that public agency’s exercise of its 82 statutory authority. Unless the Parties later agree otherwise, it is intended that the 83 East CC Basin GSP will be implemented by each Party within its respective GSA 84 management area, and that the Parties will coordinate their implementation of the 85 East CC Basin GSP. The Parties will endeavor to negotiate terms of an 86 agreement with the GSA(s) for the SJ Basin and the Alameda Basin, to ensure 87 that the East CC Basin, SJ Basin, and Alameda Basin GSAs’ GSP(s) are 88 coordinated consistent with the SGMA. If the terms of that MOU are negotiated, 89 the Parties will ask their governing bodies to consider approving the MOU. 90 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 304 Exhibit D Page 5 of 15 c. Overlap Areas. Solely for the purpose of complying with the SGMA requirement 91 that GSA management areas not overlap, the Parties agree that there are no 92 overlapping GSA management areas, as shown on Exhibit B. This MOU does not 93 purport to limit any Party’s legal authority to utilize and deliver groundwater or 94 surface water throughout its jurisdictional boundary (as may be amended from 95 time-to-time), which may include area outside of a Party’s management area 96 shown on Exhibit B. 97 d. Cooperation of Efforts. The Parties will designate staff who will endeavor to 98 meet monthly or more frequently if necessary to develop the terms of the East CC 99 Basin GSP in an expeditious manner. 100 e. Financing . 101 (1) The outside technical/consultant costs associated with developing the East CC 102 Basin GSP (“GSP Costs”) will be shared equally among the Parties. However, 103 the County, at its sole discretion, may satisfy its share of GSP Costs by providing 104 in-kind services, which may include mapping, graphics, and database 105 management services. 106 (2) The $118,300 contract with Luhdorff and Scalmanini dated April 1, 2015, for 107 SGMA technical support has been paid one-fifth each by BBID, Brentwood, 108 DWD, ECCID and Discovery Bay. Antioch and CCWD agree that within 60 days 109 of the effective date of this MOU, they shall reimburse BBID, Brentwood, DWD, 110 ECCID and Discovery Bay each $3,380 in order to reallocate the $118,300 111 contract cost into one-seventh portions. 112 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 305 Exhibit D Page 6 of 15 f. Approval of the GSP. The Parties agree that the East CC Basin GSP will become 113 effective for each Party when all of the Parties adopt the East CC Basin GSP. 114 3. Savings Provisions. This MOU shall not operate to validate or invalidate, modify or 115 affect any Party’s water rights or any Party’s obligations under any agreement, contract 116 or memorandum of understanding/agreement entered into prior to the effective date of 117 this MOU. Nothing in this MOU shall operate to convey any new right to groundwater to 118 any Party. Each Party to this MOU reserves any and all claims and causes of action 119 respecting its water rights and/or any agreement, contract or memorandum of 120 understanding/agreement; any and all defenses against any water rights claims or claims 121 under any agreement, contract or memorandum of understanding/agreement. 122 4. Withdrawal. Any Party shall have the ability to withdraw from this MOU by providing 123 sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to withdraw. Said notice shall be given to 124 each of the other Parties. 125 a. A Party shall not be fiscally liable for expenditures following its withdrawal from 126 this MOU, provided that the Party provides written notice at least sixty (60) days 127 prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. A withdrawal shall not terminate, or 128 relieve the withdrawing Party from, any express contractual obligation to another 129 Party to to this MOU or to any third party incurred or encumbered prior to the 130 withdrawal. 131 b. In the event of a Party’s withdrawal, this MOU shall continue in full force and 132 effect among the remaining Parties. Further, a Party’s withdrawal from this MOU 133 does not, without further action by that Party, have any effect on the withdrawing 134 Party’s decision to be a GSA. A withdrawing Party shall coordinate the 135 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 306 Exhibit D Page 7 of 15 development of its groundwater sustainability plan with the other Parties to this 136 MOU. 137 5. CEQA. Nothing in this MOU commits any Party to undertake any future discretionary 138 actions referenced in this MOU, including but not limited to electing to become a GSA 139 and adopting the East CC Basin GSP. Each Party, as a lead agency under the California 140 Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), shall be responsible for complying with all 141 obligations under CEQA that may apply to the Party’s future discretionary actions 142 pursuant to this MOU, including electing to become a GSA and adopting the East CC 143 Basin GSP. 144 6. Books and Records. Each Party shall have access to and the right to examine any of the 145 other Party’s pertinent books, documents, papers or other records (including, without 146 limitation, records contained on electronic media) relating to the performance of that 147 Party’s obligations pursuant to this Agreement, providing that nothing in this paragraph 148 shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any applicable privilege and provided further 149 that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to give either Party rights to inspect the 150 other Party’s records in excess of the rights contained in the California Public Records 151 Act. 152 7. General Provisions 153 a. Authority. Each signatory of this MOU represents that s/he is authorized to 154 execute this MOU on behalf of the Party for which s/he signs. Each Party 155 represents that it has legal authority to enter into this MOU and to perform all 156 obligations under this MOU. 157 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 307 Exhibit D Page 8 of 15 b. Amendment. This MOU may be amended or modified only by a written 158 instrument executed by each of the Parties to this MOU. 159 c. Jurisdiction and Venue. This MOU shall be governed by and construed in 160 accordance with the laws of the State of California, except for its conflicts of law 161 rules. Any suit, action, or proceeding brought under the scope of this MOU shall 162 be brought and maintained to the extent allowed by law in the County of Contra 163 Costa, California. 164 d. Headings. The paragraph headings used in this MOU are intended for 165 convenience only and shall not be used in interpreting this MOU or in 166 determining any of the rights or obligations of the Parties to this MOU. 167 e. Construction and Interpretation. This MOU has been arrived at through 168 negotiations and each Party has had a full and fair opportunity to revise the terms 169 of this MOU. As a result, the normal rule of construction that any ambiguities are 170 to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in the construction or 171 interpretation of this MOU. 172 f. Entire Agreement. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with 173 respect to the subject matter of this MOU and supersedes any prior oral or written 174 agreement, understanding, or representation relating to the subject matter of this 175 MOU. 176 g. Partial Invalidity. If, after the date of execution of this MOU, any provision of 177 this MOU is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future 178 laws effective during the term of this MOU, such provision shall be fully 179 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 308 Exhibit D Page 9 of 15 severable. However, in lieu thereof, there shall be added a provision as similar in 180 terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and 181 be legal, valid and enforceable. 182 h. Waivers. Waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall not constitute a 183 continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach either of the same or of 184 another provision of this MOU and forbearance to enforce one or more of the 185 remedies provided in this MOU shall not be deemed to be a waiver of that 186 remedy. 187 i. Necessary Actions. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver additional 188 documents and instruments and to take any additional actions as may be 189 reasonably required to carry out the purposes of this MOU. 190 j. Compliance with Law. In performing their respective obligations under this 191 MOU, the Parties shall comply with and conform to all applicable laws, rules, 192 regulations, and ordinances. 193 k. Liability. Each Party agrees to indemnify and hold every other Party to the 194 Agreement, and their officers, agents and employees, free and harmless from any 195 costs or liability imposed upon any other Party, officers, agents, or employees 196 arising out of any acts or omissions of its own officers, agents or employees. 197 l. Third Party Beneficiaries. This MOU shall not create any right or interest in any 198 non-Party or in any member of the public as a third party beneficiary. 199 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 309 Exhibit D Page 10 of 15 m. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of 200 which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute 201 but one and the same instrument. 202 n. Notices. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or 203 permitted under this MOU shall be in writing unless provided otherwise in this 204 MOU and shall be deemed to have been duly given and received on: (i) the date 205 of service if served personally or served by electronic mail or facsimile 206 transmission on the Party to whom notice is to be given at the address(es) 207 provided below, (ii) on the first day after mailing, if mailed by Federal Express, 208 U.S. Express Mail, or other similar overnight courier service, postage prepaid, and 209 addressed as provided below, or (iii) on the third day after mailing if mailed to the 210 Party to whom notice is to be given by first class mail, registered or certified, 211 postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 212 213 City of Antioch 214 City Manager 215 P.O. Box 5007 216 Antioch, CA 94531-5007 217 Telephone: (925) 779-7011 218 Facsimile: (925) 779-7003 219 220 221 222 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 310 Exhibit D Page 11 of 15 City Of Brentwood 223 City Manager 224 150 City Park Way 225 Brentwood, CA 94513 226 Phone: (925) 516-5400 227 Fax: (925) 516-5441 228 229 Byron Bethany Irrigation District 230 General Manager 231 7995 Bruns Road 232 Byron, CA 94514-1625 233 Telephone: (209) 835-0375 234 Facsimile: (209) 835-2869 235 236 237 Contra Costa Water District 238 General Manager 239 Contra Costa Water District 240 P. 0. Box H20 241 Concord, CA 94524 242 Phone (925) 688-8032 243 Fax (925) 688-8197 244 245 246 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 311 Exhibit D Page 12 of 15 247 Contra Costa County 248 Director, Department of Conservation and Development 249 30 Muir Road 250 Martinez, CA 94553 251 Phone (925) 674-7866 252 253 Diablo Water District 254 Attn: General Manager 255 P.O. Box 127 256 87 Carol Lane 257 Oakley, CA 94561 258 Phone: (925) 625-3798 259 Fax: (925) 625-0814 260 261 262 East Contra Costa Irrigation District 263 General Manager 264 1711 Sellers Avenue 265 Brentwood, CA 94513 266 Phone: (925) 634-3544 267 Fax: (925) 634-0897 268 269 270 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 312 Exhibit D Page 13 of 15 Discovery Bay Community Services District 271 C/O: Mike Davies, General Manager 272 1800 Willow Lake Road 273 Discovery Bay, CA 94505-9376 274 Telephone: (925) 634-1131 275 Facsimile: (925) 513-2705 276 277 8. Signatures. The Following signatures attest each Party’s agreement hereto. 278 CITY OF ANTIOCH 279 280 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 281 Ron Bernal, Interim City Manager 282 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 283 284 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 285 Michael Vigilia, City Attorney 286 287 CITY OF BRENTWOOD 288 289 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 290 Gustavo “Gus” Vina, City Manager 291 292 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 293 294 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 295 Damien Brower, City Attorney 296 297 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 313 Exhibit D Page 14 of 15 BYRON BETHANY IRRIGATION DISTRICT 298 299 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 300 Rick Gilmore, General Manager 301 302 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 303 304 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 305 Jerry Brown, General Manager 306 307 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 308 309 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 310 District Legal Counsel 311 312 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 313 314 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 315 John Kopchik, Director of 316 Conservation and Development 317 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 318 Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel 319 320 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 321 Deputy County Counsel 322 323 DIABLO WATER DISTRICT 324 325 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 326 Mike Yeraka, General Manager 327 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 314 Exhibit D Page 15 of 15 328 EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT 329 330 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 331 Patricia A. Corey, General Manager 332 333 DISCOVERY BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 334 335 By: ______________________________________ Date: ____________________ 336 Michael R. Davies, General Manager 337 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 315 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1) OPEN the public hearing and take testimony. 2) CLOSE the public hearing. 3) FIND that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) completed for the project are adequate. 4) DENY the appeal by CeCe Valenzuela and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #DP15-3023. 5) UPHOLD the appeal of Timothy Reimers/Meta Housing and eliminate the County Planning Commission’s added condition of approval (COA #23) pertaining to rough grade and elevation of improvements at common property boundaries. 6) ADOPT the County Planning Commission Resolution #5-2017 with one change to eliminate condition of approval #23. 7) ADOPT the findings and conditions of approval contained within the attached conditions of approval document for County File #DP15-3023, as approved by the County Planning Commission, and with the elimination of condition of approval #23 8) DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Sean Tully (925) 674-7800 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Development Plan for a 193-unit Apartment Complex in Bay Point April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 316 FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional costs associated with the application process. BACKGROUND: This hearing is to address the appeals filed by CeCe Valenzuela and Timothy Reimers of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a development plan for the construction of a new 193-unit apartment complex. GENERAL INFORMATION Site Description: The project site is a 7.61-acre area comprised of two vacant parcels located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway in Bay Point. The project site is relatively flat and is void of any natural or man-made watercourses running within its boundaries. There are no mature trees located on the subject property, but there are ornamental nut tree saplings and one young palm tree located in the southeast corner of the site. There are no curb and gutter improvements along the Port Chicago Highway frontage, a curb without sidewalk along the Willow Pass Road frontage, and full curb and sidewalk improvements along the Weldon Street frontage. General Plan: The project site is located within a Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density (MM) General Plan Land Use Designation. The MM designation allows for residential uses such as attached single-family residences (duplexes or duets), multiple-family residences such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, mobile home parks, and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses. The proposed development is for a multiple-family apartment complex, and thus will be a land use that is consistent with those allowed within the MM designation. Based on the net acreage of the proposed project (7.34 acres) a maximum of 161 units would be permitted at the site to fall within the density range of 12.0 to 21.99 units allowed within an MM General Plan land use designation. However, the applicant has proposed 32 additional units based on the maximum 23% density bonus, which is afforded to the project pursuant to the County’s Residential Density Bonus Ordinance (822-2), and the fact that 19 of the 161 allowed units are designated as affordable units. A project's available density bonus is calculated by taking the percentage of proposed affordable units within the development, which then corresponds to a preset density bonus percentage which has been designated in the State's adopted Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq). Zoning : Final Development Plan Consistency: The subject property is located within a Planned Unit (P-1) zoning district, which typically has project-specific design and development guidelines that are approved as part of a development plan. When the project site was rezoned to a P-1 district in December of 2007 (County File #RZ05-3173), it was approved in concert with General Plan Amendment (#GP05-0001), Major Subdivision (#SD05-9077), and Development Plan (#DP05-3102) applications all associated with a proposed 126-unit townhouse project. The General Plan amendment and rezoning elements of the project took effect immediately and resulted in the current Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density (MM) General Plan land use and Planned Unit (P-1) zoning designation for the property. However, the subdivision and townhouse complex elements of the project were never exercised by the applicant. As a result, there are no existing Final Development Plan conditions of approval related to setbacks, building height, or overall design that can be used or referenced to guide development for the subject site. Therefore, a new Final Development Plan and project-specific conditions of approval are proposed as part of this application. P-1 Zoning District Standards: P-1 zoning districts allow for any land use permitted by an approved Final Development Plan that is consistent with the General Plan (Section 84-66.402.1 – Uses). The proposed development is of a multi-family residential nature, will be in harmony with the surrounding multi-family residential and neighborhood-oriented commercial uses, and is consistent with the General Plan, as documented April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 317 above. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant seeks approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow the construction of a new 193-unit apartment complex. The project consists of the following elements: 1) Eight, three-story multi-unit residential buildings totaling approximately 243,265 square feet of living, garage, circulation, deck, utility, and community center area; 2) 193 one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units (19 of which are reserved for low income households); 3) Request for approval of a density bonus to allow 32 additional units beyond the 161 units allowed under the applicable density standards. The request is permitted pursuant to the County’s Residential Density Bonus Ordinance and the applicant’s proposal to provide 19 affordable units within the development; 4) 328 covered and uncovered off-street parking spaces; 5) 25,180 square feet of outdoor pool and recreation area; 6) Perimeter gate and two gated entries; 7) Two monument identification signs for the development; 8) Contra Costa Water District/Golden State Water Company and Contra Costa Fire Protection District fire water lateral extensions from the project site to an existing water main located within the Willow Pass Road right-of-way; 9) 8-inch Delta Diablo sanitary sewer lateral connection from the project site to an existing sanitary sewer main located within the Willow Pass Road right-of-way; 10) Request for approval of an exception to allow a diversion of storm water from the designated drainage area to another drainage area. 11) Six on-site bio-retention areas totaling approximately 21,583 square feet for drainage purposes; 12) Electrical, gas, cable, and telecommunication utility connections from the site to existing extensions within the public right-of-way, via underground joint trenches; and 13) Cut and fill grading activities that will result in approximately 24,410 cubic yards of soil being removed from the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was prepared and staff found that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of project-specific mitigations. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document were posted for public review on June 30, 2016, with the public review period ending on August 1, 2016. Four pieces of correspondence were received during the public comment period, which have been summarized and discussed with related staff responses in the “CEQA Public Comment” section of the December 6, 2016, County Planning Commission public hearing staff report. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION ON DECEMBER 6, 2016 The matter was initially heard by the County Planning Commission on December 6, 2016. During the public hearing, testimony was accepted from the applicant and members of the public. Based on the accepted testimony and project analysis provided by County staff, the County Planning Commission approved the project with three April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 318 additional conditions. The added conditions pertained to a) lowering the elevation of the project site at the common boundary with adjacent northern parcels (COA #23), b) requiring that solar collecting equipment be added to the project design (COA #22), and c) that a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program be incorporated as part of the project (COA #33). These conditions have been incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval as directed by the County Planning Commission. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECEMBER 6, 2016 DECISION On December 16, 2016, appeals of the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #DP15-3023 were filed by Timothy Reimers (firm representing applicant/property owner), and CeCe Valenzuela (resident of Bay Point). The main points of the appeals are summarized below, followed by staff responses. I. APPEAL OF CECE VALENZUELA Primary Appeal Points: 1) Notice of the proposed project was only provided to residents within a 300-foot radius, many of which are renters who have little commitment to Bay Point and did not respond . 2) The height of the proposed development at 3-stories is too tall and will tower over the adjacent residential and commercial developments. 3) The overall design of the project is monolithic, fortress-like, and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the window treatments, materials, and proposed colors are incompatible with the surrounding developments. 4) The assumed tenant population for the proposed development is inaccurate, and as a result the associated impacts to childcare, traffic, and the school district are inaccurate. The HUD Fair Occupancy Guidelines and occupancy limits for the Grove at Sunset should be utilized. 5) Additional attention and analysis pertaining to energy conservation is required in the form of electrical charging stations, additional solar shade, reduction in the amount of asphalted and other hardscaped surfaces, and an increase in landscaping. 6) Due to current mandatory water restrictions alternative options for landscaping irrigation such as rainwater catchment and gray water systems should be required. 7) The proposed landscaping design should be revisited. The amount of landscaped area should be increased, and the proposed tree and plant species should be reviewed. 8) Storm water runoff from the proposed buildings and parking areas has the potential for polluting the environment. 9) A survey needs to be conducted to determine if burrowing owls inhabit the project site. 10) The childcare assessment does not correctly estimate the childcare need that will be created by the project. In addition, an onsite childcare facility would be more beneficial than the provided off-site mitigations. 11) Schools in the Bay Point area are at capacity and the students are performing at below-average levels. These conditions will be further aggravated by the proposed project . 12) The increase in population and vehicles as a result of the proposed project will adversely impact wait times during commute hours. Staff Responses : April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 319 1) Project Noticing: Noticing for the proposed project was administered a total of three times. The first public noticing administered for the project was the “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration”. This noticing was distributed to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, the County Clerk, and all occupants and owners of the parcels contiguous to the subject property. Therefore, this notice was distributed to all the occupants (i.e. renters) of the adjacent apartment complexes. This distribution method and distance were administered in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.b.3 (Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration). The second and third noticing for the project were Notices of Public Hearing, which were distributed to all property owners of parcels located within 300-feet of the project site. The distribution method and distance for the public hearing noticing was administered in compliance with Section 26-2.2004 (Variance, Conditional Use and Special Permits – Notice Requirements) of the County Ordinance and Section 65091 of the Government Code; which require that the noticing be provided to the owner of the subject property and all owners of real property within 300 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the hearing 2) Proposed 3-Story Height: The project site has no specified height limit as the development is subject to plan approval in a P-1 zoning district. This site was not part of the larger P-1 district created for the former Bay Point Redevelopment Area (“Bay Point P-1”) but is immediately adjacent to it. The applicants have designed the proposed apartment complex with a maximum height of 42 feet-6 inches, which does not exceed the 45-foot maximum building height that is permitted for buildings on properties within the Bay Point P-1 area with “Multiple-Family” General Plan designations; it’s also lower that the 50-foot maximum height permitted on the adjacent Retail-Business zoned parcel to the north. Generally, taller buildings are constructed along arterial roadways and this trend is reflected in Bay Point along arterial roadways and commercial corridors such as Willow Pass Road and Port Chicago Highway; which then transition to smaller one- and two-story residential structures located along the “feeder” roadways typically found deeper within the region’s residential neighborhoods. The project site is located at the intersection of two of Bay Points primary arterial roadways, and thus the proposed 3 story building is consistent with the general practice. The residential buildings of the proposed development will only result in a one-story height increase from those of the adjacent Mission Bay and Rivershore apartment complexes, which is a height transition that can be found elsewhere in the immediate neighborhood. Furthermore, the Bella Monte apartment complex located on Willow Pass Road at Fairview Avenue is also a three-story complex, and there are two-story buildings within the Mission Bay Apartments development that are adjacent to single-story residences along Clifford Court. 3) Overall Project Design and Architecture: The project site is immediately surrounded by various uses including a small commercial center, a “Tower” gas station and market complex, two apartment complexes, and single-family residences. Due to the variety of uses in the area, there is a diverse range of architectural styles that surround the project site. As a result, the applicant has incorporated an architectural style into the development which is contemporary in nature, utilizes architectural elements found on adjacent properties, and that is compatible with the surrounding area. This is evident in the modern rectangular architectural elements that are similar to those found at the “Tower” gas station complex and adjacent commercial center, the exposed stairwells of both the Rivershore and Mission Bay Apartment complexes, protruding balconies of the Rivershore Apartments, and a mix of siding, wood, and stucco materials which can be found on both of the adjacent apartment complexes. Based on the combination of the variety of architectural styles within the surrounding neighborhood and the various design elements incorporated in the proposed buildings; the proposed project is of a design that is appropriately unique for a development of this nature, but that is also compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4) Estimated Tenant Population: It is clear that there is no exact science for estimating the tenancy of the proposed development due to the various geographical, social and economic forces that will factor into the true numbers. The appellant believes that HUD standards should be used to estimate the tenancy for the proposed development. However, the HUD exhibit provided by the appellant pertains to how HUD may determine the maximum occupancy of a unit, not for estimating tenancy. Based on the average household size of 3.52 occupants for renter-occupied units in Bay Point (U.S. Census Bureau; 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 320 Estimates), the estimated tenancy for the project would be approximately 679 people. The appellant has voiced concerns regarding the accuracy of the estimated tenancy for the project because they feel it will alter the impacts and mitigations related to childcare, parking, and traffic. However, the childcare, traffic, and parking impact analysis for the project are based on unit counts, and not on project tenancy. Therefore, neither the required childcare mitigations, amount of parking spaces, or findings of the traffic study will be impacted by the number of tenants. 5) Electric Charging Stations / Landscaping Amount : The proposed development will be subject to the California Green Building Code (Title 24) standards. Under the Title 24 standards, 3 percent of the total parking spaces shall be capable of supporting future electric vehicle charging stations. In addition to the State Title 24 standards, the County has adopted its own standards pertaining to the number of required electrical vehicle charging stations. Pursuant to County Code section 74-4.006(a) (Amendments to the Green Building Standards Code), at least 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided shall be electrical vehicle charging stations and equipped with fully operational electrical vehicle supply equipment. Based on the County’s requirement and the applicant’s proposal to provide 328 parking spaces, a total of 16 electrical vehicle charging stations will be required as part of the project. This required number exceeds the six stations requested in the appellant’s letter. 6) Water Conservation: As required pursuant to Condition of Approval #24, the Final Landscape Plan submitted for the proposed project shall be compliant with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (SMWELO). One of the primary goals of the SMWELO was to promote the value and benefits of landscaping practices that integrate and go beyond the conservation and efficient use of water. In order to verify compliance with the standards of the SMWELO, the applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan that consists of elements such as a water efficient landscape worksheet with water budget calculations, a soil management report, landscape design plan, irrigation design plan, and a grading design plan. All elements of the plans will be reviewed and approved by staff to ensure that the proposed landscape design will not cause the estimated total water usage to exceed the maximum applied water allowance for the site. In addition, for compliance with the SMWELO, the approved landscape design and calculations will be forwarded on to the local water provider. 7) Landscaped Area : The project site is located within a Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density General Plan land use designation, which allows between 12 and 21.99 units per net acre. Based on this allowed density range it is desired and understood that a fairly dense development will be established on the property. The applicant has accomplished this within the complex by building up with a multi-story configuration, rather than expanding horizontally. Along with providing the residential units, the applicant is required to provide access and parking, which is all being provided for on-site. Furthermore, the applicant has incorporated parking on the first floor of three of the eight buildings, which further reduces the amount of surface parking outside of building envelopes. Although the development consists of a 193-unit complex with associated infrastructure and access improvements, the applicant has incorporated approximately 1.98-acres of landscaping into the development design. Approximately 26 percent of the net acreage is covered by landscaping, planted bio-retention areas, or the designated recreation area. 8) Storm Water Runoff: As conditions of approval (COA #104 & #105) the applicant will be required to comply with all rules, regulation, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), as is publicized by the California State Water Resources Control Board and/or its Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Compliance with the NPDES ensures that storm water or any other pollutants that may be generated at the site are of a type and/or level that do not hurt water quality or people’s health. As evidence of compliance with NPDES standards the applicant will be required to submit a Final Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) for review and approval by the County Public Works Department. Approval of the SWCP and O+M Plan will be required prior to the applicant obtaining any building permits for construction. 9) Burrowing Owl Preservation: A biological assessment of the project site was completed as part of the CEQA analysis for the proposal, and it was determined that Western Burrowing Owl habitat may exist at the site. Based on these findings mitigations (MM BIO-4 through BIO-6) and conditions of approval (COA #37 through #39) have been incorporated into the project to ensure that impacts to any existing burrowing owls are minimized as much as possible. The added mitigations require that a preconstruction survey for the presence of owls be April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 321 administered prior to any ground disturbance at the site. In the event that owls are located at the site, the mitigations require that certain protocol be taken to ensure that the owls are avoided, relocated, or given the opportunity to leave on their own. Further, the project will be covered by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan which is a regional plan for conserving species and facilitating economic development. The project proponent will be required to pay mitigation fees which will be used to acquire and conserve habitat in East County for burrowing owl and other sensitive species. 10) Childcare: As discussed in subsection 4 above, there is no exact science for estimating the tenancy of the proposed development due to the various geographical, social and economic forces that will factor into the true numbers. The childcare needs assessment prepared for the project found that the proposed development would generate a total of 94 children in need of licensed care for the geographical location. However, the actual demand for the project is estimated at 47 new spaces due to the fact that assessments take into account that 50 percent of the children will be cared for by a parent or relative at a home or in a license-exempt facility. This estimate is based on data and trends unique to the region of Contra Costa County. 11) Child Performance in Schools: Notification of the proposed project was forwarded to the Mt. Diablo Unified School District on two occasions for comment. There has been no indication from the District that the additional school-aged children that would enter their schools as a result of the project would exceed their current resources. Low test scores and performance are independent from the approval of the project. The proposed development will contribute towards resolving the existing issues within the School District by payment of its fair share of the school fees that will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 12) Traffic Wait Times: An in-depth traffic impact analysis of the proposed project was completed by Abrams Associates. The resultant report anticipated that the proposed project would generate approximately 94 peak hour trips in the morning, and 115 peak hour trips during the evening commute. The report also acknowledges that the proposed development will have some impact on intersection delay times in the region. However, the findings of the report indicate that of the eleven intersections that were analyzed, the maximum increase in delay time will be no more than 4.2 seconds. The report also found that the Level of Service (LOS) grade for all analyzed intersections will be maintained, even with the anticipated increase in traffic from the development. Lastly, an analysis of the project’s impacts on State Route 4 (SR4) was also completed. This analysis found that the peak hour traffic volumes on the SR4 would increase by no more than 0.5%, and that the ramp queue lengths for the eastbound and westbound off-ramps would be increased by no more than 2 feet with the project. II. APPEAL OF TIMOTHY J. REIMERS/META HOUSING 1) Summary of Appeal: The County Planning Commission’s added condition of approval (COA #23) pertaining to rough grade at the project site’s common boundary line will result in either a stepped foundation for Building B1, which will result in adverse aesthetic impacts to the building; or require that the entire building pad be constructed approximately 4 feet lower than the driveway entrance at Port Chicago Highway, which will likely result in drainage issues. Based on the above, the applicant requests that language of the added condition (COA #23) be amended as follows: “At least 45 days prior to CDD stamp-approval of plans for issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing that the foundation pad for Building B1, parking surface (1st floor) for Building D1, perimeter surface parking, and other related improvements along the northern, northeastern, and eastern property lines of the project site shall either be the same elevation as that of the adjacent properties to the north and northeast, or the height of the building will be no higher than the maximum allowable height as calculated above grade from the nearest adjacent property boundary line .” Staff Response: Based on plans submitted by the applicant, there is a difference in elevation of approximately 9 feet between existing grade at the northernmost property line and existing grade at the southernmost boundary line with Willow Pass Road. In other words, natural grade increases as you move in a southward direction across the site. In the event that the entire foundation pad of Building B1 is lowered to equal that of the adjacent commercial property to the north (APN: 098-240-057), portions of Building B1 would be approximately 4 feet below the elevation of the Port Chicago Highway roadway and the associated driveway access to the proposed development. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 322 This difference in grade elevation would require the construction of retaining walls to support the roadway, driveway entrance, and parking lot areas adjacent to Building B1. The applicant has mentioned that this is an undesirable configuration because of an applicable building code requirement (Section 1804.3 – Site Grading) to have a minimum 5 percent slope away from the building foundation for the diversion of water away from the structure. Based on the location of Building B1, its proximity to Port Chicago Highway, and the topography of the project site, lowering the elevation of the building pad pursuant to the added County Planning Commission’s condition of approval may create a situation where the applicable building code related to diverting water away from the foundation cannot be met (see applicant Attachment-B). Furthermore, lowering the pad elevation of Building B1 will also result in the need for substantial design modifications in order to maintain the project’s compliance with applicable ADA accessibility and sanitary sewer regulations. Staff has had the opportunity to meet with engineers of the County Building Inspection Division, who have confirmed that the proposed condition of approval will require significant design modifications and potentially impede the applicant from complying with applicable building code related to drainage. As a result, the applicant would potentially be subject to an undue financial hardship with relation to the additional design and structural changes that would be required. In addition, the changes that would be required in relation to the project’s structural, drainage, and sewer designs were not previously analyzed under CEQA, and may change the significance of the project’s impacts upon the environment. Staff believes that the adverse effects of Condition of Approval #23 substantially outweigh the benefits, and thus recommends that the condition be eliminated. After discussing the matter further with the applicant and Building Inspection Division staff, the parties also agreed that the applicant's revised condition language may also have adverse impacts on the project design and it compliance with applicable code, and that the initial design is the best option at this time. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project because it is consistent with the land uses allowed within the respective General Plan land use designation and zoning district. Analysis has also shown that the proposed project is consistent with applicable sections of various General Plan Elements such as Traffic and Circulation, Housing, and Land Use, as well as the Specific Area Policies for the Bay Point area. Furthermore, the proposed project will bring much needed housing and economic benefits that the Bay Point community has sought to improve for an extended period of time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not obtain the required Development Plan entitlement needed to develop the proposed use. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This application is a request for approval of a development plan to allow the establishment of a new apartment complex. No element of the proposed project will affect children’s programs in the County. The project proponent is required to mitigate the demand created by the project as referenced in the Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval for the proposed project. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CeCe Valenzuela, appellant: Ralph Strauss, SDG Architects, appellants; Welbon I. Salaam, resident of Bay Point (handout attached); Judy Dawson, resident of Bay Point (handout attached); Alex Dongallo, resident of Bay Point; Doug Parker, resident of Bay Point (handout attached). CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) completed for the project are adequate; DENIED the appeal by CeCe Valenzuela and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #DP15-3023; UPHELD the appeal of Timothy Reimers/Meta Housing and eliminated the County Planning Commission’s added condition of approval (COA #23) pertaining to rough grade and elevation of improvements at common property boundaries; ADOPTED the County Planning Commission Resolution #5-2017 with one change to eliminate condition of approval #23; ADOPTED the findings and conditions of approval contained within the attached conditions of approval document for County File #DP15-3023, as approved by the County Planning Commission, and with the elimination of condition of approval #23; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 323 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS CeCe Appeal Applicant Appeal CPC Resolution COAs Maps Project Plans PowerPoint Pres BOS Notice 300 foot list MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 324 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 325 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 326 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 327 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 328 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 329 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 330 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 331 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 332 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 333 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 334 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 335 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 336 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 337 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 338 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 339 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 340 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 341 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 342 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 343 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 344 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 345 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 346 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 347 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 348 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 349 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 350 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 351 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 352 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 353 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 354 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 355 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 356 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 357 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 358 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 359 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 360 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 361 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 362 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 363 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 364 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 365 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 366 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 367 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 368 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 369 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 370 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 371 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 372 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 373 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 374 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 375 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 376 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 377 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 378 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 379 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 380 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 381 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 382 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 383 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 384 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 385 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 386 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 387 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 388 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 389 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 390 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 391 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 392 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 393 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 394 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 395 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 396 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 397 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 398 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 399 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 400 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 401 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 402 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 403 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 404 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 405 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes406 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes407 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes408 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes409 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes410 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes411 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes412 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes413 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes414 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes415 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes416 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes417 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes418 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes419 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes420 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes421 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes422 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes423 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes424 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes425 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes426 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes427 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes428 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes429 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes430 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes431 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes432 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes433 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes434 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes435 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes436 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes437 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes438 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes439 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes440 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes441 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes442 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes443 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes444 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes445 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes446 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes447 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes448 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes449 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes450 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes451 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes452 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes453 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes454 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes455 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes456 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes457 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes458 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes459 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes460 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes461 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 462 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 463 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 464 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 465 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 466 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 467 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 468 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 469 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 470 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 471 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 472 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 473 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 474 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes475 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes476 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 477 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes478 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 479 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 480 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 481 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 482 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 483 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 484 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 485 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 486 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 487 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 488 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 489 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 490 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 491 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 492 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 493 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 494 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 495 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 496 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 497 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 498 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 499 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 500 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 501 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 502 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 503 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 504 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 505 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 506 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 507 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 508 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 509 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 510 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 511 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 512 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 513 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 514 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 515 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 516 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 517 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 518 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 519 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 520 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 521 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 522 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 523 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 524 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 525 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 526 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 527 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 528 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 529 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 530 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 531 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 532 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 533 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 534 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 535 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 536 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 537 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 538 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 539 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 540 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 541 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 542 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 543 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 544 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 545 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 546 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 547 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 548 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 549 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 550 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 551 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 552 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 553 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 554 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 555 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 556 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 557 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 558 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 559 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 560 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 561 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 562 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 563 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 564 RECOMMENDATION(S): A. CONDUCT public workshop discussion on Proposition 64 and cannabis regulation in Contra Costa County. B. PROVIDE initial, general, direction to staff from the Department of Conservation and Development in conjunction with staff from the Department of Health, Department of Agriculture, District Attorney’s Office, County Counsel, Office of the Sheriff, Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Probation Department and the County Administrator's Office on the preparation of one or more ordinances regulating the cultivation, delivery, manufacturing and distribution of cannabis within the unincorporated areas of the County or request specific additional information on potential cannabis regulation. FISCAL IMPACT: In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 64, if the Board were to decide to prohibit all commercial marijuana related activities, specific grant funding would not be made available to the County and no new tax revenue would be generated. With or without a County wide prohibition on commercial cannabis activities the establishment of illicit or unpermitted cannabis related activities is to be expected and the cost of enforcement would be born solely by the County under a prohibition. The amount of state funding that would be made available to the County if commercial cannabis activities were to be permitted and regulated is uncertain at this time. Adoption of an ordinance permitting and regulating various marijuana related commercial activities, as well passage of a tax measure or imposition of new fees, could result in additional revenues for the County in addition APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Ruben Hernandez (925) 674-7785 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Cannabis Regulation Workshop April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 565 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) to qualifying the County to access to grant funding as provided for in Proposition 64. Estimated staff cost of preparing one or more ordinances to regulate and permit commercial cannabis and other provisions is expected to be within the $100,000 - $150,000 range but could be higher or lower depending upon the amount of additional research required, the complexity of regulatory approach chosen and the type and duration of the public process. Preparation of a ballot measure to adopt a Countywide cannabis tax would incur additional cost. Enforcement cost would vary with the regulatory approach chosen, which cannot be estimated at this time, but could be significant. BACKGROUND: On January 17, 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed the Department of Conservation and Development to schedule a Board workshop to discuss potential marijuana regulations. The workshop was requested in response to voter approval of Proposition 64, also known as the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act or the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Prior to the approval of Proposition 64, in October 2015, Governor Brown approved the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), formerly known as MMRSA (Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act), which, like Proposition 64, provided local jurisdictions an opportunity to adopt ordinances regulating the cultivation, delivery, dispensing, sale, transport and manufacturing of marijuana and marijuana related products. The purpose of the workshop is to provide the Board with an opportunity to discuss potential marijuana regulation and obtain input and comments from various County Departments. The workshop is also intended to provide the Board with an update on anticipated new activities of County departments as a result of AUMA. Existing County Marijuana Regulation The County currently has two separate cannabis related ordinances in effect. The first one, Ordinance #2008-05, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in February 2008. The ordinance prohibited the establishment of any use that violated State or Federal law, as well as explicitly prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the County. The second active ordinance is Urgency Interim Ordinance #2017-03 which was adopted by the Board on January 17, 2017. The ordinance continued the interim prohibition on the cultivation, delivery and sale of marijuana and marijuana products until January 30, 2018 and was a continuation of two previous urgency interim ordinances. The urgency ordinance was adopted in response to the approval of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) which was signed into law by the Governor in October of 2015. Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) The Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), which was signed into law by Governor Brown in October of 2015, was the precursor to Proposition 64. Like Proposition 64, MCRSA established a comprehensive structure for the licensing and enforcement of medical marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing, transportation, storage and distribution. MCRSA established a dual licensing system where applicants for state licenses had to provide evidence of local approval of a medical marijuana use prior to issuance of the state license. MCRSA permitted local control of medical marijuana uses and allowed local jurisdiction to prohibit or regulate medical marijuana uses as they saw fit. MCRSA also resulted in the establishment of the State Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, which was subsequently changed to the Bureau of Marijuana Control with the approval of Proposition 64. Proposition 64 (Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA) Proposition 64 was approved by California voters on November 8, 2016 with 57% of the vote. In Contra Costa County, 61% of the voters in the unincorporated areas and 60% of voters Countywide voted for Proposition 64. The proposition legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults over the age of 21 and established a broad range of new legislation regulating the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, transportation laboratory testing, sale and taxation of marijuana and marijuana related products. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 566 Proposition 64 requires the establishment of a state licensing program that would be responsible for the issuance of state licenses for the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, retailing and distribution of marijuana and marijuana related products including hemp[1]. The newly formed Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health will issue licenses. According to Proposition 64, state licensing agencies have until the beginning of 2018 to have licensing programs in place and to begin issuing state licenses. In order to protect local interest, Proposition 64 established a dual-licensing system, where applicants for state licensing are required to provide evidence of local approval of marijuana related use prior to issuance of a state license. [1] The term “Hemp” is typically used to describe cannabis that is grown for the production of fiber used for the making of rope and other fabrics. Under federal law hemp is a form of cannabis, which is identified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, and is treated the same way. In California, hemp is also identified as a type of cannabis and is subject to the same regulations as medical/recreational cannabis or marijuana. The County could explore regulating hemp differently from other forms of cannabis but there may be some enforcement challenges that would need further consideration. Proposition 64 provides local jurisdictions with significant control over the regulation of commercial marijuana related uses. Under Proposition 64, local jurisdictions have the authority to regulate or prohibit most marijuana related uses, including cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail sales. If a local jurisdiction takes no action by the time the state starts issuing licenses (beginning of 2018), the state becomes the default licensing authority and may issue licenses if the use is not explicitly prohibited within that jurisdiction. For personal use, Proposition 64 permits the indoor cultivation of up to six plants. Additionally, Proposition 64 allows local jurisdictions to prohibit outdoor cultivation for personal use and to also adopt "reasonable" regulations for the indoor and/or outdoor cultivation of up to six plants by an adult over the age of 21 within a private residence. However, a local jurisdiction cannot completely ban indoor cultivation. Other than that, almost every aspect of commercial marijuana related activities can be regulated or prohibited by local jurisdictions. This includes, but is not limited to, prohibiting or limiting the size, scale and number of commercial marijuana businesses within the jurisdiction, adoption of strict security and safety measures and the levying of marijuana taxes. Key Aspects of Cannabis Regulation Under MCRSA and AUMA An overview of some of the key provisions, issues, timelines and considerations related to cannabis regulation under MCRSA and AUMA is provided below. Categories of Cannabis Use Under MCRSA and AUMA local governments have the authority to regulate or prohibit the following cannabis related uses (both medical and adult-use or recreational): Indoor/outdoor personal cultivation of cannabis or hemp (Personal indoor grow of up to 6 plants must be allowed per AUMA); Indoor/outdoor commercial cultivation or nursery[1] of cannabis or hemp; Commercial manufacture of cannabis; Laboratory testing of cannabis; Retail sales of cannabis;Retail delivery[2] of cannabis; Commercial distribution[3] of cannabis; Cannabis microbusiness[4]. [1] For remainder of this report, “cultivation” is intended to be inclusive of nursery uses. [2] While the County does have the ability to prohibit or restrict the establishment of delivery businesses in the unincorporated area that deliver cannabis to customers, staff does not believe the County would have the practical ability to enforce a prohibition on actual deliveries (for instance, from a business legally established in a neighboring jurisdiction to an unincorporated area). [3] “Distribution” as used in AUMA is a facility where wholesale cannabis is received and distributed to retail cannabis outlets such as dispensaries. Under AUMA, retail sale of cannabis is not permitted with a “distributors” April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 567 license. [4] “Microbusiness” under AUMA is a small retailer with a farm not exceeding 10,000 square feet and could be compared to a farm stand where products grown on a property are available for retail sale at the same property. Licensing and Permitting Both the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) require a dual licensing system requiring both a state and local license or permit with revocation of one resulting in revocation of the other. Medical (MCRSA) and recreational (AUMA) cannabis uses can be regulated separately or together. County can adopt an ordinance that "reasonably" restricts personal indoor cultivation of up to six plants for personal use but cannot completely ban. A County cannabis ordinance may impose significant health and safety requirements, location restrictions, operational requirements, environmental protections, etc. A limit may be placed on the number of permitted commercial cannabis uses by ordinance (eg. The City of Richmond allows a maximum of 3 cannabis collectives and 3 cannabis product manufactures within city boundaries at any time). By ordinance, a selection or request for proposal (RFP) process may be established giving the County the ability to screen and select the most qualified and thorough applicants/applications. Timeframe In order to avoid the possible establishment of cannabis businesses or uses not regulated by the County, permanent County ordinances regulating cannabis uses should be adopted prior to the start of the issuance of licenses by the State, which is expected to begin on January 1, 2018. If the County does not have permanent regulations in effect prior to expiration of the County’s urgency interim ordinance on January 30, 2018, the State would become the sole licensing authority. The County could adopt new regulations on commercial cannabis after January 30, 2018, but any state licensed cannabis activities or businesses established in the meantime would be “grandfathered-in” as legal non-conforming uses and could be difficult to do away with, if desired. Any permanent regulations adopted by the County prior to January 30, 2018 can be modified thereafter to be more restrictive or permissive. However, once a cannabis use is legally established under the permanent regulations, revoking or rescinding such use could be challenging. New Federal Administration May Change Approach to Cannabis According to Federal Law, cannabis is listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, making the possession of cannabis a violation of federal law. Under the previous administration, enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, with regard to cannabis, was identified as a low priority according to the “Cole Memo” issued on August 29, 2013 by Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. The Cole Memo provided guidance in regards to state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law the possession of marijuana and the regulation of its production, processing and sale. The memo also indicated that, in furtherance of its objectives, the Department of Justice had focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities such as preventing: Distribution of marijuana to minors Revenue from cannabis related businesses going to criminal enterprises or other illegal activity Distribution to other states where it is not legal under state law Violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana Drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences Growing and or possession of marijuana on public land and federal property The Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has issued guidance similar to the Cole Memo to clarify Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) expectations for financial institutions. This FinCEN guidance clarifies how financial institutions can provide services to marijuana related businesses consistent with their BSA obligations. A financial institution providing financial services to a marijuana related business that it reasonably believes does not implicate one of the Cole Memo priorities or violate state law should file a “Marijuana Limited” suspicious activity report identifying information and addresses of the subject and relatedApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 568 “Marijuana Limited” suspicious activity report identifying information and addresses of the subject and related parties. Furthermore, the financial institution should specify the fact that the filing is solely because the subject is engaged in marijuana related business and that no additional suspicious activity has been identified. Under the new administration, there have been some indications that the Controlled Substances Act would be strictly enforced. Strict enforcement of the controlled substance act would have significant impacts on the cannabis industry and local regulation. It is important to note that the guidance of FinCEN and the Cole Memo does not limit the Department of Justice’s authority to enforce federal law related to marijuana, regardless of state law. Statewide and Local Response to Proposition 64 In response to approval of Proposition 64 many jurisdictions throughout the state have adopted urgency interim ordinances which prohibit the cultivation, sale, delivery, transportation and manufacture of cannabis and cannabis related products. A few jurisdictions have adopted permanent ordinances regulating and taxing personal and commercial cannabis activities including Sonoma County, the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Diego. In Sonoma County, Los Angeles and San Diego, a special ballot measure was put before the voters of those cities to allow for the taxation and regulation of commercial cannabis activities. All three measures were approved by voters. Locally, San Joaquin and Solano Counties have adopted urgency interim ordinances generally prohibiting the cultivation, distribution, manufacturing and delivery of cannabis and cannabis related products and are deliberating on the impacts of potential cannabis prohibition, regulation and taxation. Alameda County allowed dispensaries prior to approval of Proposition 64 and is now deliberating on modifying their existing code to conform with AUMA including expanding on the number of dispensaries permitted within their jurisdiction. [check on other uses and summarize here] In Napa County all cannabis related uses are prohibited under their current code, with the exception of indoor personal cultivation, which was the case prior to Proposition 64, but the County Board of Supervisors is currently discussing Countywide perspectives on the passage of AUMA. Within Contra Costa County, prior to approval of Proposition 64, the City of Richmond permitted the cultivation, dispensing, distribution, manufacturing and taxing of medical cannabis prior to approval of Proposition 64. Prior to Proposition 64, the city of Martinez does permitted the establishment of medical cannabis dispensaries. For both cities, the passage of Proposition 64 has not yet led to a change in cannabis regulations. Taxing and Revenue In order to pay for the implementation, oversight and enforcement of AUMA, and to provide some funding for specific drug rehabilitation and educational grant programs, AUMA includes provisions for the taxation of recreational cannabis. AUMA also included provisions which allow local jurisdictions the opportunity to levy additional taxes on the cultivation, sale and distribution of cannabis and cannabis related products. AUMA included a state tax on growing and an excise tax on the retail price of marijuana and marijuana products. The state tax on growing is $9.25 per ounce of dried marijuana flowers and $2.75 per ounce of dried marijuana leaves. A state excise tax of 15% of the retail price of marijuana and marijuana products also applies. Under AUMA portions of the State revenue generated have been allocated for the following specific purposes: Starting in 2018-2019, $10 million will be allocated for grants for certain services such as job placement assistance and substance use and disorder treatment in communities most affected by past drug policies. Funding for this purpose is expected to grow to $50 million by 2022-2023. $10 million annually will be allocated to study the effects of AUMA. $3 million will be allocated to create and adopt methods to determine whether someone is driving while impaired, including by marijuana.April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 569 impaired, including by marijuana. $2 million will be allocated annually to study the risk and benefits of medical marijuana. Of the remaining revenue, 60% will allocated for youth programs; 20% for cleanup and prevention of environmental damage resulting from illegal growing of marijuana and 20% for (a) programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and other drugs and (b) a grant program designed to reduce any potential negative impacts on public health or safety resulting from the measure. If a city/county bans commercial cultivation, or personal outdoor cultivation, or retail sales of cannabis or cannabis products, it is ineligible to receive state grant monies funded through the new state excise taxes that take effect on January 1, 2018. Local Taxes Existing state and local sales tax applies to the cultivation and sale of non-medical marijuana only. In addition to state and local sales tax, AUMA authorizes local governments to tax virtually all other commercial marijuana activities including, but not limited to, cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, selling and distributing. Such additional taxes would require voter approval. Below please find examples of taxes that have been passed to date: Richmond: Business tax of $50.00 for every $1,000 of gross receipts Sonoma: Business Tax (% gross receipts): Manufacturers: 5% starting rate, 10% maximum rate; Nurseries, Distributors, Transporters, Labs and Dispensaries 0% starting – 10% max rate. Cultivation Tax (per square foot): Outdoor cultivators: $0.50-$5.00 starting rate, $10.00 maximum rate; Indoor cultivation: $1.88 - $18.75 starting rate, $38.00 max rate; Mixed-Light Cultivation: $1.08 - $10.80 starting rate, $22.00 maximum rate (Measure A). San Diego: Initial cannabis business tax starts at 5% of gross receipts, increase to 8% on January 1, 2019 with a maximum rate of 15% (Measure N). Stockton: Business tax for medical cannabis dispensaries $25.00 for every $1,000 of gross receipts; non-medical cannabis business tax is $100.00 for every $1,000 of gross receipts. Los Angeles: Business tax of $100.00 per each $1,000 gross receipts for cannabis sales; $50.00 per for medical cannabis sales; $10.00 per for cannabis transportation, testing, or research and $20.00 per for cannabis manufacturing, cultivation or other commercial cannabis activity (Measure M). West Sacramento: In the City of West Sacramento instead of putting forth a ballot measure to establish a tax on cannabis, the city and the operator of a cannabis distribution facility entered into a development agreement which required the operator of the distribution facility to pay 2.5% of the gross receipts generated by the facility to the city. Execution of the development agreement was done in conjunction with the review and approval of a land use permit for the facility and adoption of a zoning text amendment identifying a “wholesale cannabis logistics, distribution and transportation facility” as a use requiring approval of a land use permit. This approach could be likened to the “Community Benefit Agreement” process executed by the County with other business entities in the County. Code Enforcement At the state and local level the enforcement of cannabis related laws has become increasing difficult with the approval of Proposition 215 in 1996 and Proposition 64 in 2016. If the County were to consider adoption of an ordinance allowing and taxing specific cannabis uses, it may be helpful to include cannabis specific enforcement measures. The ordinance could include fines for violators possible criminal charges and/or automatic seizure of product/crop for those who operate any type of commercial cannabis activities without proper County and State approvals. ↵ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 570 cannabis activities without proper County and State approvals. The current process for the enforcement of zoning code violations provides property owners with sufficient time to address on-going violations, sometimes up to two months, eventually leading to the application of administrative fines of up to $14,300 per month. Allowing illicit cannabis operations to continue to operate for two months, or longer, before fines are imposed provides minimal motivation for complying with potential regulations since harvest time could occur in less than 60 days depending on the time of year of age of the plants. Enforcement cost should be a consideration when determining the direction of cannabis regulation. Significant additional enforcement staff could be required for enforcement of any new cannabis regulations, specifically in a situation where cannabis activities are permitted, which could necessitate an increase in enforcement activities with regard to illegal/unpermitted operations. In the City of Richmond, anyone who is caught violating the City’s cannabis ordinance could be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor punishable of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than 12 months. Inter-Departmental Coordination for Cannabis Regulation To assist with adapting to the changes in state law and to prepare for this workshop, four inter-departmental meetings were held to share knowledge and discuss potential impacts of cannabis regulation on County departments and their areas of responsibility. The inter-departmental meetings were attended by staff from the County Administrator’s Office, Office of the Sheriff, District Attorney’s Office, Health Services Department (including the Divisions of Behavioral Health, Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials and Public Health), Treasurer/Tax Collector’s Office, Department of Agriculture, County Counsel, Department of Probation and the Department of Conservation and Development. The knowledge, experience and counsel of the involved staff has been invaluable. Many participants have attended state-wide briefings and trainings relevant to their particular disciplines on the emerging issue of cannabis regulation and brought that new knowledge to the table. The staff group is capable at Board direction to provide additional detailed information and analysis beyond what is contained in this staff report, which was intentionally drafted as a high level summary. Implications for County Departments (Regardless of Regulatory Approach Adopted by the County) After numerous meetings and extensive discussion on cannabis regulation, Conservation and Development staff requested that each participating department provide a summary of their department’s concerns, issues or opinion on cannabis regulation, including any thoughts on the County’s potential approach. The input received is as follows: Office of the Sheriff Medical marijuana centers and marijuana grow facilities are primarily a cash only business. This poses a significant safety risk for the owners, employees, and patrons who are at risk of being robbed either at the business, in the parking lot, or while being followed to another location. As recently as March of 2017, a brazen daylight burglary took place at a legal marijuana grow facility located in North Richmond. Over the last year, the Office of the Sheriff has investigated over 650 cases that are associated with either the sales, use, or possession of marijuana. The range of crimes include homicide, robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault. The increase of marijuana use, as expected under legalization, has also led to an increased number of arrests for driving under the influence (DUI). The Office of the Sheriff would like a policy that builds a collaborative effort of code enforcement inspectors, planners, county counsel, the district attorney’s office, public health, health, environmental health and probation to establish land use agreements and a licensing or permitting system to insure public safety and the wellness of our community. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 571 Health Services Department Contra Costa Health Services anticipates an increase in demand for its services across a wide array of both regulatory and clinical service areas. This includes but is not limited to: -Division of Environmental Health The Division of Environmental Health anticipates a need to have substantial and ongoing role with licensing/permitting, regulatory inspections and enforcement of products sold at retail and edible cannabis product manufacturing sites. This is particularly germane to foods, beverages, cosmetics, tinctures, oils and other consumer products infused with cannabis. These functions may also be performed for cities as well, if State Law provides oversight regulatory authority to local DEH, similar to other food and beverage products. This would include permitting for special events where the event sponsors propose to offer use or consume products on site that are infused with cannabinoids. In addition, DEH anticipates having a role with owner/employee education, as well as with public health investigations associated with cases and clusters of illness or toxicity. There will also be many complaints related to illegal operations where Environmental Health will need to assist law enforcement to understand the “legality” of the operation. In addition, DEH will have an ongoing role related to plan review, approval and ongoing inspection of sanitation and food handling components of operating a business where food and beverages are sold. An early estimate is that will require between 2-4 new FTE to perform these additional regulatory functions [note from John: only if retail sales and/or edible cannabis product manufacturing are allowed?], and additional staff should these functions be performed on behalf of cities. Licensing/permitting and inspection fees are anticipated to cover the majority of the associated cost. A health ordinance would also be needed, similar to what has been adopted by Sonoma and Los Angeles Counties, especially if the County allows dispensaries in the unincorporated area of the County or if the County allows the manufacturing of edibles or other products for human consumption or use. -Hazardous Materials: This Division will have an ongoing permitting and inspection role with aspects of cultivation and raw material extraction and manufacturing, particularly for those businesses using volatile as defined by Proposition 62 Health & Safety Code Section 11362.3(a)(8). The regulatory oversight would be for the handling of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste as codified in State law. -Division of Behavioral Health: The Division of Behavioral Health anticipates a surge in demand for substance use detoxification, outpatient & residential treatment for youth and adults, regardless of the County allowing or prohibiting commercial marijuana activity. At the present, there is no medical detoxification services specifically tailored for youth in Contra Costa, this may become an area of acute need. Our Division projects that there will also be increased need for public information, both in regards to the hazards and warnings associated with the potential for misuse, abuse and addiction as well as information regarding available treatment and ongoing therapy. AUMA makes specific provisions for mandatory evidence based marijuana specific educational sessions for youth. Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) will need to develop an age appropriate curriculum and program conveniently covering all regions in our county. Since we anticipate an increase in court ordered mandatory group educational sessions for youth who violate the provisions of their probation, we will require additional staff dedicated to this program and/or funding to support programming in the community to satisfy the requirement. Lastly, as indicated by the Sheriff’s Office, there will be a substantial increase in the number of DUIs, which would need a collaborative approach for the direct referrals of individuals onto the right alcohol and other drugs level of care, this will support the individual and increase community safety. The cost associated with the increase of substance use treatment needs and implementation of the mandatory evidence based educational sessions for youth will still be incurred, independently of the actions taken by the Board to prohibit all the commercial aspects of marijuana. Because of the prevalence of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 572 marijuana in neighboring jurisdictions, AOD services will still be required. -Division of Public Health The Public Health Division anticipates having a role in the licensing/permitting, regulation and enforcement of commercial sales of marijuana products, similar to its current role relative to tobacco retail licensing. Issues such as product labeling, prohibitions on flavored products, storefront advertising, and compliance with other aspects of Health and Safety Code including bans on the use of products in public places and protections from 2nd hand smoke exposure. In addition, the Public Health Division will be the key player in investigation outbreaks of clusters of illness associated with exposure to, use of and/or consumption of products containing cannabis. Additionally, the Division anticipates an increase in demand for public information, including periodic reports on the public health impacts of recreational use of marijuana and issuing periodic health advisories. Lastly, the Division anticipates a surge in demand for Medical Marijuana ID Cards as members of the public seek to avoid taxation associated with the recreational regulatory structure if the State ID Card program remains in place. The Governor proposed the elimination of the program in his Trailer Bill that was released in early April. Additionally, Prop 64 limited the fees that can be charged to administer the Medical Marijuana ID program to $100 per client, which is less than the true cost of administering this program. Recommendation from staff is to sunset the ID Card Program, if the State dispenses with the program. The Division anticipates the need for 2-3 additional full time staff to address the associated work load issues spread across all areas of the Division from Communicable Disease Control to Vital Records and from Epidemiology to Community Education and Information. Revenue to cover the anticipated increase in demand for services could partially be covered from the adoption of a Cannabis Retail License if renewed on an annual basis and/or from tax revenue generated from the growth and/or sales of product. Identifying a source of revenue to cover the cost of public education, reports and data tracking is an important consideration. Even if the County happens to prohibit all commercial aspects of recreational marijuana the Public Health Division anticipates an increased volume of illness and/or toxicity clusters, the need for public information, health advisories and an increase in demand for clinical and counseling services that may impact both Behavioral Health as well as CCRMC’s inpatient and outpatient services. From 2004 through 2015 there were 389 deaths in California that were related, in part, to the use of marijuana. Additionally, from 2008 through 2014 there were 291 non-fatal cases of youth seeking care in Contra Costa Emergency Rooms due to overdose related to the use of marijuana. These numbers are expected to increase in the wake of Proposition 64, with legalization of adult recreational use of marijuana. Similar to our Environmental Health colleagues the Public Health Division recognizes the need for and advantages of having a separate County Health Ordinance to address a myriad of regulatory issues, especially if the County allows retail dispensaries and/or the manufacturing of any form of edible products, tinctures, ointments, etcetera. -Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division EMS anticipates an increase in EMS calls related to manufacturing as well as personal use associated intoxication, overdose and being under the influence while operating a motor vehicle. This includes providing supportive care for intoxication including needing sedation for anxiety or psychosis. This may include an increase in 5150 related calls. Toxicity related trauma associated with an increase in motor vehicle collisions from alterations in perception and motor dysfunction. Research suggests that 25-40 % of DUI related incidents are likely to involve cannabis alone, hence with increased recreational use we should anticipate an increase in DUI. This level of increase may have a system-wide EMS impact necessitating an increase in ambulance hours to meet new level of service demand. Other Health related concerns are an increase in burns if the use of combustible solvents are permitted during the extraction/manufacturing process. In addition, we might anticipate an increase in Pediatric and Adult accidental ingestions (poisonings) associated with edibles. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 573 In addition the EMS Agency acts as the local entity responsible for certification, licensure and accreditation of prehospital personnel. In that capacity the EMS Agency is responsible for certification and licensure actions such as suspension, probation and revocation of licenses and certification in the event the public safety is threatened. Under Title 22 any use of drugs or alcohol that comes to the attention of the EMS Agency associated with prehospital personnel that is a violation of the law is subject to discipline. It is anticipated that the number of disciplinary cases associated with the legalization of recreational marijuana will substantially increase. The EMS Agency will be compelled to take action and monitor increased numbers of prehospital personnel. This is anticipated to require additional 1-2 FTE to address certification/license suspension issue and manage the probationary requirements associated with these cases. The EMS Agency is currently managing certification actions and probation for approximately 24 substance related cases per month and anticipates this number may double. Treasurer/Tax Collector The County Treasurer/Tax Collector has the following comments on potential tax issues related to cannabis businesses: If County becomes involved in collecting or accepting monies from cannabis related businesses, there are many challenges associated with the federal Controlled Substances Act and the unwillingness of banks and other financial institutions to accept funds from these businesses. There is current legislation under consideration (AB 148) that would enable County Treasurers to collect cannabis tax revenue on behalf of the Board of Equalization. Additional security may be necessary due to the cash only business activities of marijuana related businesses and related tax payments to County. County assets may be in jeopardy under federal laws if collecting taxes on marijuana related businesses is approved. Increased costs would result due to the need for additional staffing, equipment and security. Potential new business license fees for cannabis business could include; $100 Flat Fee per Business; $10 per Full-Time Employee; Cannabis Retailers License (Similar to Tobacco or Alcohol Retailers License). Potential secured property taxes for cannabis uses could include real property taxes, special taxes and assessments and ad valorem taxes and assessments. Potential unsecured taxes for cannabis uses could include business property taxes and taxes on some fixtures. County sales tax could be added on top of 15% State excise tax. Department of Agriculture The permitting of cannabis related uses, whether by the County or by cities within the County, could result in additional staff workload for the Department of Agriculture including additional staff and industry training as well as safety awareness. Estimated additional hours and expense could be approximately $50,000 annually. Additional staff time could be required in the following areas: -Weights & Measures Involvement Inspecting weighing device used for commercial purposes, suitability of scale, type-approval, testing, and sealing. Price verification enforcement for products sold on shelves such as candy bars, vape/e-cig, oils, creams, baked products, prepacked unprocessed cannabis. Checking net contents of packaged products for accuracy of labeled weights. Labeling requirements inspection on packed goods: identity, responsibility, and net contents. Test purchase based on consumer complaint of short weight. -Agriculture Pesticide Use Enforcement Involvement Training of staff and cultivators on the identification and use of pesticides Issue pesticide permits. Monitor pesticide applications particularly in greenhouse operations. Inspect pesticide storage sites and perform record audits. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 574 Inspect pesticide storage sites and perform record audits. Field Worker inspections for compliance with new Federal Worker Protection Standards. Investigate pesticide complaints. Investigate pesticide exposure reports of occupational illness. -Crop Report Statistics Contact annually for financial production values Probation Department The Probation Department supervises juveniles and adults who will be impacted by AUMA. Juveniles referred to Probation for possessing marijuana in violation of H&S 11357 or 11362.3 will be required to complete a four hour evidence based drug education program pursuant to H&S 11362.4. This is a resource that will need to be made available in the community. Juveniles on Probation will still be required to follow all laws, and if they use marijuana, Probation violation petitions will be filed with the court. There is concern that Prop 64 may result in an increase in the use of marijuana for youth in general, and more specifically at risk youth who are in jeopardy of entering the juvenile justice system and those youth already involved in the juvenile justice system. Prior to Propostion 64, adults on Probation Supervision were not allowed to use marijuana absent a court order allowing such. At the present time, Probation violations are not being filed for the use of marijuana unless the court specifically prohibits use of the drug. County Administrator’s Office The County maintains an alcohol and drug free work place. We will continue to follow POST guidelines and County Policy with regard to the possible use of marijuana by employees. POST guidelines to be followed include: The manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace.Violations can lead to disciplinary action. An employee will not be disciplined for voluntarily requesting assistance for a substance abuse problem. Employees remain responsible to meet the County’s performance, safety, and attendance standards. District Attorney’s Office In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 64, the Office of the District Attorney is recommending that the Counties’ prohibition on the retail sale, delivery, cultivation and manufacture of cannabis-based products remain in effect until greater certainty regarding the future of legalized marijuana is attained. The preparation of the scheme of ordinances that will be required to properly regulate these activities, and the personnel and infrastructure that will be required to enforce the regulations, will be extremely expensive. There is no reliable statistical information that tax revenues and fees generated from these activities will be commensurate with the cost of regulation and oversight by the County. Additionally, as federal law prohibits the receipt of revenue derived from illegal substances by federally insured banking institutions, the County will be required to create its own secure banking system for the revenue that is generated from these activities and the County may violate federal law by receiving that revenue. This federal prohibition on the receipt of cash generated by marijuana-related activities creates cash-rich marijuana retail, delivery and cultivation sites that are prime targets for robberies and burglaries. This creates the very real risk of an increase in violent crime in our County and no provision has been made to increase law enforcement or prosecutorial personnel. This risk for the increase in violent crime will continue until the federal banking prohibition has been resolved by the federal government. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 575 The indoor and outdoor commercial cultivation of marijuana has the potential for significant negative environmental impact due to the large-scale use of insecticides, fungicides, and fertilizers, both locally and regionally with runoff into the Delta and the Bay. No provision has been made for the investigation and prosecution of cultivators who become environmental polluters. Marijuana continues to be a controlled substance under federal law. If the United States Attorney General chooses to enforce federal law in the State of California, the Counties expenditure of resources to permit Proposition 64 – related activities will have been pointless. Proposition 64 gives local jurisdictions the authority to make decisions regarding the implementation of its measures. Contra Costa County should accept that authority and make decisions only once these significant issues have been resolved. Department of Conservation and Development The Department of Conservation and Development, being the department responsible for overseeing land use in the County, anticipates a significant role in any cannabis regulation. Any cannabis ordinance to be considered should take into account the impacts such uses could have on the overall quality of life of the residents of the County as well as impacts such uses could have on neighboring and nearby properties. Additional consideration should be given to the additional cost in staff time to be required for preparation, implementation and enforcement of any future cannabis ordinance. Preparation of County Regulations on Cannabis A purpose of this workshop is to provide Board members with summary information regarding the implications, impacts and provisions of MCRSA and AUMA to inform policy decisions. A desired outcome of this workshop is for the Board to provide county staff with initial, broad direction on how to proceed in terms of preparing permanent cannabis regulations for the County or on what additional information the Board requests from staff prior to providing such direction. For discussion purposes, staff has framed three distinct hypothetical or sample options in order to stimulate discussion. These options describe different approaches to the distinct types of cannabis uses. Because each type of use could be regulated and taxed many different ways, these sample options do not come close to exhausting the range of regulatory approaches the County could approve. Likewise, to keep sample options simple, we have not attempted to delve into detail, such as distinguishing hemp uses from consumption uses, distinguishing medical from adult uses, or of contrasting the sample options in terms of detailed conditions. Attachment 3 provides a detailed overview of the different cannabis uses as well as potential challenges and mitigation measures associated with each. That information was placed in Attachment 3 because it is so detailed, but a quick review of that information may make the below options more clear. Sample Option 1 would be the most conservative approach and would involve the following: Sample Option 1 Prepare an ordinance generally prohibiting all medical and non-medical cannabis related uses. This ordinance would be similar to the existing urgency interim ordinance. With this option, all cannabis related uses would be prohibited with the exception of the personal indoor cultivation of up to 6 plants as provided for in Proposition 64. Sample Option 2, an intermediate approach, would involve the following: Sample Option 2 Prepare an ordinance permitting the establishment of a limited number of commercial cannabis-related uses. Such an ordinance would designate the types of cannabis uses that may be permitted (and the types prohibited), designate eligible zoning districts (and perhaps other eligibility criteria such as distance from schools), include an application process, safety standards, operational standards and establish an application selection process similar to an Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The County would accept multiple applications/proposals for the establishment of commercial cannabis activities and select the most beneficial/least impactful application. This is April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 576 the process used in a number of jurisdictions within the State where a cap has been placed on the number of commercial cannabis activities to be permitted. For example, Alameda County currently allows three (3) dispensaries throughout the County and is considering expanding that amount to four (4) dispensaries and up to four (4) cultivation sites. The City of Richmond currently allows three (3) dispensaries and three (3) manufacturing facilities. The City of Richmond has no limit on the number of cultivation facilities which can be established in specific light industrial or mixed use zoning districts. In this intermediate Sample Option 2, the following categories of commercial activities could be deemed permissible and invited to submit proposals: Commercial indoor or outdoor cultivation Manufacturing Distribution Testing --A specific cap could be set for each category --Staff could explore mechanisms for including a pre-defined, fixed term to the approval of the selected businesses (e.g. limit the approval to, say, 5 or 10 years) --Categories not included in Option 2 are retail sales (dispensary), retail delivery business and microbusiness --Cultivation for personal use could be expanded to be more permissive with this option, for example, by allowing outdoor cultivation of up to six plants. Sample Option 3 Adoption of a zoning text amendment allowing the establishment and taxation of all various cannabis related uses and expanding personal cultivation. Please find additional detail on this option below: In this more permissive Sample Option 3, the following categories of commercial activities could be allowed in designated zoning districts and under specified conditions: Retail sales Retail delivery business Micro business Commercial indoor or outdoor cultivation Manufacturing Distribution Testing Any proposed ordinance permitting and regulating commercial cannabis activities would include adoption of significant regulations and application requirements meant to protect the health, safety and quality of life of the residents of the County. An annual use tax of, for example, $10 per square foot of cultivation, could be collected and a flat tax of 2.5%-5% (or more) of gross receipts could be collected for the manufacturing and distribution operations. A tax could also be imposed on retail sales. Any cannabis tax would require voter approval. A special tax to secure dedicated funding for specified purposes would require a 2/3 majority.A general tax would require a simple majority.There would be additional cost and effort to develop a measure and bring it to the voters. An expansion of the personal cultivation provisions of Proposition 64 could be incorporated into this approach also (e.g. outdoor personal cultivation, etc.). Evaluating the Sample Options The anticipated pros and cons associated with the sample options are summarized in Table 2. In short, the preliminary comparison of the sample options demonstrates there may at times be tradeoffs between important goals such as facilitating legal access, minimizing substance abuse, reducing the black market, encouraging economic activity, maintaining safety and security, minimizing enforcement costs, generating revenue for services/cost recovery and ensuring public health. An approach similar to Option 1 would maintain the current status of cannabis uses as provided for with the urgency interim ordinances, resulting in minimal staff costs for preparation of a new ordinance, likely less April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 577 urgency interim ordinances, resulting in minimal staff costs for preparation of a new ordinance, likely less enforcement costs, less risk of new land use impacts, no risk of conflict with potential changes to enforcement of federal law, least facilitation of cannabis use, least facilitation of cash businesses which present a security risk and no cost recovery. An approach similar to Option 1 could be employed as a first step in a “phase-in” approach, and would be the recommended initial step if deliberation and development of regulations to permit some uses needs to extend into 2018. A benefit of a step-wise approach is that once a use is approved it can be difficult to subsequently prohibit it. An initial approach such as Option 2 would also enable the County to proceed in a stepwise fashion and would initially permit only certain commercial uses through a request for proposals process. Based on the County’s location within the greater Bay Area, availability of underutilized agricultural/commercial/industrial space, staff believe there would be a market and suitable lands for cannabis uses such as commercial cultivation, distribution and manufacture. Uses related to retail sales have a different and perhaps more complicated set of advantages and disadvantages and would not be permitted initially but could be phased in based on an assessment of initial experience. An initial approach such as Option 3 would enable applicants to apply for permits to establish all types of commercial cannabis uses according to yet-to-be-defined conditions and zoning restrictions and also would involve developing a potential local tax measure to generate revenue for cost recovery and services. Relative to the other sample options, Option 3 would have the best chance of curtailing black market activities, would increase oversight of health concerns related to manufacture and sales, improve access to a legal product for residents, promote economic activity and generate the most revenue. Public Outreach and Engagement Since the approval of Proposition 64, staff has been contacted by numerous organizations, property owners, business owners and individuals expressing interest in the County’s plans for cannabis regulation. Most of the people who have contacted staff were supportive of allowing some forms of cannabis related businesses, but a few called to express concerns with potential uses. In terms of potential business operators, staff was directly contacted by the representative of two potential business owners looking to establish a cannabis business in the unincorporated area of the County. One business owner was interested in establishing a cannabis oil extraction facility (manufacturer) on an agricultural property and the other was a property owner looking to cultivate within existing greenhouses on an agricultural property in the County. According to the business descriptions provided for each business, both operators owned property in the unincorporated area of the County and are eager to start operating if the Board decides to allow such uses. In order to encourage public participation in this process staff created a webpage within the County’s website that includes updated information on the County’s progress on cannabis regulation as well as an email sign-up form where those interested in County cannabis regulation can be placed on a mailing list to be informed of future meetings or hearings. A week prior to this hearing date approximately 60 people had signed up on the email list. Additional public outreach and involvement will be helpful as the County proceeds with formulating its cannabis policy. Various industry groups, public health advocates, property owners and any other groups or organizations that could be impacted by potential cannabis regulation will have valuable input to offer. Staff would appreciate direction from the Board on which approach(es) to public involvement the Board wishes to implement. For discussion purposes, below please find some alternative approaches (some of which could be implemented in tandem): Continue to have all formal discussion occur at the full Board of Supervisors meetings and continue to invite public participation. Direct staff to convene focused public meetings with representatives of affected constituencies. Convene a follow-up workshop with panelists from affected constituencies. Refer this matter to a standing or ad hoc committee of the Board for further detailed discussion and public involvement. Seek input from existing, relevant advisory committees, such as the Alcohol and Other Drugs AdvisoryApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 578 Seek input from existing, relevant advisory committees, such as the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board, Municipal Advisory Committees and the P-Zone Committees. Seek input from cities. Continue to update County’s notification list for this issue and notify interested parties of opportunities to participate in discussion of this topic. Next Steps Ask questions of staff Hear from the public Identify additional information to be requested from staff Consider providing initial preliminary guidance to staff on which approach(es) to start work on or explore further Consider providing direction on public outreach and engagement CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Javier Quezoda & Ilianna Inzonza, Friday Night Live; Ashley Bargenquast, Tully & Weiss Attorneys at Law; Wayne Reeves, Contra Cost County Farm Bureau; Patty Hoyt, ADAPT San Ramon Valley; Ryan Orihood, DROC; Catherine Taughinbaugh, Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board; Brian Eliff, Delta Organic; Timothy Byars, resident of Concord; Rebecca Byars, resident of Concord (handout attached);Jaime Rich, ADAPT Lamorinda; Steve Mick, resident of Alamo; Eric Thomas, resident of Briones; Tom Aswad, resident of Walnut Creek; Tyson Griffin, La Corona Wellness; Eric Rehn, CCIM; Brian Mitchell, La Corona Wellness; Ricardo Munoz, resident of Brentwood; Chris Niewiarowski, resident of Martinez; Nbila Sher, Alcohol, Marijuana, Prescription Drug Coalition; Ryan Doronila, DVC Horticulture Program (book attached); Lucy Cheng; Guita Bahramipour, resident of Moraga; Jenny Jennings, Support Recovery; Joe Partansky, resident of Concord. The Department of Conservation and Development and other departments will return in mid-summer with an outline of options and additional information on the following: 1. An outreach plan to hold workshops and town halls for input from the cities and unincorporated areas 2. The appropriate and/or desirable areas in which to allow indoor cultivation, outdoor cultivation, manufacturing, testing, and distribution centers 3. The appropriate and/or desirable location of retail dispensaries to best serve the public, particularly those with disabilities, with the support of the nearby city(s) 4. The use of the tobacco ordinance as a model for regulation of sales of cannabis products and preventing access by youth 5. The use of the urbans farms ordinance as a model for the zoning in the siting of cannabis-related businesses 6. Regulation of delivery of cannabis products to residences 7. Information on models used by other areas where programs and regulations are already in place for medicinal or recreational cannabis 8. Information on the cultivation of hemp or cannabis as a crop 9. Information on environmentally friendly and responsible production and construction, such as the use of solar power, recycled water, and the use and management of pesticides and herbicides 10. Information on revenues (taxes and fees) feasible from transactions of cannabis cultivation, testing, manufacturing, distribution and retail sales, particularly as related to funding for youth drug use prevention and treatment, and public safety services - law enforcement and fire protection 11. Information and recommendations in regard to cannabis-related industry siting in the Northern Waterfront Initiative area 12. Information on the handling of banking transactions and revenue collection employed in other regions 13. Further information on the health effects of cannabis use 14. Further information on providing public education on a) youth access b)responsible adult use AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1- Table 1: Preliminary Evaluation of Cannabis Uses Attachment 2 - Table 2 Preliminary Evaluation of Sample Regulatory Options Attachment 3 - Considerations for Different Cannabis Use Types Attachment 4- Powerpoint Presentation Attachment 5 - Contra Costa County Urgency Ordinance No. 2017-03 Attachment 6 - Contra Costa County Marijuana Ordinance April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 579 Attachment 7 - Alameda County Memo and Draft Cannabis Ordinance Attachment 8 - Sonoma County Cannabis Ordinance Attachment 9 - Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation FAQ's Attachment 10 - CalCannabis Flyer Attachment 11 - Colorado Health Institute Report Attachment 12 - The Battle Over Hemp Article Attachment 13 - Colorado Revenue Article Attachment 14- Colorado Legalization Study 2016 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Medical Cannabis Briefing Book Correspondence Received April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 580 Table 1: Preliminary Evaluation of Cannabis Uses PROS CONS COST / REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Expanded Personal Cultivation(outdoor/more) -Reduces need for retail cannabis businesses -Reduces cost of use and increases individual control -Outdoor uses less power & has fewer building risks -Potential impacts to adjacent residents, especially odor -Safety/security concerns -Black market risk. Is more than 6 plants needed? -No tax or grant revenue -Enforcement costs depend on complaints. Outdoor may generate more complaints. Commercial Outdoor Cultivation -Abundance of available agricultural land in County -Valuable crop; may benefit agricultural economy -Agricultural jobs -Suitable climate in County -Reduction of black market -Ability for cannabis used in County to be locally grown -Odor Impacts -Visual impacts (security fencing) -Security Concerns (valuable crop, potential cash on hand may induce criminal activity) -Pesticide / water use (different than other crops?) -Regulation could be complex -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount could vary drastically depending on the amount of cultivation permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. -Cost to regulate could be high if permitting is widespread and if illegal grow was pursued aggressively. Commercial Indoor Cultivation -Less visible and potentially more secure than outdoor -Year-round harvest (more revenue) -Increases demand for industrial buildings -Security concerns (valuable crop / cash on hand) -Odor impacts (perhaps more controllable than outdoor) -High energy usage (mitigate w/requirement for solar?) -Drinking water might be used (Adequate supply? Best use?) -Wastewater? Challenge for sanitary districts? -Pesticide use (indoor use a greater risk for workers?) - Similar to outdoor cultivation, though it seems likely the scale of outdoor cultivation could be potentially be much larger than indoor, meaning indoor may have a lower ceiling on overall enforcement costs. The difference in terms of revenue is less clear as indoor may be far more lucrative per acre and the risk of tax requirements driving activity to the black market may be higher with outdoor. Manufacturing -County has substantial industrial land and this use may be compatible with other industrial uses -Potential to generate significant economic activity/jobs -Modest space requirements (relative to cultivation) -Local permitting would provide improved health and safety oversight and might help curb illegal uses -Safety hazards (some processes use volatile compounds) -Health/Safety concerns of products -Zoning and Health Ordinance may be required -Security concerns similar to other uses -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount would vary depending on the amount of manufacturing permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. Potential high revenue per acre / per business. -Health and safety enforcement could have significant cost. Testing Facility -Emerging industry, similar benefits to manufacturing but with perhaps less economic potential & fewer risks. -Contributes to safety of cannabis industry -Safety/hazard issues -Security concerns -Similar to manufacturing, but probably with less revenue potential and less enforcement cost. Distribution* -Modest impacts to neighboring properties -County has suitable, centrally located industrial land -Warehousing and trucking jobs -Security concerns (valuable crop / cash on hand) -Similar to manufacturing and testing, but probably with intermediate revenue potential and less enforcement cost. Retail Sales -Product made available locally. Easier / closer access. -Completes County supply chain -Potential to generate significant economic activity and retail jobs -Local permitting of retail would provide improved health/safety oversight and might help curb illegal uses -Safety / security concerns (cash on hand / valuable product) -High profile / high traffic -Unsavory image/many neighborhoods may not want -May stimulate greater use, abuse & related societal impacts. -Zoning and Health ordinances may be required -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount could vary drastically depending on the amount of retail permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. -Cost to regulate could be high if permitting is widespread and if crime / community impacts are serious. Higher treatment costs. Retail Delivery** Business -Similar to retail sales but with less neighborhood impact/ stigma -Similar to retail sales but impacts more distributed -Harder to enforce age limitations - Similar to retail sales. Possible to recoup taxes that may otherwise be received only by those jurisdictions that do allow. Micro-business*** -Encourages local “Artisan” or “Boutique” small business -Complete integration of business -Impact to neighboring properties -Zoning and Health ordinances may be required -Increased cannabis exposure -Due to the nature of “microbusinesses” the potential tax receipts generated by this type of use would be limited -Similar to retail/cultivation, cost to regulate could be high if widespread. * “Distribution” as used in AUMA is a facility where wholesale cannabis is received and distributed to retail cannabis outlets such as dispensaries. Under AUMA, retail sale of cannabis is not permitted with a “distributors” license. ** While the County does have the ability to prohibit or restrict the establishment of delivery businesses in the unincorporated area that deliver cannabis to customers, staff does not believe the County would have the practical ability to enforce a prohibition on actual deliveries (for instance, from a business legally established in a neighboring jurisdiction to an unincorporated area). *** “Micro-business” under AUMA is a small retailer with a farm not exceeding 10,000 square feet and could be compared to a farm stand where products grown on a property are available for retail sale at the same property. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 581 Table 2: Preliminary Evaluation of Sample Regulatory Options PROS CONS COST/REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Option 1 (Continued Prohibition) -Discourages cannabis use -Avoid complications with federal law -Avoids impacts to neighboring properties that may be generated by commercial cannabis uses -Highest potential for encouraging illicit operations -Difficult for residents to purchase a legal substance -Economic activity might happen elsewhere (in cities or other counties) -Not eligible for state grant funds -No change in local tax revenue -Ordinance preparation and enforcement costs would be lower, though extent of need for illegal grow enforcement need would be a factor -Likely lower cost for substance use treatment, etc. Option 2 (Limited Permitted Uses) -Generates economic activity and jobs by focusing on those uses for which the County may have competitive assets (e.g. industrial and agricultural land) and that probably have fewer impacts -RFP process provides the County with most control over how many uses get established and where they get established -Expanding personal grow to the outside option may ameliorate power consumption and structure risks -Somewhat facilitates cannabis use in County (which could lead to increased abuse and other societal concerns; however, without retail sales, the amount of facilitation is expected to be minor) -Some impacts on surrounding properties -Some increased security risk -Difficult for residents to purchase a legal substance -May conflict with potential changes in enforcement of federal law -Eligible for state grant funds related to cannabis -Intermediate amount of tax receipts (amount would number/size of uses permitted) -Intermediate cost to prepare and enforcement new ordinance(s) -Intermediate cost for substance use treatment, etc. Option 3 (Expanded Permitted Uses) -Aggressively generates economic activity and jobs in various sectors (industrial, agricultural and retail) -Provides more and easier access to a legal substance for County residents and may help curb illegal uses --Local permitting of retail & edibles manufacture would provide improved health/safety oversight -Expanded personal grow to include outside option enables some residents to avoid the high power consumption and structural risks of growing inside and the expanded quantity may moderate the need for retail sales -Facilitates greater cannabis use in County (which could lead to increased abuse and other societal concerns) -Requires extensive regulation/enforcement -More impacts on surrounding properties -More increased security risk -May conflict with potential changes in enforcement of federal law -Eligible for state grant funds related to cannabis -Most tax receipts (amount would depend on number/size of uses permitted and the amount of tax approved by voters) -Tax receipts potential difficult to determine -Most cost to prepare and enforce new ordinance(s) and to prepare tax measure and collect new taxes -Likely higher cost for substance use treatment, etc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 582 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR DIFFERENT CANNABIS USE TYPES Commercial Cultivation Considerations for indoor: Indoor grows less visible to the public. Possible for security to be tighter. If allowed, require security cameras and other measures. Odor/neighbor impacts better able to be mitigated. Should require carbon filters and/or other mechanisms to minimize odors. Water used likely to be treated, potable water. A burden on supply or infrastructure? Significant power for lighting would be required. Mitigate burden on electrical generation by requiring solar power to be developed to offset? Maximize skylights? Relatively more/better employment opps? Considerations for outdoor: Outdoor grows more visible to the public. Harder for security to be tight. Odor/neighbor impacts may only be mitigated with siting and buffers. Would generally be able to rely on untreated water. Little or no power needs. Relatively fewer/worse employment opps? Additional considerations: If allowed, specify eligible zoning districts – perhaps Agricultural Zoning (A- ) for outdoor; Heavy- Industrial (H-I), Light-Industrial (L-I), General Commercial (C) for indoor Limit size of grow (sq ft) or acreage Cultivation Operations plan Display cultivation permit If allowed, consider limit on # of commercial cultivation operators (no limit on outdoor?) and consider RFP selection process of operator (indoor only?). Pesticide and herbicide use Establish a 1500 feet buffer zone from schools, playgrounds, residential zoning districts, other cultivation sites, etc. Require all workers to be at least 21 years of age or older Personal Cultivation Personal cultivation for medical or recreational use can be regulated under MCRSA and AUMA. Under MCRSA local jurisdictions may prohibit all cultivation of medical marijuana for personal but under AUMA local jurisdictions can adopt "reasonable" regulations for the indoor cultivation of up to six plants, by an adult over the age of 21, within a private residence, but cannot completely ban indoor cultivation. Considerations: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 583 2 Continue provisions of urgency ordinance (which comply with the minimum requirements set by state but also include requirements for renters to have permission from property owner, etc.) Or, expand to allow outdoor grow under certain conditions Typical restrictions on outdoor personal cultivation include allowing a maximum 100 sf of canopy area, limit on # of plants, setback from property lines, height limitation (10 ft), not visible from public right of way. Typical restrictions on indoor cultivation include: maximum of 50 sf of anopy area, limit on # of plants (6), grow area must be locked, building code requirements for electrical system, Manufacturing The manufacturing of cannabis and cannabis related products is a growing industry which is expected to continue growing based on the approval of Proposition 64. The processing/manufacturing of certain cannabis products is similar to the processing/manufacturing of other agricultural products. Cannabis manufacturing facilities could be permitted within agricultural zoning districts with a land use permit. Staff has been made aware of business owners interested in establishing manufacturing business in agricultural area of County. Considerations, if allowed at all: Limit the # of manufactures in unincorporated areas-RFP selection process Could be allowed in specific zoning districts such as Light-Industrial (L-I), Heavy-Industrial (H-I), General Commercial (C) Establish 1500 feet buffer zones from schools, playgrounds, residential zoning districts, other cultivation sites, etc. Cannabinoid extraction methods –THC, CBD. Some methods may be “safer” than others in terms of Hazardous Materials. Some methods may offer “cleaner” extraction – that is less chance of contamination with pesticides, herbicides. Determine Occupational safety exposure level Product labeling/warning Comply with track and trace requirements Waste disposal plan Odor mitigation requirements Security and safety requirements (e.g. security cameras) Require all workers to be at least 21 years of age or older Testing Considerations, if allowed at all: Place a limit on the # of testing facilities in unincorporated areas - RFP selection process Lab testing for THC, Pesticides etc. Could be allowed in specific zoning districts such as Retail-Business (R-B), Neighborhood-Business (N- B), Commercial (C) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 584 3 Establish 1500 feet buffer zones from schools, playgrounds, residential zoning districts, other cultivation sites, etc. Weights and Measures Waste disposal plan Security and safety requirements Require all workers to be at least 21 years of age or older Retailing/Dispensaries Considerations, if allowed at all: Place a limit the # of retail/dispensing businesses in unincorporated areas - RFP selection process. Could be allowed in specific zoning districts such as Retail-Business (R-B), Neighborhood-Business (N- B), Commercial (C) Establish 1500 feet buffer zones from schools, playgrounds, residential zoning districts, other cultivation sites, etc. Odor mitigation requirements Security and safety requirements Prohibit storefront product advertising. Signage limited to place of business only. Restrict product sales to marijuana related products only and prohibit other food, beverage, sundries, clothing etc. Prohibit sale of flavored leaf/bud and flavored e juices Prohibit all vending sales of any and all marijuana related products. Prohibit on site consumption due to concerns of being “under the influence”. Require all workers to be at least 21 years of age or older Distribution Considerations, if allowed at all: Allow limited number (2 or 3)of regional distribution facility with RFP process Development Agreement opportunity Tax on volume distributed Discrete markings on transport vehicle Microbusiness A microbusiness is a small retailer with a farm not exceeding 10,000 square feet. Establish pilot program for microbusinesses through RFP?? April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 585 Contra Costa County Board of SupervisorsApril 25, 20171Cannabis Regulation Workshop Medical marijuana broadly legalized Marijuana legalized for recreational use No broad laws legalizing marijuana  April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes586 RecommendationsA. CONDUCT public workshop on Proposition 64 and cannabis regulation in unincorporated Contra Costa County.B. PROVIDE initial, general, direction to staff on the preparation of one or more ordinances regulating the cultivation, delivery, manufacturing and distribution of cannabis within the unincorporated areas of the County or request specific additional information on potential cannabis regulation. 2April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes587 Fiscal Impact• Estimated cost to prepare ordinance(s) depends upon complexity and process used, but an initial estimate is $100k-$150k• Costs for permitting, inspecting, code enforcement, public education, treatment programs, and administration are likely to increase, partly dependent upon what approach the County chooses• Revenue may also increase, depending upon approach. State will pass through some of its new cannabis tax revenue as grants to local agencies that permit commercial cannabis. Increased revenue from new/existing local taxes also possible.3April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes588 BackgroundOn January 17, 2017 the Board of Supervisors requested a workshop to discuss potential marijuana regulations, in response to voter approval of Proposition 64, to:•Provide the Board with an opportunity to discuss potential marijuana regulation and •Obtain input and comments from various County Departments•Provide the Board with an update on anticipated new activities of County  departments as a result of AUMA•Hear from the public•Provide direction to staff on general approach, additional information requested, and approach to public involvement4April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes589 Current County Cannabis Ordinances•Ordinance #2008‐05, (February 2008): Prohibited the establishment of any use that violated State or Federal law, as well as explicitly prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the County.• Urgency Interim Ordinance #2017‐03 (January 17, 2017): The ordinance prohibited the cultivation, delivery and sale of marijuana and marijuana products until January 30, 2018 and was a continuation of two previous urgency interim ordinances.5April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes590 MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION AND SAFETY ACT (MCRSA)• Precursor to Proposition 64 signed by Governor in October 2015.  Established comprehensive structure for the licensing and enforcement of medicalmarijuana activities. • Established a dual licensing system where applicants for state licenses had to provide evidence of local approval of a medical marijuana use prior to issuance of the state license. • Permitted local control and discretion over regulation of medical marijuana uses.•Resulted in the establishment of the State Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation (agency name will change to the Bureau of Marijuana Control due to the approval of Proposition 64).6April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes591 PROPOSITION 64 (Adult Act or AUMA)• Approved by California voters in November 2016 with 57% of the vote (the approval margin was 60% in Contra Costa County, 61% in unincorporated area).• Legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults over the age of 21 and provides for regulating a range of commercial activities.•For personal use, permits the indoor cultivation of up to six plants. •Requires the establishment of a state licensing program for the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, retailing and distribution of marijuana and marijuana related products. • Established a dual‐licensing system:  local approval is a prerequisite for state licensing.•Provides local jurisdictions with significant control over the regulation of commercial marijuana related uses.7April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes592 Potential Areas of Regulation•Indoor/Outdoor personal cultivation of medical or recreational cannabis (Personal indoor grow of up to 6 plants must be allowed per AUMA);•Commercial indoor/outdoor cultivation of medical or recreational cannabis;•Commercial manufacture of medical or recreational cannabis;•Laboratory testing of medical or recreational cannabis;•Commercial  retailing (including delivery*) of medical or recreational cannabis;•Commercial distribution of medical or recreational cannabis;•Cannabis microbusiness.8April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes593 Indoor Personal Cultivation9• Proposition 64 mandates that indoor cultivation of up to six plants be allowed.• However, reasonable restrictions may be imposed (e.g. secure location, building owner approval required for renters, compliance with building codes)April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes594 Outdoor Personal Cultivation• Neither permitted nor prohibited under Proposition 64• Outdoor uses less power & has fewer building risks• Potential impacts to adjacent residents (e.g. odor, security)10April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes595 Outdoor Commercial Cultivation11For purposes of this workshop, outdoor commercial cultivation is meant to describe various cultivation practices, including outdoor farming, greenhouses and nurseries.April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes596 Commercial Indoor Cultivation12• Controlled growing environment• Generally utilizes artificial lighting• Typically established in existing commercial or industrial buildings• Popular cultivation option due to improved security and year-round harvestApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes597 Manufacturing13Involves preparing cannabis or its by-products for commercial retail and/or wholesale, including, but not limited, to the processes of drying, cleaning, curing, packaging, and extraction of the active ingredients of cannabis in order to create marijuana-related products and concentrates. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes598 Testing Facility for Medical or Adult‐Use Cannabis• Testing of cannabis and cannabis products for potency and pesticides is required under AUMA and MCRSA• Testing laboratories must be accredited by independent accrediting body that is independent from all other persons involved in the medical cannabis industry in the State• Testing laboratories must be registered with the State Department of Public Health14April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes599 Commercial Distribution of Medical or Recreational Cannabis• “Distribution” as used in AUMA is a facility where wholesale cannabis is received and distributed to retail cannabis outlets such as dispensaries. Under AUMA, retail sale of cannabis is not permitted with a “distributors” license.• Distribution facilities can purchase form licensed cultivator or manufacturer only15April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes600 Commercial Retailing of Medical or Recreational Cannabis16• Facility where cannabis, cannabis products or devices for the use of cannabis are offered for retail sale• Possible that retail business could be cannabis-only (e.g. dispensary model) or could also sell other productsApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes601 Commercial  Delivery of Medical or Recreational Cannabis• Delivery can be made from dispensaries if permitted by local ordinance.• Also possible to have retail delivery business that only delivers, no physical storefront.• Direct sale from delivery vehicle not permitted17April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes602 Cannabis Micro‐business18Under AUMA , Micro-business is a small retailer with a farm not exceeding 10,000 square feet and could be compared to a farm stand where products grown on a property are available for retail sale at the same property.April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes603 Timing ConsiderationsRegulations adopted by the County prior to January 30, 2018 can be modified thereafter to be more restrictive or permissive. However, once a cannabis use is legally established, revoking or rescinding such use could be challenging.The County could adopt new regulations on commercial cannabis after January 30, 2018, but any state licensed cannabis activities or businesses established in the meantime would be “grandfathered‐in” as legal non‐conforming uses and could be difficult to do away with, if desired.If County regsadopted after…State LicensingJan 2018If County regsadopted before…If the County does not have permanent regulations in effect prior to expiration of the County’s urgency interim ordinance on January 30, 2018, the State would become the sole licensing authority (unless and until County regulations were subsequently adopted).  19April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes604 Other Important Aspects of RegulationMedical (MCRSA) and recreational (AUMA) cannabis uses can be regulated separately or together.A county cannabis ordinance may impose significant health and safety requirements, location restrictions, operational requirements, environmental protections, etc. A limit may be placed on the number of permitted commercial cannabis uses by ordinance By ordinance, a selection or request for proposal (RFP) process may be established, giving the County the ability to screen and select the most qualified and thorough applicants/ applications.A county may impose a tax on any of the following cannabis activities: cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, and distributing.A tax on cannabis would be subject to voter approval.20April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes605 Impacts of New Federal Administration•As a Schedule 1 controlled substance, possession of cannabis is a violation of federal law. The previous administration identified cannabis as a low priority and the Department of Justice decided to focus its efforts on the following priorities: Distribution of marijuana to minorsRevenue from cannabis related businesses going to criminal enterprisesDistribution to other states where it is not legal under state lawViolence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuanaDrugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health impactsGrowing and or possession of marijuana on public land and federal property“FinCEN” has issued guidance similar to the Cole Memo to clarify Bank Secrecy Act expectations for financial institutions.Under the new administration, there have been some indications that the Controlled Substances Act would be strictly enforced.21April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes606 Statewide and Local Response to Proposition 64•Many jurisdictions throughout the state have adopted urgency interim ordinances which prohibit the cultivation, sale, delivery, transportation and manufacture of cannabis and cannabis related products. •A few jurisdictions have adopted permanent ordinances regulating and taxing personal and commercial cannabis activities. Sonoma County, and the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego all passed a cannabis tax.•Within Contra Costa County, prior to approval of Proposition 64, the City of Richmond permitted the cultivation, dispensing, distribution, manufacturing and taxing of medical cannabis; and the City of Martinez permitted the establishment of medical cannabis dispensaries. 22April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes607 Taxes Established by Proposition 64In order to pay for the implementation, oversight and enforcement of AUMA, and to provide some funding for specific drug rehabilitation and educational grant programs, AUMA includes provisions for the taxation of recreational cannabis:• Allows local jurisdictions the opportunity to levy additional taxes on the cultivation, sale and distribution of cannabis and cannabis related products.•Permits a State tax on growing and an excise tax on the retail price of marijuana and marijuana products:ActivityState Tax (per AUMA)Growing cannabisflowers$9.25/oz.Growing cannabis leaves$2.75/oz.Retail of cannabis and related products15%23April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes608 Proposition 64 Statewide Revenue Allocation• Starting in 2018-2019, $10 million for grants for job placement assistance and substance use and disorder treatment in communities most affected by past drug policies. Funding for this purpose is expected to grow to $50 million by 2022-2023.• $10 million annually will be allocated to study the effects of AUMA.• $3 million will be allocated to create and adopt methods to determine whether someone is driving while impaired, including by marijuana.• $2 million will be allocated annually to study the risk and benefits of medical marijuana.• Of the remaining revenue, 60% will allocated for youth programs; 20% for cleanup and prevention of environmental damage resulting from illegal growing of marijuana and 20% for (a) programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and other drugs and (b) a grant program designed to reduce any potential negative impacts on public health or safety resulting from the measure• Access to grant funding will be made available to jurisdictions that permit commercial cannabis activities and outdoor personal cultivation. 24April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes609 Local TaxesExisting state and local sales tax apply to the cultivation and sale of non-medical marijuana only. AUMA authorizes local governments to tax virtually all other commercial marijuana activities. Examples below:JurisdictionBusiness Tax (% per Gross Receipts)Cultivation Tax(per square foot)Richmond • $50 per $1,000 N/ASonoma• Manufactures: 5% - 10%; • Nurseries, Distributors, Transporters, Labs and Dispensaries: 0% - 10%• Outdoor: $0.50 - $10• Indoor: $1.88 - $38• Mixed-Light: $1.08 - $22San Diego• 5% current, • Increase to 8% - 15% on 1/1/19N/AStockton• Medical: $25 per $1,000• Non-medical: $100 per $1,000N/ALos Angeles• Medical: $50 per $1,000• Non-medical: $100 per $1,000• $10 per for transportation, testing, research• $20 per for manufacture, cultivation, commercial activity25April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes610 Code EnforcementHas become increasingly difficult with the approval of Proposition 215 in 1996 and Proposition 64 in 2016.  Authorization and taxation of specific cannabis uses should be paired with adoption of a cannabis‐specific violation and enforcement ordinance, including fines for violators and possible criminal charges for those who operate in violation of County laws. The current process for enforcement of zoning code violations, which can provide up to two months for correction, would not be effective for illicit cannabis operations.26April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes611 Interdepartmental Coordination for Cannabis Regulation•Four inter‐departmental meetings were held to share knowledge and discuss potential impacts of cannabis regulation on County departments and their areas of responsibility.•The knowledge, experience and counsel of the involved staff has been invaluable.  Many participants have attended state‐wide briefings and trainings relevant to their particular disciplines on the emerging issue of cannabis regulation and brought that new knowledge to the table.  •The staff group is capable to provide additional detailed information and analysis beyond what is contained in this staff report, which was intentionally crafted as a high level summary.•Each department also provided a section for the staff report forecasting impacts (regardless of County approach) and summarizing input.27April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes612 Interdepartmental Coordination• County Counsel– Thomas Geiger, Stephen Siptroth• Conservation and Development– John Kopchik, Ruben Hernandez, Aruna Bhat• Health Services– Daniel Peddycord, Marilyn Underwood, Fatima Matal Sol, Lisa Diemoz, Randy Sawyer, Denice Dennis• Probation– Lesha Roth28• County Administrator Office– Julie Enea, Lara DeLaney• Agriculture Department– Beth Slate, Matt Slattengren, Larry Yost• Sheriff’s Office– Mike Casten• District Attorney’s Office– Mary Knox• Treasurer/ Tax Collector–Brice BinsApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes613 Comments: Office of the SheriffThe Office of the Sheriff anticipates:•An increase in crimes associated with either the sales, use, or possession of marijuana. The range of crimes include driving under the influence,  homicide, robbery, burglary, and aggravated assault.•An increase in demands for enforcement of local laws and codes. The  Office of the Sheriff would like a policy that builds a collaborative effort of  code enforcement inspectors, planners, county counsel, the district attorney’s office, public health, health,  environmental  health and probation to  establish land use agreements and a licensing or permitting system to insure public safety and the wellness of our community.29April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes614 Comments: Health ServicesEmergency Medical Services anticipates:•An increase in emergency calls related to manufacturing‐as well as personal use‐associated intoxication, overdose, and being under the influence while operating a motor vehicle. •An increase in burns from butane and other combustible solvents used during the extraction/manufacturing process, if permitted.•An increase in Pediatric and Adult accidental ingestions (poisonings) associated with edibles.•An increase in ambulance hours to meet new level of service demand.   30April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes615 Comments: Health ServicesHazardous Materials anticipates:•An ongoing permitting and inspection role with aspects of raw material extraction and manufacturing, particularly for those businesses utilizing volatile or highly flammable solvents. The regulatory oversight would be for the handling of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste as codified in State law. Behavioral Health anticipates:•A surge in demand for detoxification, outpatient &  residential treatment for youth and adults.  •An increased need for public information, both in regards to the hazards and warnings associated with the potential for misuse, abuse and addiction as well as information regarding treatment and ongoing therapy.  •An increase in court‐ordered mandatory group educational sessions for youth who violate the provisions of their probation.  31April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes616 Comments: Health ServicesPublic Health anticipates:•A role in the licensing/permitting, regulation and enforcement of commercial sales of marijuana products, similar to its current role relative to tobacco retail licensing.  •Being the key player in investigation outbreaks of clusters of illness associated with exposure to, use of and/or consumption of products containing cannabis, and public education in that regard. •A surge in demand for Medical Marijuana ID Cards as members of the public seek to avoid taxation associated with the recreational regulatory structure. Environmental Health anticipates: A substantial and ongoing role with licensing/permitting, regulatory Inspections and enforcement of products sold at retail, particularly foods, beverages, cosmetics, tinctures, oils and other consumer products infused with canniboids. 32April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes617 Comments: Treasurer-Tax CollectorIf County becomes involved in collecting or accepting monies from cannabis related businesses, there are many issues and challenges associated with the federal Controlled Substances Act and the unwillingness of banks and other financial institutions to accept funds from these businesses:• Pending legislation (AB 148) that would enable County Treasurers to collect cannabis tax revenue on behalf of the Board of Equalization. • County assets may be in jeopardy under federal laws if collecting taxes on marijuana related businesses is approved.• Increased costs would result due to the need for additional staffing, equipment and security (risks associated with cash-only transactions).• Potential new business license fees for cannabis business could include; $100 Flat Fee per Business; $10 per Full-Time Employee; Cannabis Retailers License (Similar to Tobacco or Alcohol Retailers License).• Potential secured property taxes for cannabis uses could include real property taxes, special taxes and assessments and ad valorem taxes and assessments.• Potential unsecured taxes for cannabis uses could include business property taxes and taxes on some fixtures. 33April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes618 Comments: Dept. of AgricultureWeights & Measures anticipates:• A need for an inspecting weighing device used for commercial purposes, suitability of scale, type-approval, testing, and sealing.• Price verification enforcement for products sold on shelves such as candy bars, vape/e-cig, oils, creams, baked products, and pre-packed unprocessed cannabis.• An increase in standard inspection and testing activities.Agriculture anticipates:• An increase standard pesticide permitting, inspection, testing, and complaint resolution activities.• Additional monitoring of pesticide applications, particularly in greenhouse operations.• Field Worker inspections for compliance with new Federal Worker Protection Standards.• Additional investigation of pesticide exposure reports of occupational illness.34April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes619 Comments: Probation Dept.The Probation Department supervises juveniles and adults who will be impacted by Proposition 64. Juveniles referred to Probation for illegal possession of marijuana will be required to complete a four hour evidence-based drug education program. Probation anticipates:• An increase in the use of marijuana for youth in general, and more specifically at-risk youth who are in jeopardy of entering the juvenile justice system and those youth already involved in the juvenile justice system. Prior to Proposition 64, adults on Probation Supervision were not allowed to use marijuana absent a court order allowing such. At the present time, Probation violations are not being filed for the use of marijuana unless the court specifically prohibits use of the drug. 35April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes620 Comments: District AttorneyThe District Attorney is recommending that the Counties’ prohibition on the retail sale, delivery, cultivation and manufacture of cannabis-based products remain in effect until greater certainty regarding the future of legalized marijuana is attained.The preparation and enforcement of ordinances required to properly regulate these activities will be extremely expensive and there is no assurance that tax revenues and fees generated from these activities will be sufficient.Federal law prohibits the receipt of revenue derived from illegal substances by federally insured banking institutions and the County will be required to create its own secure banking system and may violate federal law by receiving that revenue.Cash-rich commercial marijuana activities present a real risk of an increase in violent crime in our County and no provision has been made to increase law enforcement or prosecutorial personnel. Cultivation of marijuana has the potential to degrade local waters and the Bay due to use of insecticides, fungicides, and fertilizers and no provision has been made for the investigation and prosecution of cultivators who become polluters.If the United States Attorney General chooses to enforce federal law in the State of California, the Counties expenditure of resources to permit Proposition 64 – related activities will have been pointless. The County should wait until these issues are resolved.36April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes621 Comments: County AdministratorThe County remains committed to maintaining a drug-free workplace:• The manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of alcohol or a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace. Violations can lead to disciplinary action.• An employee will not be disciplined for voluntarily requesting assistance for a substance abuse problem.• Employees remain responsible to meet the County’s performance, safety, and attendance standards.37April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes622 Spectrum of Land Use Regulatory OptionsMore RestrictiveLess RestrictiveProhibit(Status Quo)-Cap the number-Limit by zone-Select through RFP-Conditional Use PermitConditional Use Permit only in certain zonesand under specified conditionsAllow by right in certain zones andunder specified conditions38April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes623 Table 1: Preliminary Evaluation of Cannabis Uses PROS CONS COST / REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Expanded Personal Cultivation(outdoor/more) -Reduces need for retail cannabis businesses -Reduces cost of use and increases individual control -Outdoor uses less power & has fewer building risks -Potential impacts to adjacent residents, especially odor -Safety/security concerns -Black market risk. Is more than 6 plants needed? -No tax or grant revenue -Enforcement costs depend on complaints. Outdoor may generate more complaints. Commercial Outdoor Cultivation -Abundance of available agricultural land in County -Valuable crop; may benefit agricultural economy -Agricultural jobs -Suitable climate in County -Reduction of black market -Ability for cannabis used in County to be locally grown -Odor Impacts -Visual impacts (security fencing) -Security Concerns (valuable crop, potential cash on hand may induce criminal activity) -Pesticide / water use (different than other crops?) -Regulation could be complex -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount could vary drastically depending on the amount of cultivation permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. -Cost to regulate could be high if permitting is widespread and if illegal grow was pursued aggressively. Commercial Indoor Cultivation -Less visible and potentially more secure than outdoor -Year-round harvest (more revenue) -Increases demand for industrial buildings -Security concerns (valuable crop / cash on hand) -Odor impacts (perhaps more controllable than outdoor) -High energy usage (mitigate w/requirement for solar?) -Drinking water might be used (Adequate supply? Best use?) -Wastewater? Challenge for sanitary districts? -Pesticide use (indoor use a greater risk for workers?) - Similar to outdoor cultivation, though it seems likely the scale of outdoor cultivation could be potentially be much larger than indoor, meaning indoor may have a lower ceiling on overall enforcement costs. The difference in terms of revenue is less clear as indoor may be far more lucrative per acre and the risk of tax requirements driving activity to the black market may be higher with outdoor. Manufacturing -County has substantial industrial land and this use may be compatible with other industrial uses -Potential to generate significant economic activity/jobs -Modest space requirements (relative to cultivation) -Local permitting would provide improved health and safety oversight and might help curb illegal uses -Safety hazards (some processes use volatile compounds) -Health/Safety concerns of products -Zoning and Health Ordinance may be required -Security concerns similar to other uses -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount would vary depending on the amount of manufacturing permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. Potential high revenue per acre / per business. -Health and safety enforcement could have significant cost. Testing Facility -Emerging industry, similar benefits to manufacturing but with perhaps less economic potential & fewer risks. -Contributes to safety of cannabis industry -Safety/hazard issues -Security concerns -Similar to manufacturing, but probably with less revenue potential and less enforcement cost. Distribution* -Modest impacts to neighboring properties -County has suitable, centrally located industrial land -Warehousing and trucking jobs -Security concerns (valuable crop / cash on hand) -Similar to manufacturing and testing, but probably with intermediate revenue potential and less enforcement cost. Retail Sales -Product made available locally. Easier / closer access. -Completes County supply chain -Potential to generate significant economic activity and retail jobs -Local permitting of retail would provide improved health/safety oversight and might help curb illegal uses -Safety / security concerns (cash on hand / valuable product) -High profile / high traffic -Unsavory image/many neighborhoods may not want -May stimulate greater use, abuse & related societal impacts. -Zoning and Health ordinances may be required -Tax & grant receipts possible. Amount could vary drastically depending on the amount of retail permitted in County and what types of taxes are in place. -Cost to regulate could be high if permitting is widespread and if crime / community impacts are serious. Higher treatment costs. Retail Delivery** Business -Similar to retail sales but with less neighborhood impact/ stigma -Similar to retail sales but impacts more distributed -Harder to enforce age limitations - Similar to retail sales. Possible to recoup taxes that may otherwise be received only by those jurisdictions that do allow. Micro-business*** -Encourages local “Artisan” or “Boutique” small business -Complete integration of business -Impact to neighboring properties -Zoning and Health ordinances may be required -Increased cannabis exposure -Due to the nature of “microbusinesses” the potential tax receipts generated by this type of use would be limited -Similar to retail/cultivation, cost to regulate could be high if widespread. * “Distribution” as used in AUMA is a facility where wholesale cannabis is received and distributed to retail cannabis outlets such as dispensaries. Under AUMA, retail sale of cannabis is not permitted with a “distributors” license. ** While the County does have the ability to prohibit or restrict the establishment of delivery businesses in the unincorporated area that deliver cannabis to customers, staff does not believe the County would have the practical ability to enforce a prohibition on actual deliveries (for instance, from a business legally established in a neighboring jurisdiction to an unincorporated area). *** “Micro-business” under AUMA is a small retailer with a farm not exceeding 10,000 square feet and could be compared to a farm stand where products grown on a property are available for retail sale at the same property. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes624 Comparing Cannabis Land Uses• Indoor personal cultivation, (must allow up to 6 plants per AUMA)• Outdoor personal cultivation• Indoor commercial cultivation• Outdoor commercial cultivation• Distribution• Retail delivery business*(probably unable to prohibit deliveries from being made within unincorporated area if the business is permitted elsewhere)• Manufacturing*• Retail sales**Health Department recommends an additional local permit for these uses be required to protect public healthGenerally less impacts to address Generally more potential to generate economic activity39April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes625 More revenue Generally less costs (enforcement, admin., treatment)Prohibit commercial cannabis uses•Not eligible for state cannabis funds •No increase in local revenuesPermit commercial uses•Eligible for state cannabis funds•Potential (likely minor) increase in local sales and property taxPermit commercial uses and develop additional cost recovery•Eligible for state cannabis funds•Potential (likely minor) increase in local sales and property tax•Develop additional cost recovery measures such as fees to cover additional services (needs further study)Permit commercial uses and voters approve local excise tax•Eligible for state cannabis funds•Potential (likely minor) increase in local sales and property tax•Excise tax revenue used for general or specified purposeREVENUE OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS40April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes626 Developing Cannabis Regulations: Sample Options• Staff has framed three distinct hypothetical or sample options in order to stimulate discussion. • These options describe different approaches to the distinct types of cannabis uses, but do not come close to exhausting the range of regulatory approaches. • The sample options are simple. They do not distinguish: – hemp uses from consumption uses– medical from adult uses– specific safety, location or health requirements 41April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes627 Sample Option 1: Status Quo / Most Restrictive• Generally prohibit all medical and non‐medical cannabis related uses, similar to the existing urgency interim ordinance. •With this option, all cannabis related uses would be prohibited with the exception of the personal indoor cultivation of up to 6 plants as provided for in Proposition 64.42April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes628 Sample Option 2:Limited Commercial, No Retail• Permit the establishment of commercial cannabis‐related uses, limited by type and zone:• Commercial indoor or outdoor cultivation• Manufacturing• Distribution•Testing •No retail sales, retail delivery business or microbusiness•Cap the number of uses and select through a Request for Proposal process •Explore mechanisms for including a pre‐defined, fixed term to the approval (e.g. limit the approval to, say, 5 or 10 years)•Develop additional cost recovery measures such as fees to cover additional services (needs further study)•Expand cultivation for personal use to allow outdoor cultivation of up to six plants.43April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes629 Sample Option 3:Commercial and Retail•Allow the establishment and taxation of various cannabis related uses (cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, retail, retail delivery, microbusiness)within specifically identified zoning districts and subject to specified conditions. •Adoption of significant regulations and application requirements meant to protect the health, safety and quality of life of the residents of the County.•Expand the personal cultivation provisions to include outdoor and more than 6 plants•Taxation to cover costs of additional County services and community impacts. Any cannabis tax would require voter approval. A special tax to secure dedicated funding for specified purposes would require a 2/3 majority.  A general tax would require a simple majority.  There would be significant costs to develop a measure and bring it to the voters. 44April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes630 Summary of OptionsCommercial Cannabis Uses ProhibitSelect Through RFPConditionalUse PermitAllow by Right• Indoor or Outdoor Cultivation• Manufacturing• Testing• DistributionOption 1 Option 2 Option 3• Retail Delivery Business• Microbusiness• Retail SalesOption 1 &Option 2 Option 3Personal Grow LimitationsUp to 6 plants indoorUp to 6 plants indoor or outdoorMore than 6 plants indoor or outdoorOption 1Option 2Option 3RevenueNoneEligible for state grants/potential for more sales& property taxAdditional cost recovery measure/feesVoter approvalof excise taxesOption 1Option 2Option 2Option 345April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes631 Evaluating the Sample OptionsTradeoffs between important goals such as:• facilitating legal access,• minimizing substance abuse, • reducing the black market, • encouraging economic activity, • maintaining safety and security, • minimizing enforcement costs, • generating revenue for services/cost recovery• public health assurances46April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes632 Table 2: Preliminary Evaluation of Sample Regulatory Options PROS CONS COST/REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Option 1 (Continued Prohibition) -Discourages cannabis use -Avoid complications with federal law -Avoids impacts to neighboring properties that may be generated by commercial cannabis uses -Highest potential for encouraging illicit operations -Difficult for residents to purchase a legal substance -Economic activity might happen elsewhere (in cities or other counties) -Not eligible for state grant funds -No change in local tax revenue -Ordinance preparation and enforcement costs would be lower, though extent of need for illegal grow enforcement need would be a factor -Likely lower cost for substance use treatment, etc. Option 2 (Limited Permitted Uses) -Generates economic activity and jobs by focusing on those uses for which the County may have competitive assets (e.g. industrial and agricultural land) and that probably have fewer impacts -RFP process provides the County with most control over how many uses get established and where they get established -Expanding personal grow to the outside option may ameliorate power consumption and structure risks -Somewhat facilitates cannabis use in County (which could lead to increased abuse and other societal concerns; however, without retail sales, the amount of facilitation is expected to be minor) -Some impacts on surrounding properties -Some increased security risk -Difficult for residents to purchase a legal substance -May conflict with potential changes in enforcement of federal law -Eligible for state grant funds related to cannabis -Intermediate amount of tax receipts (amount would number/size of uses permitted) -Intermediate cost to prepare and enforcement new ordinance(s) -Intermediate cost for substance use treatment, etc. Option 3 (Expanded Permitted Uses) -Aggressively generates economic activity and jobs in various sectors (industrial, agricultural and retail) -Provides more and easier access to a legal substance for County residents and may help curb illegal uses --Local permitting of retail & edibles manufacture would provide improved health/safety oversight -Expanded personal grow to include outside option enables some residents to avoid the high power consumption and structural risks of growing inside and the expanded quantity may moderate the need for retail sales -Facilitates greater cannabis use in County (which could lead to increased abuse and other societal concerns) -Requires extensive regulation/enforcement -More impacts on surrounding properties -More increased security risk -May conflict with potential changes in enforcement of federal law -Eligible for state grant funds related to cannabis -Most tax receipts (amount would depend on number/size of uses permitted and the amount of tax approved by voters) -Tax receipts potential difficult to determine -Most cost to prepare and enforce new ordinance(s) and to prepare tax measure and collect new taxes -Likely higher cost for substance use treatment, etc. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes633 Public Outreach and Engagement•Many inquiries by organizations, property owners, business owners and individuals expressing interest in the County’s plans for cannabis regulation. • Inquiries by representatives of two potential business owners looking to establish a cannabis business in the unincorporated area of the County: –a cannabis oil extraction facility (manufacturer) on an agricultural property – cultivation on an agricultural property in the County. •Staff has initiated the outreach process with the establishment of an on‐line form within the Department of Conservation’s webpage, where those interested in County cannabis regulation can be placed on a mailing list to be informed of future meetings or hearings. 47April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes634 Public Outreach OptionsPart of the process of preparing a permanent cannabis ordinance should involve some public outreach as well as outreach to the various industry groups, stakeholders, property owners and any other groups or organizations that could be impacted by potential cannabis regulation. Continue to have all formal discussion occur at the full Board of Supervisors meetings and continue to invite public participation.Direct staff to convene focused public meetings with representatives of affected constituencies.Convene a follow‐up workshop with panelists from affected constituencies.Refer this matter to a standing or ad hoc committee of the Board for further detailed discussion and public involvement.Refer this matter to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Committee for discussion and input48April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes635 Recommended Next StepsAsk questions of staff panelHear from the publicIdentify additional information to be requested from staffConsider providing initial preliminary guidance to staff on which approach(es) to start work on or explore furtherConsider providing direction on public outreach and engagement49April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes636 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE CULTIVATION AND DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. A. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. The purpose of the Compassionate Use Act is to enable persons who are in need of marijuana for specified medical purposes to obtain and use marijuana under limited circumstances. The Compassionate Use Act (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 11362.5) established a limited defense for qualified patients and their primary caregivers to the crimes of possessing or cultivating marijuana. B. In 2003, the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program. The Medical Marijuana Program (HSC §§ 11362.7-11362.83) established regulations and procedures regarding the issuance of identification cards to patients qualified to use medical marijuana, and clarifies what is a “reasonable” amount of marijuana for personal medical use. The Medical Marijuana Program also established a defense to criminal liability for the collective or cooperative cultivation of marijuana. (HSC § 11362.775.) Medical marijuana dispensaries began opening throughout the state as medical marijuana collectives under the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program. C. In 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2008-05 to prohibit the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. D. The federal Controlled Substances Act (Title 21, United States Code § 801 et seq.) prohibits, except for certain research purposes, the possession, distribution, and manufacture of marijuana, and there is no medical necessity exception to prosecution and conviction under the Controlled Substances Act. E. The California Supreme Court in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, held that neither the Compassionate Use Act nor the Medical Marijuana Program expressly or impliedly preempt the authority of California counties and cities, under their traditional land use and police powers, to allow, restrict, limit, or entirely exclude facilities that distribute medical marijuana. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 1 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 637 F. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) was signed by the Governor on October 9, 2015. The MMRSA consisted of three bills: Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and Senate Bill 643. The purpose of the MMRSA is to regulate the cultivation, dispensing, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical marijuana. G. The MMRSA affirmed the authority of counties and cities to regulate the following commercial medical marijuana activities through the adoption of land use ordinances: 1. Deliveries. Deliveries by dispensaries are permitted with a State license unless a city or county explicitly prohibits delivery of medical marijuana and medical marijuana products. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) §§ 19340(a), 19340(b)(1).) 2. Other Commercial Activities. Under the MMRSA, in order to obtain a State license for commercial cultivation, dispensing, distribution, transport, or manufacturing activities, a person must also have a local license. If there is no local license or permit, or ordinance providing for such, then a marijuana business may not obtain a State license, and may not operate a business performing commercial cannabis activity. (BPC § 19320(a).) H. Under the MMRSA, there are exemptions to the State’s commercial licensing requirements for qualified patients and primary caregivers. 1. A qualified patient who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures or transports marijuana exclusively for his or her personal medical use is exempt from the State’s commercial licensing requirements. (BPC, § 19319.) A “qualified patient” is a person who possesses or cultivates marijuana for his or her personal medical purposes upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 2. A primary caregiver who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures or transports marijuana exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five specified qualified patients is also exempt from the State’s commercial licensing requirements. (BPC, § 19319.) A “primary caregiver” is the individual designated by a qualified patient who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that qualified patient. A primary caregiver is authorized to possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical purposes of a qualified patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 2 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 638 I. Under the MMRSA, if a qualified patient or primary caregiver intends to cultivate medical marijuana but is exempt from the State’s commercial licensing requirements, the qualified patient or primary caregiver will be required to obtain a State license under the State’s Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program. (HSC § 11362.777(b).) Under the MMRSA, in order to obtain a State license under the Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program, a person must also have a local license, permit, or other entitlement. If a person does not obtain a local license, permit, or other entitlement, the person may not cultivate medical marijuana. J. The Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licensing requirement does not apply to a qualified patient if the area he or she uses to cultivate medical marijuana for his or her personal medical use does not exceed 100 square feet, and does not apply to a primary caregiver if the area he or she uses to cultivate medical marijuana for the personal medical use of no more than five specified qualified patients does not exceed 500 square feet. (HSC, § 11362.777(g).) Under the MMRSA, if a person is exempt from the Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program licensing requirement, the person is also exempt from the requirement to obtain a local license, permit, or other entitlement. (HSC, § 11362.777(g).) K. On February 2, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2016-04, an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting the cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana. L. On February 3, 2016, Assembly Bill 21 went into effect. AB 21 provides that an exemption from State medical marijuana licensing requirements does not limit or prevent a county or city from exercising its police power authority under the California Constitution. AB 21 authorized the County to regulate or ban all categories of cultivation, dispensing, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical marijuana. M. On March 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 2016-10, to extend interim urgency Ordinance No. 2016-04 for an additional 10 months and 15 days, through January 30, 2017. N. On November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition 64, which enacted the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (the “AUMA”). The AUMA took effect November 9, 2016. The AUMA makes it legal under California law for anyone 21 years of age or older to possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, and process up to six marijuana plants per private residence for personal use (the “Personal Use Grows”), subject to certain restrictions. (HSC, §§ 11362.2 & 11362.3.) The AUMA also makes it legal under California law for anyone 21 years of age or older to do all of the following (collectively, the “Personal Use Exceptions”): ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 3 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 639 1. Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis; 2. Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than eight grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis, including as contained in marijuana products; 3. Smoke, except where smoking is prohibited, and ingest marijuana and marijuana products; and 4. Possess, transport, purchase, obtain, use, manufacture or give away marijuana accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever. (HSC, § 11362.1.) O. Under state law, living plants of Personal Use Grows, and marijuana from those plants in excess of 28.5 grams, must be kept in a locked space, enclosed, and must not be visible by normal unaided vision form a public place. (HSC, § 11362.2(a).) Cities and counties also may enact and enforce reasonable regulations to regulate Personal Use Grows, and they may prohibit Personal Use Grows outdoors. (HSC, § 11362.2(a)(1), (b)(1) & (b)(3).) The AUMA contains several other limitations related to the possession and use of marijuana and marijuana products, including those for personal use. (See HSC, § 11362.3(a)(1)-(8); see also BPC, § 26200(d).) P. The AUMA establishes a framework for state and local regulation of nonmedical marijuana businesses. The State of California must establish, by January 1, 2018, a regulatory and licensing program, under the oversight of the Bureau of Marijuana Control (formerly, Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation), to license commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacturing of nonmedical marijuana products. (See BPC, §§ 26010, 26012, 26013.) Cities and counties retain local authority to license, regulate, limit, or completely ban nonmedical marijuana businesses within their jurisdictions. (BPC, § 26200.) A state license will not be issued to a business if the business cannot lawfully be established in the city or county in which it intends to locate. (BPC, § 26055(e). Q. Without sufficient regulations that are enforceable through an adopted ordinance, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare from unregulated medical and nonmedical marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, and deliveries, including the following harmful impacts: ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 4 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 640 1. Several California jurisdictions have reported negative impacts of unregulated marijuana cultivation and delivery uses, including offensive odors, illegal sales and distribution of marijuana, trespassing, theft, robberies and robbery attempts, fire hazards, and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests. 2. Marijuana plants, as they begin to flower and for a period of two months or more, can produce a strong odor that may be offensive to many people. If the smell of marijuana is detectable beyond property boundaries, the smell can create an attractive nuisance, alerting persons to the location of the valuable plants, and creating a risk of burglary or robbery. 3. The potential for burglary or robbery is high because marijuana plants are valuable. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reports that each marijuana plant under various planting conditions may yield an average of between one-half to two pounds in its lifetime. Prices for domestically produced high-grade marijuana sold illegally within Northern California can reach $2,000 to $5,000 per pound. 4. Harmful effects at unregulated outdoor and indoor cultivation facilities have included an increase in criminal activity because of the high monetary value of the marijuana plants, adverse environmental impacts, interference with farming practices, fire danger from grow light systems, extensive energy consumption, and strong offensive odors, as reported by other California counties and cities. 5. The unregulated indoor cultivation of marijuana has potential adverse effects to the structural integrity of a building, and the use of high wattage grow lights and excessive use of electricity increases the risk of fire, which presents a clear danger to the building and its occupants. 6. The California Attorney General’s August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use recognizes that the cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that nearby homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. R. It is necessary to extend Ordinance No. 2016-04 to provide the County with additional time to consider regulations governing medical and nonmedical marijuana activities, and to determine the extent of these regulations. This additional extension of Ordinance No. 2016-04 is necessary to provide staff the time to analyze and provide a future report to the Board on various long-term options in response to the MMRSA and the AUMA. Absent the extension of this interim ordinance, commercial marijuana activities could arguably be located in residential areas or in close proximity to schools, churches, day care centers, and other sensitive uses incompatible with commercial marijuana activities. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 641 SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this ordinance, the following words and phrases have the following meanings: (a) “Cultivation” or “to cultivate” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana. (b) “Delivery” has both the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(m), and the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code section 26001(h). (c) “Marijuana” means both “marijuana,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11018, and “marijuana products,” as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11018.1. (d) “Residence” has the same meaning as “private residence” in Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(b)(5). SECTION III. EXTENSION. Ordinance No. 2016-04 is extended for an additional 12 months, through January 30, 2018. SECTION IV. PROHIBITED USES. Subject only to the exemptions in this ordinance and as otherwise preempted by state law, the following uses are prohibited in all zoning districts of the County: (a) The cultivation of marijuana. (b) The delivery of marijuana. (c) The establishment of a business that sells, distributes, dispenses, manufactures, or tests marijuana. SECTION V. EXEMPTIONS. (a) Six or fewer marijuana plants may be cultivated indoors at a residence if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The residence, and all lighting, plumbing, and electrical components used for cultivation, must comply with all applicable zoning, building, electrical, and plumbing codes and permitting requirements. ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 6 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 642 (2) All living marijuana plants, and all marijuana in excess of 28.5 grams produced by those plants, must be kept in a locked room and may not be visible from an adjacent property, right-of-way, street, sidewalk, or other place accessible to the public. (3) The residence must be lawfully occupied by the person who cultivates the marijuana plants within the residence. If the residence is not owner-occupied, written permission from the owner of the residence must be obtained before marijuana plants may be cultivated. (4) No marijuana plants may be cultivated outdoors. (b) It is not a violation of this ordinance for any person employed by a licensed marijuana delivery service to travel on a public road within the unincorporated area of the County for the purpose of delivering marijuana to persons located in a city or county where the delivery of marijuana is not prohibited. SECTION VI. ENFORCEMENT. The County may seek compliance with this ordinance under the remedies authorized by Ordinance Code Chapter 14-6 (abatement) and Ordinance Code Chapter 14-12 (administrative penalties), and any other remedy allowed by law. SECTION VII. REPORTS. In accordance with subdivision (d) of Government Code section 65858, ten days before the expiration of this ordinance or any extension of it, the Department of Conservation and Development shall file with the Clerk of this Board a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of this urgency interim ordinance. SECTION VIII. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other ordinance provisions or clauses or applications thereof that can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or application, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION IX. DECLARATION OF URGENCY. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public safety, health, and welfare of the County, and it shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the urgency of this ordinance’s adoption are set forth in Section I. SECTION X. EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon passage by four-fifths vote of the Board and shall continue in effect for a period of 12 months, ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 7 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 643 through January 30, 2018, pursuant to Government Code section 65858. Within 15 days of passage, this ordinance shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON __________________________ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA,____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ________________________[SEAL] Deputy SMS: H:\Client Matters\Cons & Dev\Ordinances\Marijuana\Ordinance Extending Interim Urgency Ordinance - Final 011117.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2017-03 8 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 644 Page 1 Current County Zoning Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 82-2.022 - Prohibited uses. The following land uses are prohibited at all locations in all zoning districts in the county: (a) Any use that violates state or federal law. (b) Medical marijuana dispensary. (Ord. 2008-05 § 2). 82-4.292 - Medical marijuana dispensary. "Medical marijuana dispensary" means any facility or location, stationary or mobile, where marijuana is made available, sold, transmitted, given, distributed to, or otherwise provided by or to a primary caregiver, qualified patient, or a person with an identification card, in accordance with the State Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5). A "medical marijuana dispensary" does not include the following uses, as long as their location is otherwise regulated by this code or applicable law and as long as their use complies strictly with applicable law including but not limited to Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; a residential hospice or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. (Ord. 2008-05 § 3). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 645 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 646 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 647 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 648 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 649 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 650 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 651 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 652 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 653 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 654 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 655 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 656 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 657 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 658 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 659 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 660 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 661 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 662 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 663 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 664 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 665 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 666 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 667 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 668 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 669 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 670 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 671 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 672 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 673 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 674 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 675 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 676 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 677 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 678 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 679 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 680 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 681 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 682 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 683 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 684 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 685 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 686 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 687 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 688 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 689 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 690 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 691 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 692 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 693 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 694 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 695 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 696 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 697 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 698 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 699 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 700 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 701 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 702 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 703 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 704 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 705 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 706 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 707 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 708 ORDINANCE NO. 6189 An Ordinance Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Adopting a Negative Declaration and Amending Text Of Chapter 26 {Zoning Ordinance) Of The Sonoma County Code To Allow Personal Cultivation of Cannabis and Permit Cultivation of Commercial Medical Cannabis and Support Land Uses in Various Zoning Districts, Adopting New Definitions and Establishing Special Use Regulations. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, State of California, ordains as follows: SECTION I. Findings. The Board finds and declares the following: A. The adoption of this Ordinance is necessary and desirable to protect the public health, safety and environmental resources, ensure safe access to medical cannabis for patients, provide a regulatory path to permit an existing underground industry, foster a healthy, diverse and economically viable medical cannabis industry that contributes to the local economy, provide opportunity to help stabilize farm incomes, enhance enforcement methods for unpermitted and trespass cannabis cultivation, and ensure that environmental, public health, safety and nuisance factors related to the cannabis industry are adequately addressed. B. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., classifies cannabis as a Schedule I Drug; as such, it is unlawful, under federal law, for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense, marijuana. There is no federal exemption for the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, dispensation, or possession of cannabis for medical purposes. C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, "The Compassionate Use Act" (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5), which was intended to decriminalize cultivation and possession of medical marijuana by a seriously ill patient, or the patient's primary caregiver, for the patient's personal use, and to create a limited defense to the crimes of possessing or cultivating cannabis. The Compassionate Use Act further provided that nothing in it shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, or to condone the diversion of Page 1of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 709 cannabis for non-medical purposes. D. The State enacted SB 420 in 2004 (known as the "Medical Marijuana Program Act", codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq.) to expand and clarify the scope of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 by creating the Medical Marijuana Identification Card program, creating reasonable regulations for cultivating, processing, transporting and administering medical cannabis, as well as limiting the amount of medical cannabis a qualified individual may possess. E. The Medical Marijuana Program Act defines a "primary caregiver" as an individual who is designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, and who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person and is further defined in the California Supreme Court decision People v. Mentch {2008) 45 Cal.4th 274. F. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted Medical Marijuana Possession and Cultivation Guidelines on September 26, 2006 by Resolution 06-0846. The Guidelines provide a limited defense to prosecution or other sanction by the County of Sonoma which is only available to someone who possesses or cultivates marijuana for personal medical use. These Guidelines are not zoning code regulations, and they do not allow and do not regulate any manner of cultivation, growing, or delivery of marijuana. G. The State enacted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) on September 11, 2015 (SB 643, AB 266, and AB 243), instituting a comprehensive state-level licensure and regulatory scheme for cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, laboratory testing, and dispensing of medical cannabis through numerous changes and additions to the Business & Professions Code and the Health and Safety Code. MMRSA legalizes and regulates for-profit commercial activity related to medlcal marijuana in California. MMRSA provides that cities and counties retain local regulatory authority over medical cannabis. H. On June 27, 2016 the Governor signed SB 837, changing the term "marijuana" to "cannabis" and renaming the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (Cannabis Act). I. The Cannabis Act and the proposed zoning ordinance both distinguish cannabis from other types of agriculture. This is due to the federal classification as a Schedule I drug, the security concerns associated with a high value crop, and the Page 2of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 710 unique characteristics of the cannabis cultivation operations. Cannabis cultivation operations are not protected under the Right to Farm Ordinance which is intended to protect agricultural operations from being considered a nuisance. The siting and operational standards within this Ordinance are not intended to apply to agricultural enterprises already in existence within Sonoma County. J. The State's adoption of a comprehensive statewide licensing and enforcement scheme for medical cannabis operations will facilitate local jurisdictions to regulate medical cannabis at the local level, and permit fees will help pay for additional enforcement staff. K. Although Sonoma County's zoning ordinance does not permit cannabis cultivation or other medical cannabis activities besides dispensaries within the unincorporated area of the County, there are an estimated several thousand unregulated cannabis cultivation sites within the County that are unlawful under the permissive zoning of the County Code. The County has long had insufficient resources to bring code enforcement or nuisance actions against the vast majority of these cultivation sites. L. On February 2, 2016, the Board of Supervisors, at an open public meeting, directed staff to bring forward a zoning ordinance allowing but regulating cannabis cultivation and related commercial support uses within the jurisdictional boundaries of Sonoma County. M. On November 8, 2016 the voters of California adopted Proposition 64 which legalized the use of cannabis for adult use and established a maximum cultivation allowance of 6 plants for personal use. The Proposition allows for local control of adult use cannabis land uses, and reasonable regulation of personal cultivation of up to 6 plants per residence. N. Children (minors under the age of 18) are particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis use, and the presence of cannabis plants or products is an attractive nuisance for children, creating an unreasonable hazard in areas frequented by children (including schools, parks, and other similar locations). 0. The unregulated cultivation of cannabis in the unincorporated area of Sonoma County can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of the County, its residents and environment. Comprehensive civil regulation of premises used for Page 3of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 711 cannabis cultivation, including zoning regulation, is proper and necessary to reduce the risks of criminal activity, degradation of the natural environment, malodorous smells, and indoor electrical fire hazards that may result from unregulated cannabis cultivation. P. Comprehensive regulation of premises used for cannabis cultivation or commercial activities related to cannabis is proper and necessary to address the risks and adverse impacts as stated herein. Q. Outdoor cannabis cultivation, especially within the remote hillside areas, is creating devastating impacts to California's surface and groundwater resources. The State Water Resources Control Board, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife have seen a dramatic increase in the number of cannabis cultivation operations, and corresponding increases in impacts to water supply and water quality, including the discharges into water of sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum hydrocarbons, trash and human waste. These impacts result from unpermitted and unregulated timber clearing, road development, stream diversion for irrigation, land grading, erosion of disturbed surfaces and stream banks, and temporary human occupancy without proper sanitary facilities. R. The defense to prosecution provided to qualified patients and their primary caregivers under the Compassionate Use Act and the Board's prior Resolution to cultivate cannabis plants for medical purposes does not confer the right to establish a land use not expressly allowed in zoning or to create or maintain a public nuisance. By adopting the regulations contained in this Ordinance in coordination with the Cannabis Act, the County intends to minimize the risks and complaints regarding fire, odor, crime and pollution caused or threatened by the unregulated cultivation of cannabis in the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. S. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to allow the use of cannabis or allow any activity relating to the cultivation or consumption of cannabis that is otherwise not expressly allowed in the Sonoma County Code or is illegal under State law. T. This ordinance is intended to be Phase I of this policy effort to provide an initial opportunity to legalize existing unpermitted medical cannabis operations, where Page 4of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 712 appropriate and steer the industry to appropriate locations. The Board may consider expanded opportunities for additional commercial cannabis operations in Phase II. U. This ordinance is consistent with the overall goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan to promote a healthy and competitive agricultural, stabilize farm incomes and provide opportunities for diversification of agricultural products; protect Important Farmlands; preserve biotic resources; promote energy conservation and use of renewable energy; minimize discharge of sediment, waste and other pollutants into the drainage systems; protect groundwater resources; encourage graywater systems and use of recycled water. V. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared and circulated to the public for a 30-day period from September 30 to October 31, 2016. The Negative Declaration has been reviewed and considered, together with comments received during the public review process, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} and County CEQA Guidelines. The Board finds on the basis of the whole record before it that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board and that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Director of Permit and Resource Management Department is directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA. W. The Sonoma County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance at its meeting on December 5, 2016 and adopted Resolution 16-01 finding the Medical Cannabis Land Use Ordinance consistent with the Sonoma County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. SECTION II. Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code is amended as follows: A. Amendments to Definitions. Section 26-02-140 (Definitions} of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code (Zoning Ordinance} is amended to replace and add the following definitions as shown in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto. B. Amendments to Zoning Districts for Commercial Medical Cannabis Uses. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are added for Permitted Uses: Page 5of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 713 Section 26-04-010 (o) -LIA Land Intensive Agriculture District Section 26-06-010 (s) -LEA Land Extensive Agriculture District Section 26-08-010 (r) -DA Diverse Agriculture District Section 26-10-010 (II) -RRD Rural and Resource Development District Section 26-44-020 (u) -MP Industrial Park Section 26-46-020 (t) -Ml Limited Urban Industrial Section 26-48-020 (y) -M2 Heavy Industrial Section 26-50-020 (r) -M3 Limited Rural Industrial to read as follows: "Commercial cannabis medical uses in compliance with Section 26-88-250 through 256" C. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are added for Uses Permitted with a Use Permit: Section 26-04-020 (r) -LIA Land Intensive Agriculture Section 26-06-020 (t) -LEA Land Extensive Agriculture Section 26-08-020 (t) -DA Diverse Agriculture Section 26-10-020 (tt)-RRD Rural and Resource Development Section 26-44-020 (q) -MP Industrial Park Section 26-46-020 (aa) -Ml Limited Urban Industrial Section 26-48-020 (z) -M2 Heavy Industrial Section 26-50-020 (aa) -M3 Limited Rural Industrial Section 26-34-020 (II)-C3 General Commercial District Section 26-36-020 (qq)-LC Limited Commercial to read as follows: "Commercial cannabis medical uses in compliance with Section 26-88-250 through -256" D. Standards for Commercial Cannabis Medical Uses. Article 88 of Chapter 26 of the County Code is hereby amended to add Subsection 26-88-250 through 256 (Cannabis Cultivation and Related Land Uses) as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. Page 6of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 714 E. Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are amended Section 26-30-020 (z) -Cl Neighborhood Commercial Section 26-32-020 (ee)-C2 Retail Business and Service Section 26-36-020 (oo)-LC Limited Commercial to read as follows: "Medical Cannabis Dispensary, in compliance with Section 26-88-250 and 256" The following Subsections are deleted in their entirety Section 26-32-020 (ff) -C2 Retail Business and Service Section 26-36-020 (pp) -LC Limited Commercial F. Medical Cannabis Dispensary. Article 88 of Chapter 26 of the County Code is hereby amended to delete Subsection 26-88-126 Medical Cannabis Dispensary in its entirety and replaced to add Subsection 26-88-256 Medical Cannabis Dispensary to read as shown in Exhibit A-3 attached hereto. G. Amendments to Zoning Districts for Personal Cannabis Use. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are added for Permitted Uses: Section 26-04-010 (n) -LIA Land Intensive Agriculture District Section 26-06-010 (r) -LEA Land Extensive Agriculture District Section 26-08-010 (q) -DA Diverse Agriculture District Section 26-10-010 (kk)-RRD Rural and Resource Development District Section 26-16-010 (ff) -AR Agriculture and Residential District Section 26-18-010 (bb)-RR Rural Residential Section 26-20-010 (z) -Rl Low Density Residential District Section 26-22-010 (u) -R2 Medium Density Residential District Section 26-24-010 (z) -R3 High Density Residential District Section 26-26-010 (t) (8) -PC Planned Community to read as follows: "Cannabis cultivation for personal use in compliance with Section 26-88-258" Page 7of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 715 H. Standards for Personal Cannabis Use. Article 88 of Chapter 26 of the County Code is hereby amended to add Subsection 26-88-258 (Cannabis Cultivation and Related Land Uses) as shown in Exhibit A-4 attached hereto. I. Amendments to Zoning Districts for Internal Consistency. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are amended for Permitted Uses: Section 26-04-010 (d) -LIA Land Intensive Agriculture District Section 26-06-010 (d) -LEA Land Extensive Agriculture District Section 26-08-010 (d) -DA Diverse Agriculture District Section 26-10-010 (d) -RRD Rural and Resource Development District Section 26-16-010 (h) -AR Agriculture and Residential District Section 26-18-010 (e) -RR Rural Residential to read as follows: "Outdoor crop production including wholesale nurseries, for growing and harvesting of shrubs, plants, flowers, trees, vines, fruits, vegetables, hay, grain and similar food and fiber crops other than cannabis, conducted and maintained in compliance with Article 65, RC Riparian Corridor Combining Zone;" J. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are amended for Permitted Uses: Section 26-04-010 (o)-LIA Land Intensive Agriculture District Section 26-06-010 (s) -LEA Land Extensive Agriculture District Section 26-08-010 (r) -DA Diverse Agriculture District to read as follows: "Indoor crop production including wholesale nurseries for growing and harvesting of shrubs, plants, flowers, trees, vines, fruits, vegetables, hay, grain and similar food and fiber crops other than cannabis, in greenhouses or similar structures less than twenty five hundred (2,500) square feet, conducted and maintained in compliance with Article 65, RC Riparian Corridor Combining Zone"; Page 8of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 716 K. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are amended for Permitted Uses: Section 26-10-010 (e) -RRD Rural and Resource Development District Section 26-16-010 (i)-AR Agriculture and Residential District Section 26-18-010 (g) -RR Rural Residential to read as follows: "Indoor growing and harvesting of shrubs, plants, flowers, trees, vines, fruits, vegetables, hay, grain and similar food and fiber crops other than cannabis, in greenhouse or similar structures less than eight hundred (800) square feet, conducted and maintained in compliance with Article 65, RC Riparian Corridor Combining Zone;" L. The following Subsections of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code are amended for Uses Permitted with a Use Permit: Section 26-10-020 (h) -RRD Rural and Resource Development District Section 26-16-020 (d)-AR Agriculture and Residential District to read as follows: "Indoor growing and harvesting of shrubs, plants, flowers, trees, vines, fruits, vegetables, hay, grain and similar food and fiber crops other than cannabis, in greenhouses or similar structures of eight hundred (800) square feet or more, conducted and maintained in compliance with Article 65, RC Riparian Corridor Combining Zone;" SECTION Ill. Transition Period. This ordinance hereby supersedes Resolution 06-0846. Existing cannabis cultivation cooperatives or collectives that demonstrate to the review authority that they were in operation before January 1, 2016 shall have until January 1, 2018 to come into compliance with this ordinance, provided that there has been no increase in the size of the cultivation area and the operations are in compliance with the best management practices and the operating standards. SECTION IV. Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Chapter 26 of the County Code (Zoning Ordinance) is a permissive ordinance and the amendments adopted herein do not Page 9of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 717 confer any rights or permits related to non-medical commercial cannabis uses, unless expressly stated as an allowed use in the zoning ordinance. SECTION V. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional and invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion(s) of this Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or invalid. SECTION VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be and the same is hereby declared to be in full force and effect from and after thirty {30} days after the date of its passage. This Ordinance shall be published once before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after adoption, with the names of the Supervisors voting for or against the same, in The Press Democrat, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Sonoma, State of California. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25124, complete copies of Exhibits to this ordinance are on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 575 Administration Drive, Room lOOA, Santa Rosa, California. Complete copies of the Exhibits are also available for public review on the County's website at: http:ljsonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/Proposed-Cannabis- Ordinance/ Applications for Commercial Cannabis Uses, other than Commercial Medical Cannabis Dispensaries in compliance with Section 26-88-250 and 256 shall not be accepted until a proposed Commercial Cannabis Tax is approved by the voters of Sonoma County, or a funding source has been established to provide the public service and code enforcement capacity to implement this ordinance. SECTION VII. Inclusion and Exclusion Combining Zones. The Board of Supervisors hereby directs staff to bring back the Cannabis Inclusion and Exclusion Combining Zones for further consideration. SECTION VIII. Custodian of Documents. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall be the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the Board's decision is based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403. Page 10of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 718 IN REGULAR SESSION of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, introduced, passed, and adopted this twentieth day of December 2016, on regular roll call of the members of said Board by the following vote: Supervisors: Gorin: Aye Rabbit: Aye Zane: Aye Gore: Aye Carrillo: Aye Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: O WHEREUPON, the Chair declared the above foregoing Ordinance duly adopted and SO ORDERED. hair, Board of Supervisors County of Sonoma ATTEST: Sheryl Bratton Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A-1-Definitions Section 26-02-140 Exhibit A-2-Commercial Cannabis Medical Uses Section 26-88-250 through 254 Exhibit A-3 -Medical Cannabis Dispensary Section 26-88-256 Exhibit A-4 -Personal Cannabis Use Section 26-88-258 Page 11of11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 719 Board of Supervisors, Dec 20, 2016 Exhibit A-1 Definitions Amendments to Definitions in Section 26-02-140 Section 26-02-140 Definitions of the Sonoma County Code is amended to delete or replace certain definitions and add definitions in alphabetical order to read as shown below: SECTION 1: The following definitions shall be replaced to read as follows: Agricultural crop: Any cultivated crop grown and harvested for commercial purposes, except for cannabis and other controlled substances, which are defined and classified separately. Agricultural cultivation: The act of preparing the soil for the raising of agricultural crops, as defined herein. Cannabis Dispensary: a facility operated in accordance with state law, where medical cannabis, medical cannabis products or devices for the use of medical cannabis are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that delivers medical cannabis or medical cannabis products as part of a retail sale. SECTION 2: The following definitions are added in their alphabetical order to read as follows: Agency Having Jurisdiction: The agency having delegated authority to adopt, determine, mandate or enforce ordinances and regulatory requirements established by the County of Sonoma and other jurisdictional governing bodies. Cannabis: All parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, or any other strain or varietal of the genus Cannabis that may exist or hereafter be discovered or developed that has psychoactive or medicinal properties, whether growing or not, including the seeds thereof. “Cannabis” also means marijuana as defined by Section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code as enacted by Chapter 1407 of the Statutes of 1972. For the purpose of this section, “cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis is classified as an agricultural product separately from other agricultural crops. Cannabis Cultivation: Any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis for medical use, including nurseries, that is intended to be transported, processed, distributed, dispensed, delivered, or sold in accordance with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) for use by medical cannabis patients in California pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), found at Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis Cultivation Area: The total aggregate area(s) of cannabis cultivation on a single premise as measured around the outermost perimeter of each separate and discrete area of cannabis cultivation at the dripline of the canopy expected at maturity and includes, but is not limited to, the space between plants within the cultivation area, the exterior dimensions of garden beds, garden plots, hoop houses, green houses, and each room or area where cannabis plants are grown, as determined by the review authority. Cannabis Cultivation – Indoor: Cultivation of cannabis using exclusively artificial lighting. Cannabis Cultivation – Mixed-Light: Cultivation of cannabis using any combination of natural and supplemental artificial lighting. Greenhouses, hoop houses, hot houses and similar structures or light deprivation systems are included in this category. Cannabis Cultivation – Outdoor: Cultivation of cannabis using no artificial lighting conducted in the ground or in containers outdoors with no covering. Outdoor cultivation does not include greenhouses, hoop houses, hot houses or similar structures. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 720 Cannabis Cultivation Site: The premise(s), leased area(s), property, location or facility where medical cannabis is planted, grown, harvested, dried, cured, graded, or trimmed or that does all or any combination of those activities. Cannabis Cultivation Type: The type of cultivation is classified as outdoor, indoor or mixed-light as defined herein, consistent with the state licensing scheme. Cannabis Distribution Facility: The location or a facility where a person conducts the business of procuring medical cannabis from licensed cultivators or manufacturers for sale to licensed dispensaries, and the inspection, quality assurance, batch testing by a Type 8 licensee, storage, labeling, packaging and other processes prior to transport to licensed dispensaries. This Facility requires a Type 11 license pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA). Cannabis License: A state license issued pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA). Cannabis Licensee: A person issued a state license under the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act to engage in commercial cannabis activity. Cannabis Manufacturer: A person that produces, prepares, propagates, or compounds manufactured medical cannabis, or medical cannabis products either directly or indirectly or by extraction methods, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis at a fixed location that packages or repackages medical cannabis or medical cannabis products or labels or relabels its container, that holds a valid state license and that holds a valid local license or permit. Manufactured cannabis means raw cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the raw agricultural product has been transformed into a concentrate, an edible product, or a topical product. Cannabis Manufacturing: A location that produces, prepares, propagates, or compounds manufactured medical cannabis or medical cannabis products, directly or indirectly, by extraction methods, independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and is owned and operated by a licensee for these activities. Cannabis – Medical: Any product containing cannabis, including but not limited to flowers, buds, oils, tinctures, concentrates, extractions, and edibles intended to be sold for use by medical cannabis patients in California pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), found at Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this chapter, medical cannabis does not include industrial hemp as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis Operator: The natural person or designated officer responsible for the operation of any commercial cannabis use. Cannabis product, medical cannabis, or medical cannabis product: Any product containing cannabis, including but not limited to flowers, buds, oils, tinctures, concentrates, extractions, and edibles intended to be sold for use by medical cannabis patients in California pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), found at Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this chapter, medical cannabis does not include industrial hemp as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis Testing Laboratory: A facility, entity, or site in the state that offers or performs testing of cannabis or cannabis products. Cannabis Transporter: A person engaged in the transfer of cannabis or cannabis products from the business location of one commercial cannabis business to the business location of another commercial cannabis business, for the purposes of conducting commercial cannabis activity. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 721 Crop production: The commercial growing and harvesting of agricultural crops including horticultural or ornamental shrubs, plants, flowers, trees, vines, fruits, vegetables, hay, grain and similar food and fiber crops or agricultural commodities, except for cannabis or other controlled substances, which shall be defined and classified separately. Greenhouse: A temporary or permanent structure, including hothouses, hoop houses and similar structures for the covered propagation and growing of plants, constructed with a translucent roof and/or walls. Marijuana: See Cannabis Medical Marijuana: See Cannabis – Medical Nursery – Cannabis: An establishment that produces only clones, immature plants, and seeds for wholesale distribution to permitted cultivators or dispensaries, used specifically for the planting, propagation, and cultivation of medical cannabis. Nursery – Retail: An establishment engaged in the propagation of trees, shrubs and horticultural and ornamental plants grown under cover or outdoors for sale to the public. Includes commercial scale greenhouses and establishments for the sale of plant materials, lawn and garden supplies, and related items. Retail nursery does not include cannabis nurseries which are classified separately. Nursery – Wholesale: An establishment engaged in the commercial production of trees, plants, seeds, stock, and other vegetation grown on site outdoors either in the ground or in containers for wholesale distribution to other businesses. Wholesale nursery does not include cannabis nurseries which are classified separately. Wholesale nursery may include greenhouses up to 2,500 square feet in size. Nursery – Wholesale Greenhouse: An establishment engaged in the commercial production of trees, plants, seeds, stock, and other vegetation grown within a commercial greenhouse for wholesale distribution to other businesses. Wholesale greenhouse nursery does not include cannabis nurseries which are classified separately. Person: An individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, tribe, or any other group or combination acting as a unit and includes the plural as well as the singular number. Premise(s): A legal parcel, or a leasehold interest in land, or a leased or owned space in a building. Review Authority: The individual or official County body (the Director, Commission, or Board) and others as identified in the County Code as having the responsibility and authority to review and approve or deny land use permit applications. Volatile solvent: Volatile solvents may include but is not limited to: (1) explosive gases, such as Butane, Propane, Xylene, Styrene, Gasoline, Kerosene, 02 or H2; and (2) dangerous poisons, toxins, or carcinogens, such as Methanol, Methylene Chloride, Acetone, Benzene, Toluene, and Tri-chloro-ethylene as determined by the Fire Marshall. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 722 Board of Supervisors, Dec 20, 2016 Exhibit A-2 Allowed Land Uses and Specific Use Standards Section 26-88-250 Commercial Cannabis Uses - Medical (a) Purpose. This section provides the development and operating standards for personal and commercial medical cannabis uses to ensure neighborhood compatibility, minimize potential environmental impacts, provide safe access to medicine and provide opportunities for economic development. (b) Applicability. Medical cannabis uses shall be permitted only in compliance with the requirements of Sections 26-88-250 through 256 and all other applicable requirements for the specific type of use and those of the underlying base zone. (c) Limitations on Use. Medical cannabis uses shall only be allowed in compliance with the following sections and all applicable codes set forth in the County Code, including but not limited to, grading, building, plumbing, septic, electrical, fire, hazardous materials, and public health and safety. The operator shall comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the type of use and shall comply with all permit, license, approval, inspection, reporting and operational requirements of other local, state or other agencies having jurisdiction over the type of operation. The operator shall provide copies of other agency and department permits, licenses, or certificates to the review authority to serve as verification for such compliance. Permits for medical cannabis uses shall only be issued where written permission from the property owner or landlord is provided. Tasting, promotional activities and events related to cannabis uses are prohibited. Commercial cannabis uses for non-medical cannabis for adult use is prohibited. (d) Permit Requirements. Medical cannabis uses shall be subject to the land use permit requirements as shown in Table 1A-D Allowed Medical Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements. No other type of cannabis uses are permitted except as specified in Table 1A-D. The county may refuse to issue any discretionary or ministerial permit, license, variance or other entitlement, which is sought pursuant to this chapter, including zoning clearance for a building permit, where the property upon which the use or structure is proposed is in violation of the County Code. Medical cannabis uses shall also be subject to permit requirements and regulations established by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services. (e) Term of Permit. Permits for medical cannabis uses shall be issued to the operator for a period not to exceed one year from the date of permit approval and shall be subject to annual permit renewals. The operator must apply for permit renewal prior to the expiration of the limited term permit. No property interest, vested right, or entitlement to receive a future permit to operate a medical cannabis use shall ever inure to the benefit of such permit holder as such permits are revocable. (f) Health and Safety. Medical cannabis uses shall not create a public nuisance or adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents or businesses by creating April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 723 dust, light, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, unsafe conditions or other impacts, or be hazardous due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products, runoff or wastes. (g) Taxes. Medical cannabis uses shall comply with any additional taxes that may be enacted by the voters or any additional regulations that may be promulgated. (h) Operator Qualifications. Commercial medical cannabis operators must meet the following qualifications: 1. Commercial medical cannabis operators and all employees must be 21 years of age. 2. Commercial medical cannabis operators shall be subject to background search by the California Department of Justice. Permits for commercial medical cannabis operations shall not be permitted for operators with felony convictions, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code. 3. Applicants providing false or misleading information in the permitting process will result in rejection of the application and/or nullification or revocation of any issued permit. 4. Priority processing of permits for medical cannabis operations shall be given to: a. Applications that demonstrate that the person operating the cannabis use or owner(s) of the cannabis use has been an existing cannabis operator in Sonoma County prior to January 1, 2016, or b. Applications that demonstrate that the person operating the cannabis use or owner(s) of the cannabis use have been a resident of Sonoma County prior to January 1, 2016, and c. Applications that provide a local preference hiring plan. (i) Weights and Measures. All scales used for commercial transactions shall be registered for commercial use and sealed by the Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. (j) Tracking. Commercial medical cannabis operators shall comply with any track and trace program established by the County and state agencies. Commercial medical cannabis operators must maintain records tracking all medical cannabis production and products and shall make all records related to commercial medical cannabis activity available to the County upon request. (k) Inspections. Commercial medical cannabis operations shall be subject to inspections by appropriate local and state agencies, including but not limited to the Departments of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 724 Health Services, Agriculture/Weights & Measures, and Permit and Resource Management. Medical cannabis operations shall be inspected at random times for conformance with the County Code and permit requirements. The inspection shall be conducted during regular business hours, with at least 24-hours’ notice. If interference in the performance of the duty of the agency having jurisdiction occurs, the agency may temporarily suspend the permit and order the medical cannabis operation to immediately cease operations. (l) Monitoring. Monitoring shall be required for each medical cannabis operation to be granted a permit. An annual fee may be adopted by the board of supervisors and collected by the agency having jurisdiction or the county tax collector to pay for monitoring and enforcement. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 725 Table 1A: Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements for Agricultural and Resource Zones MAXIMUM CULTIVATION AREA PER PARCEL (square feet or plants) MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE STATE LICENSE TYPE Land Intensive Agriculture Land Extensive AgricultureDiverse AgricultureResources and Rural DevelopmentTimber PreserveSpecial Use Regulations LIA1 LEA1 DA1 RRD1 TP 100 sq ft including up to 6 plants for adult use, per residence None Exempt P P P P P 26-88-258 43,560 4 CUP CUP CUP CUP — 22,000 4 CUP3 CUP CUP CUP — 25 plants 2 ac 1C ZP ZP ZP MUP — 5,000 sq. ft. or 50 plants 3 ac 1 CUP ZP ZP CUP — 5,001 - 10,000 5 ac 2 CUP ZP ZP CUP — 10,001 - 43,560 10 ac 3 CUP CUP CUP CUP — 500 None3 1C ZP3 ZP ZP/2ac MUP — 501 - 5,000 None3 1A CUP3 CUP3 CUP/2ac3 CUP3 — 5,001 - 10,000 None 2A — — — — — 10,001 - 22,000 None 3A — — — — — 2,500 2 ac 1C ZP3 ZP ZP MUP — 2,501 - 5,000 3 ac 1B CUP3 CUP CUP CUP — 5,001 - 10,000 5 ac 2B CUP3 CUP CUP CUP — 10,001 - 22,000 10 ac 3B — — — — — P Permitted Use ZP Permitted Use; Zoning Permit Required MUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Minor Use Permit required CUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Use Permit required —Use not allowed Notes:1 2 Personal Outdoor Cultivation is prohibited in multifamily units and in the R2 and R3 zones 3 4 2 acre minimum lot size in the DA zone Small Indoor TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED Commercial Medical Cannabis Uses on properties with a Land Conservation (Williamson Act) Act Contract are subject to Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves. Within existing previously developed areas or legally established structures built (finaled) prior to January 1, 2016 Cottage Small Mixed Light Mixed Light Cultivation LAND USE MEDICAL CANNABIS USES Nursery Outdoor Cultivation Small Outdoor Specialty Indoor Indoor Cultivation Medium Outdoor Cottage 26-88-250 - 254 Medium Indoor Medium Mixed Light Specialty Mixed Light Wholesale (outdoor) Wholesale (indoor/greenhouse) Cottage Specialty Outdoor MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CANNABIS Personal Cultivation2 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 726 Table 1B: Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Zones MAXIMUM CULTIVATION AREA PER PARCEL (square feet or plants) MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE STATE LICENSE TYPE Agriculture and ResidentialRural ResidentialLow Density ResidentialMedium Density ResidentialHigh Density ResidentialPlanned CommunitySpecial Use Regulations AR RR R1 R2 R3 PC 100 sq ft including up to 6 plants for adult use, per residence None Exempt P P P P P P 26-88-258 P Permitted Use Notes 1 Personal Outdoor Cultivation is prohibited in multifamily units and in the R2 and R3 zones LAND USE Personal Cultivation1 MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CANNABIS TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 727 Table 1C: Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements for Commercial Zones MAXIMUM CULTIVATION AREA PER PARCEL(square feet or plants) STATE LICENSE TYPE Administrative and Professional Office Neighborhood CommercialRetail Business and ServiceGeneral CommercialLimited CommercialCommercial RuralAgricultural Services Recreation and Visitor Serving CommercialSpecial Use Regulations CO C1 C2 C3 LC CR AS K 100 sq ft including up to 6 plants for adult use, per residence None Exempt P P P P P P P 26-88-258 per use permit 8 — — — CUP CUP — — — per use permit 10 — CUP CUP — CUP — — — per use permit 10A — CUP CUP — CUP — — — P Permitted Use ZP Permitted Use; Zoning Permit Required MUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Minor Use Permit required CUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Use Permit required —Use not allowed Notes 1 Personal Outdoor Cultivation is prohibited in multifamily units and in the R2 and R3 zones MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CANNABIS Personal Cultivation1 LAND USE MEDICAL CANNABIS USES TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED Testing/Laboratories Dispensary, no more than 3 retail sites Storefront and Delivery Dispensary/Retail Sales 26-88-250, 252, and 256 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 728 Table 1D: Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements for Industrial Zones MAXIMUM CULTIVATION AREA PER PARCEL (square feet or plants) MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE STATE LICENSE TYPE Industrial ParkLimited Urban Industrial Heavy IndustrialLimited Rural IndustrialPublic FacilitiesSpecial Use Regulations MP M1 M2 M3 PF 100 sq ft including up to 6 plants for adult use, per residence None Exempt P P P P P 26-88-258 MEDICAL CANNABIS USES 43,560 4 — — — — — 22,000 4 MUP MUP MUP MUP — 500 1C ZP ZP ZP ZP — 501 - 5,000 1A MUP MUP MUP MUP — 5,001 - 10,000 2A MUP MUP MUP MUP — 10,001 - 22,000 3A MUP MUP MUP MUP — 2,500 2 ac 1C — MUP MUP MUP — 2,501 - 5,000 3 ac 1B — MUP MUP MUP — 5,001 - 10,000 5 ac 2B — MUP MUP MUP — 10,001 - 22,000 10 ac 3B — MUP MUP MUP — per use permit 8 — — — MUP — Level 1-nonvolatile solvents per use permit 6 MUP MUP MUP MUP — Level 2- volatile solvents 7 — — — — — per use permit 11 MUP MUP MUP — — per use permit 12 MUP MUP MUP — — P Permitted Use ZP Permitted Use; Zoning Permit Required MUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Minor Use Permit required CUP Conditionally Permitted Use; Use Permit required —Use not allowed Notes 1 Personal Outdoor Cultivation is prohibited in multifamily units and in the R2 and R3 zones Mixed Light Cultivation Transporter Cottage Specialty Mixed Light Cottage Specialty Indoor Small Indoor TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED Testing/Laboratories Manufacturing Distributor Small Mixed Light Medium Mixed Light LAND USE Wholesale (outdoor) Wholesale (indoor/greenhouse) MEDICAL AND ADULT USE CANNABIS Personal Cultivation1 Nursery 26-88-250 - 254 Medium Indoor Indoor Cultivation April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 729 Section 26-88-252 Enforcement. (a) Violations. 1. Any activity performed contrary to the provisions of Sections 26-88-250 through 258 is hereby declared to be a violation of this Chapter and a public nuisance. 2. Any violation of a term, condition, or the approved plans and specifications of any permit issued pursuant to Sections 26-88-250 through 258 shall constitute a violation of this Chapter. 3. Each and every day during any portion of which any violation of Sections 26-88- 250 through 258 or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter is committed, continued, or allowed to continue shall be a separate offense. (b) Enforcement. Complaints regarding cannabis operations will be addressed by the agency having jurisdiction which may conduct an investigation to determine whether there was a violation of the County Code, a zoning standard, or a use permit condition. Sheriff reports, online searches, citations, aerial photos or neighbor documentation may constitute proof of a violation. If the agency having jurisdiction verifies that a medical cannabis use is operating in violation of the County Code, is otherwise unpermitted, or that a violation of any permit condition has occurred, a notice of violation pursuant to Section 1-7.3 of the County Code or an administrative citation pursuant to this Section may be issued. At the discretion of the agency having jurisdiction or upon appeal, the zoning permit or use permit may be scheduled for a revocation or appeal hearing with the board of zoning adjustments pursuant to Chapter 26 or a revocation or appeal hearing pursuant to Chapter 11. If the permit is revoked, a zoning or use permit for a cannabis operation may not be reapplied for or issued for a period of at least two (2) years. Additionally, where the agency having jurisdiction has evidence that a violation of Sections 26-88-250 through 258 poses a significant health or safety hazard to the owners or occupants of adjoining properties or to the surrounding community, or for other good cause shown, the agency having jurisdiction may, in its discretion, commence a judicial action to enjoin such violation without the necessity of first going through the administrative procedures set forth in Section 1-7.3 of the County Code. (c) Investigative and Prosecutorial Discretion. The agency having jurisdiction shall have discretion to investigate or prosecute any potential violation. (d) Suspension, Revocation or Modification. Any permit, license or approval issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended, revoked, or modified by the agency having jurisdiction, if the agency determines any of the following: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 730 1. Circumstances under which the permit was granted have changed and the public health, safety, and welfare require the suspension, revocation, or modification; 2. The permit was granted, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the permit application; or 3. One (1) or more of the conditions of the original permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. (e) Appeals. Permits issued by the Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures shall be subject to review and appeal procedures pursuant to Chapter 11. Permits issued by PRMD shall be subject to review and appeal procedures pursuant to Chapter 26 or Chapter 1 as determined by director. The revocation of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter shall have the effect of terminating the permit and denying the privileges granted by the permit. Administrative Remedies. This Section is not intended to, and does not, establish any criminal liability. This Section provides administrative remedies for any violation of this Section related to all cannabis uses. A violation of this Section shall be subject to all civil enforcement and abatement methods, including the administrative procedure set forth in Section 1-7.3 of the County Code. The remedies provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 1. Administrative Citations. In addition to all other legal remedies, criminal or civil, which may be pursued by the county to address any violation of the County Code, this subsection provides for administrative citations, in the following amounts, adopted pursuant to the authority conferred by the Government Code, including Section 53069.4. Violations of any provision of the County Code, permit, license or approvals are subject to administrative citation. Each act, omission, or condition may be cited as a separate violation and each violation that continues, exists, or occurs on more than one day may constitute a separate violation on each day, at the discretion of the agency having jurisdiction. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 731 Cannabis Administrative Citation Schedule Violation First Offense Second Offense Third Offense Exceedance of Allowed or Permitted Cultivation Area $20 per square foot $30 per square foot $50 per square foot Non-compliance with a Standard or Condition $1,000 $5,000 $10,000 Unpermitted Cannabis Use other than cultivation area $10,000 $25,000 $50,000 2. Civil Penalties. In addition to any and all other costs, fees, penalties and expenses which may be assessed or imposed as a result of violation of this Chapter, any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be liable and responsible for, and shall pay to the County the following penalties, as determined by the agency having jurisdiction. i. For each unpermitted cannabis use, no more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the first violation; no more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for the second violation within two (2) years; and no more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the third violation within three (3) years. ii. No more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for the first violation; no more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per day for a second violation within two (2) years; and no more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per day for each additional violation within two (2) years for each day that the violation exists after the date of mailing or hand delivery of a notice of violation or a notice and order through to its abatement by whatever means; or iii. No more than twenty dollars ($20) per square foot of cultivation or cannabis use area for the first offense; no more than thirty dollars ($30) per square foot of the cultivation or cannabis use area for the second offense; and no more than fifty dollars ($50) per square foot of the cultivation or cannabis use area for the third offense. iv. In the event that the use or structure in violation may be permitted with an appropriate permit up to a maximum of fifty (50) times the amount of the standard fee for every required approval, review and permit. v. The penalty shall be imposed via the administrative process set forth in this Section, as provided in Government Code section 53069.4, or may be imposed by the court, if the violation requires court enforcement without an April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 732 administrative process. Acts, omissions, or conditions in violation of this Section that continue, exist, or occur on more than one day constitute separate violations on each day. 3. Three Strikes Penalty. Upon receipt of any combination of three (3) administrative citations, verified violations, or hearing officer determinations of violation of any of the permit requirements or standards issued to the owner or operator at any property or combination of properties of the same owner or operator within a two-year period, the permit for a cannabis operation is hereby automatically nullified, voided or revoked, subject to prior notice and to appeal. Appeals shall be filed within ten (10) days of the notice of revocation. Upon revocation, an application to reestablish a cannabis operation at the subject property shall not be accepted for a minimum period of two (2) years. 4. Liens. W henever the amount of any civil penalty imposed pursuant to this Section has not been satisfied in full within ninety days and has not been timely appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with Government Code section 53069.4, subdivision (b), or if appealed, such appeal has been dismissed or denied, this obligation may be enforced as a lien against the real property on which the violation occurred. i. The lien provided herein shall have no force and effect until recorded with the County Recorder. Once recorded, the administrative order shall have the force and effect and priority of a judgment lien governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 697.340, and may be extended as provided in Code of Civil Procedure sections 683.110 to 683.220, inclusive. ii. Interest shall accrue on the principal amount of the lien remaining unsatisfied pursuant to the law applicable to civil money judgments. iii. Prior to recording any such lien, the agency having jurisdiction shall prepare and file with the clerk of the board of supervisors a report stating the amounts due and owing. iv. The clerk of the board of supervisors will fix a time, date, and place for the board of supervisors to consider the report and any protests or objections to it. The clerk of the board of supervisors shall serve the owner of the property with a hearing notice not less than ten days before the hearing date. The notice must set forth the amount of the delinquent administrative penalty that is due. Notice must be delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner at the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll or as April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 733 otherwise known. Service by mail is effective on the date of mailing and failure of owner to actually receive notice does not affect its validity. v. Any person whose real property is subject to a lien pursuant to this Section may file a written protest with the clerk of the board of supervisors and/or may protest orally at the board of supervisors meeting. Each written protest or objection must contain a description of the property in which the protesting party is interested and the grounds of such protest or objection. vi. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of supervisors will adopt a resolution confirming, discharging, or modifying the lien amount. vii. Within thirty days following the board of supervisors' adoption of a resolution imposing a lien, the agency having jurisdiction will file same as a judgment lien in the Sonoma County Recorder's Office. viii. Once the county receives full payment for outstanding principal, penalties, and costs, the clerk of the board of supervisors will either record a notice of satisfaction or provide the owner with a notice of satisfaction for recordation at the Sonoma County Recorder's Office. This notice of satisfaction will cancel the county's lien under this section. ix. The lien may be foreclosed and the real property sold, by the filing of a complaint for foreclosure in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the issuance of a judgment to foreclose. There shall be no right to trial by jury. The county shall be entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs. 5. Removal of Violation. The penalties imposed by this Section may not apply if the agency having jurisdiction establishes that within five (5) days after the date of mailing or hand delivery of notice of the existence of the violation, the person removed from the property the cannabis, the cannabis equipment, the use, or structure which constituted that violation. 6. Liability for Costs and Fees. In any enforcement action brought pursuant to this Section, whether by administrative or judicial proceedings, each person who causes, permits, suffers, or maintains the unlawful cannabis use shall be liable for all costs incurred by the County, including, but not limited to, administrative costs, and any and all costs incurred to undertake, or to cause or compel any responsible person to undertake, any abatement action in compliance with the requirements of this Section. In any action by the agency having jurisdiction to abate unlawful cannabis uses under April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 734 this Section, whether by administrative or judicial proceedings, the prevailing party shall be entitled to a recovery of the reasonable attorney's fees incurred. Recovery of attorneys' fees under this subdivision shall be limited to those actions or proceedings in which the County elects, at the initiation of that action or proceeding, to seek recovery of its own attorney's fees. In no action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the County in the action or proceeding. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 735 26-88-254 Cannabis Cultivation – Commercial Medical (a) Purpose. This section establishes development criteria and operating standards for commercial medical cannabis cultivation activities as allowed by the base zone in compliance with Section 26-88-250 Commercial Medical Cannabis Uses. (b) Applicability. This section shall apply to all commercial medical cannabis cultivation activities, including but not limited to, outdoor, indoor and mixed light or greenhouse environments and associated drying, curing, grading, and trimming facilities. Medical cannabis cultivation does not include operations that manufacture cannabis products such as oils, tinctures, or edibles which are classified separately. Commercial medical cannabis cultivation operations shall comply with the following development criteria and operating standards in addition to the requirements of Section 26-88-250 Commercial Medical Cannabis Uses. (c) Permit Requirements. Commercial medical cannabis cultivation shall be subject to the land use permit requirements as shown in Table 1A-D Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements. Zoning permits for outdoor cultivation areas shall be issued by the Agricultural Commissioner. Zoning permits and use permits for all other cultivation activities shall be issued by PRMD. New structures, roads, and fences or conversion of existing structures or containers to cannabis cultivation shall be subject to design review. (d) Limitations on Use. All cultivation shall be conducted and maintained in compliance with this Section and the Best Management Practices for Cannabis Cultivation issued by the Agricultural Commissioner. The Agricultural Commissioner shall determine the applicable best management practices and shall enforce the provisions of this section for outdoor cultivation areas and management of pesticides and fertilizers for all cultivation types. All structures used in cultivation shall be subject to permits issued by the Permit and Resource Management Department and other agencies having jurisdiction and shall be conducted and maintained in compliance with this Chapter. (e) Multiple Permits. Multiple cultivation permits may be issued to a single person or entity as defined herein, provided that the total combined cultivation area within the County does not exceed one acre. Any natural person who owns or controls any interest, directly or indirectly, in a firm, partnership, joint venture, association, cooperative, collective, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, shall be collectively considered a single person for the purposes of this standard. (f) Development Criteria. (1) Number of Facilities. No more than one cultivation use/operator may be approved per contiguous parcel ownership, except in the agricultural, and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 736 industrial zones. In the agricultural and industrial zones, multiple zoning permits may be issued for multi-tenant operations on a single parcel provided that the minimum parcel size is met for the total combined cultivation area and the total combined cultivation area does not exceed the maximum area allowed for the type of cultivation in compliance with Table 1A-D Allowed Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements (i.e. Outdoor maximum is 43,560 sf; Indoor/Mixed Light maximum is 22,000 sf). (2) Square Footage Limitations. The total combined square footage of the cultivation area shall not exceed the maximum size thresholds as defined in Table 1A-D Allowable Cannabis Uses and Permit Requirements which provides the maximum size per parcel. Structures and areas where cannabis is processed, dried, aged, stored, trimmed, packaged or weighed and areas were equipment is stored and washed shall be limited to the on-site cultivation use only. No cannabis nursery shall exceed one acre in size for outdoor or 22,000 square feet for indoor. (3) Property Setbacks- Outdoor. Outdoor cultivation areas and all associated structures shall not be located in the front yard setback area and shall be screened from public view. Outdoor cultivation areas shall not be visible from a public right of way. Outdoor cultivation areas shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from property lines and a minimum of 300 feet from occupied residences and businesses on surrounding properties. Outdoor cultivation sites and greenhouses/ mixed light structures shall be setback a minimum of 1,000 feet from a school providing education to K-12 grades, a public park, childcare center, or an alcohol or drug treatment facility. The distance shall be measured in a straight line from the property line of the protected site to the closest property line of the parcel with the cannabis cultivation use. (4) Property Setbacks- Indoor. All structures used for indoor cultivation and all structures used for drying, curing, grading or trimming and all indoor cultivation structures shall comply with the setbacks for the base zone and any applicable combining zone. Structures associated with the cultivation shall not be located in the front yard setback area and shall be screened from public view. There shall be no exterior evidence of cultivation either within or outside the structure. (5) Property Setbacks- Mixed Light/Greenhouse. Mixed light structures shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from property lines and a minimum of 300 feet from occupied residences and businesses on surrounding properties in agricultural and resource zones. Mixed Light/greenhouses in industrial zones shall be setback 300 feet from occupied residences on surrounding properties. Greenhouses/mixed light structures in all zones shall be setback a minimum of 1,000 feet from a school providing education to K-12 grades, a public park, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 737 childcare center, or an alcohol or drug treatment facility. The distance shall be measured in a straight line from the property line of the protected site to the closest property line of the parcel with the cannabis cultivation use. (6) Airport Compatibility. All cannabis operations shall comply with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. (7) Building Requirements. All structures used in commercial cultivation, including greenhouses require a building permit and shall comply with all applicable sections of the County Code. Cultivation uses that provide access to the public including, but not limited to, employees, vendors, contractors, business partners, members, customers or patients shall meet County Code requirements for accessibility including accessible parking, accessible path of travel, restrooms, and washing facilities. (8) Biotic Resources. Proposed cultivation operations, including all associated structures, shall require a biotic assessment at the time of application that demonstrates that the project is not located within, and will not impact sensitive or special status species habitat, unless a use permit is obtained. Any proposed cultivation operation, including all associated structures, located within adopted federal critical habitat areas must have either all appropriate permits from the applicable state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over the listed species, or a biotic assessment concluding that the project will not result in “take” of a protected wildlife species within the meaning of either the federal or California Endangered Species Acts. There shall be no tree removal or timber conversions to accommodate cultivation sites, unless a use permit is obtained. Outdoor cultivation areas and related processing structures shall be located outside the Riparian Corridor Stream Conservation Areas (RC combining zone) and outside any designated Biotic Habitat area (BH combining zone). Outdoor cultivation areas shall conform to the agricultural Riparian Corridor setback set forth in Section 26-65-040. Proposed cultivation operations shall comply with the wetland setbacks set forth in Section 11-16-150, unless a use permit is obtained. (9) Cultural and Historic Resources. Cultivation sites shall avoid impacts to significant cultural and historic resources by complying with the following standards. Sites located within a Historic District shall be subject to review by the Landmarks Commission, unless otherwise exempt, consistent with Section 26-68-020. Cultivation operations 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 review and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 738 referral to the Northwest Information Center and local tribes for consultation. A cultural resource survey and on-site monitor during ground disturbing activities may be required to demonstrate cultural and historic resources are protected. The following minimum standards shall apply to cultivation permits involving ground disturbance. All grading and building permits shall include the following notes on the plans: If paleontological resources or prehistoric, historic-period or tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing work at the project location, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be halted and the operator must immediately notify the agency having jurisdiction of the find. The operator shall be responsible for the cost to have a qualified paleontologist, archaeologist and tribal cultural resource specialist under contract to evaluate the find and make recommendations in a report to the agency having jurisdiction. Paleontological resources include fossils of animals, plants or other organisms. Historic-period resources include backfilled privies, wells, and refuse pits; concrete, stone, or wood structural elements or foundations; and concentrations of metal, glass, and ceramic refuse. Prehistoric and tribal cultural resources include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers), midden (culturally darkened soil containing heat-affected rock, artifacts, animal bone, or shellfish remains), stone milling equipment, such as mortars and pestles, and certain sites features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. If human remains are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity will stop and the operator shall notify the agency having jurisdiction and the Sonoma County Coroner immediately. At the same time, the operator shall be responsible for the cost to have a qualified archaeologist under contract to evaluate the discovery. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. (10) Farmland Protection. Where a commercial cultivation site is located within an Agricultural Zone (LIA, LEA, DA), the primary use of the parcel shall remain in agricultural use pursuant to General Plan Policy AR-4a. Indoor and mixed light cultivation facilities shall not remove agricultural production within Important Farmlands, including Prime, Unique and Farmlands of Statewide Importance as designated by the state Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, but may offset by relocating agricultural production on a 1:1 ratio. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 739 If the facility is located on a site under a Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) contract, the use must be listed as a compatible use in the Sonoma County Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones, and allowed by the type of contract and approved Land Conservation Plan. An application for modification of the contract and Land Conservation Plan may be required. (11) Fire Code Requirements. The operator shall prepare and implement a Fire Prevention Plan for construction and ongoing operations and obtain an Operational Permit from the Fire and Emergency Services Department. The Fire Prevention Plan shall include, but not be limited to: emergency vehicle access and turn-around at the facility site(s), vegetation management and fire break maintenance around all structures. (12) Grading and Access. Cultivation sites shall be prohibited on natural slopes steeper than 15 percent, as defined by County Code Chapter 11 section 16-020, unless a use permit is obtained. Grading shall be subject to a grading permit in compliance with Chapter 11 of the County Code. (13) Hazardous Materials Sites. No cannabis operation shall be sited on a parcel listed as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, unless a use permit is required. (14) Lighting. All lighting shall be fully shielded, downward casting and not spill over onto structures, other properties or the night sky. All indoor and mixed light operations shall be fully contained so that little to no light escapes. Light shall not escape at a level that is visible from neighboring properties between sunset and sunrise. (15) Runoff and Stormwater Control. Runoff containing sediment or other waste or by-products shall not be allowed to drain to the storm drain system, waterways, or adjacent lands. Prior to beginning grading or construction, the operator shall prepare and implement a storm water management plan and an erosion and sediment control plan, approved by the agency having jurisdiction. The plan must include best management practices for erosion control during and after construction and permanent drainage and erosion control measures pursuant to Chapter 11 of the County Code. All cultivation operators shall comply with the best management practices for Cannabis Cultivation issued by the Agricultural Commissioner for management of wastes, water, erosion control and management of fertilizers and pesticides. (16) Security and Fencing. A Site Security Plan shall be required subject to review and approval by the Permit and Resource Management Department. All Site April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 740 Security Plans shall be held in a confidential file, exempt from disclosure as a public record pursuant to Government Code Section 6255(a). Security cameras shall be motion-sensor and be installed with capability to record activity beneath the canopy but shall not be visible from surrounding parcels and shall not be pointed at or recording activity on surrounding parcels. Surveillance video shall be kept for a minimum of 30 days. Video must use standard industry format to support criminal investigations. Motion-sensor lighting and alarms shall be installed to insure the safety of persons and to protect the premises from theft. All outdoor and mixed light cultivation sites shall be screened by native, fire resistant vegetation and fenced with locking gates consistent with height limitations of Section 26-88-030. Fencing shall be consistent with the surrounding area and shall not diminish the visual quality of the site or surrounding area. Razor wire and similar fencing is discouraged and shall not be permitted. Weapons and firearms at the cultivation site are prohibited. Security measures shall be designed to ensure emergency access in compliance with fire safe standards. All structures used for cultivation shall have locking doors to prevent free access. (g) Operating Standards. (1) Compliance Inspections. All cultivation sites shall be subject to on-site compliance inspections by agencies having jurisdiction. The inspection shall be conducted during regular business hours, with at least 24-hours’ notice. (2) Air Quality and Odor. All indoor, greenhouse and mixed light cultivation operations and any drying, aging, trimming and packing facilities shall be equipped with odor control filtration and ventilation system(s) to control odors humidity, and mold. All cultivation sites shall utilize dust control measures on access roads and all ground disturbing activities. (3) Energy Use. Electrical power for indoor cultivation and mixed light operations including but not limited to illumination, heating, cooling, and ventilation, shall be provided by any combination of the following: (i) on-grid power with 100% renewable source; (ii) on-site zero net energy renewable source; or (iii) purchase of carbon offsets of any portion of power not from renewable sources. The use of generators for indoor and mixed light cultivation is prohibited, except for portable temporary use in emergencies only. (4) Hazardous Materials. All cultivation operations that utilize hazardous materials shall comply with applicable hazardous waste generator, underground storage tank, above ground storage tanks and AB 185 (hazardous materials handling) requirements and maintain any applicable permits for these programs from the Fire Prevention Division, Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) of Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services Department or Agricultural Commissioner. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 741 (5) Hours or Operation. Outdoor harvesting activities and indoor or mixed light cultivation activities may be conducted seven days a week, 24-hours per day as needed. Deliveries and shipping, and outdoor processing activities including drying and trimming, shall be limited to the hours from 8 am to 5 pm, unless a use permit is obtained. (6) Noise Limits. Cultivation operations shall not exceed the General Plan Noise Standards Table NE-2, measured in accordance with the Sonoma County Noise Guidelines. (7) Occupational Safety. Cultivators shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing California Agricultural Employers, which may include: federal and state wage and hour laws, CAL/OSHA, OSHA and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. (8) Waste Management. A Waste Management Plan addressing the storing, handling and disposing of all waste by-products of the cultivation and processing activities in compliance with the Best Management Practices issued by the Agricultural Commissioner shall be submitted for review and approval by the agency having jurisdiction. This plan shall characterize the volumes and types of waste generated, and the operational measures that are proposed to manage and dispose, or reuse the wastes in compliance with Best Management Practices and County standards. All garbage and refuse on this site shall be accumulated or stored in non- absorbent, water-tight, vector resistant, durable, easily cleanable, galvanized metal or heavy plastic containers with tight fitting lids. No refuse container shall be filled beyond the capacity to completely close the lid. All garbage and refuse on this site shall not be accumulated or stored for more than seven calendar days, and shall be properly disposed of before the end of the seventh day in a manner prescribed by the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency. All waste, including but not limited to refuse, garbage, green waste and recyclables, must be disposed of in accordance with local and state codes, laws and regulations. All waste generated from cannabis operations must be properly stored and secured to prevent access from the public. (9) Waste Water Discharge. A waste water management plan shall be submitted identifying the amount of waste water, excess irrigation and domestic wastewater anticipated, as well as disposal. All cultivation operations shall comply with the Best Management Practices issued by the Agricultural Commissioner and shall submit verification of compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, or waiver thereof. Excess April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 742 irrigation water or effluent from cultivation activities shall be directed to a sanitary sewer, septic, irrigation, greywater or bio-retention treatment systems. If discharging to a septic system, a system capacity evaluation by a qualified sanitary engineer shall be included in the management plan. All domestic waste for employees shall be disposed of in a permanent sanitary sewer or on-site septic system demonstrated to have adequate capacity. (10) Water Supply. An on-site water supply source adequate to meet all on site uses on a sustainable basis shall be provided. Trucked water shall not be allowed, except as noted below and for emergencies requiring immediate action as determined by the director. The onsite water supply shall be considered adequate with documentation of any one of the following sources: a. Municipal Water: The public water supplier providing water service to the site has adequate supplies to serve the proposed use. b. Recycled Water: The use of recycled process wastewater from an onsite use or connection to a municipal recycled water supply for the cultivation use, provided that an adequate on-site water supply is available for employees and other uses. c. Surface Water: An existing legal water right and, if applicable, a Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by California Fish and Wildlife. d. W ell Water: 1. The site is located in Groundwater Availability Zone 1, 2 or 3 and not within an area for which a Groundwater Management Plan has been adopted or within a high or medium priority basin as defined by the State Department of Water Resources; or 2. Within Groundwater Availability Zone 4 or area for which a Groundwater Management Plan has been adopted or designated high or medium priority basin, the proposed use would: a. The proposed use would not result in a net increase in water use on site through implementation of water conservation measures, rainwater catchment or recycled water reuse system, water recharge project, or participation in a local groundwater management project; or b. Trucked recycled water may be considered for the cultivation area with a use permit, provided that adequate on-site water supplies are available for employees and other uses: or April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 743 c. A qualified professional prepares a hydro-geologic report acceptable to the review authority providing supporting data and analysis and certifying that the onsite groundwater supply is adequate to meet the proposed uses and cumulative projected land uses in the area on a sustained basis, and that the operation will not: i. result in or exacerbate an overdraft condition in basin or aquifer; ii. result in reduction of critical flow in nearby streams; or iii. result in well interference at offsite wells. (11) Groundwater Monitoring: Water wells used for cultivation shall be equipped with a meter and sounding tube or other water level sounding device and marked with a measuring reference point. Water meters shall be calibrated at least once every five years. Static water level and total quantity of water pumped shall be recorded quarterly and reported annually. Static water level is the depth from ground level to the well water level when the pump is not operating after being turned off. Static water level shall be measured by turning the pump off at the end of the working day and recording the water level at the beginning of the following day before turning the pump back on. Groundwater monitoring reports shall be submitted annually to the Permit and Resource Management Department, Project Review Division by January 31 of each year. The annual report shall show a cumulative hydrograph of static water levels and the total quarterly quantities of water pumped from well(s) used in processing. (12) Groundwater Monitoring Easement: Prior to the issuance of any permit an Easement is required to be recorded for this project to provide Sonoma County personnel access to any on-site water well serving this project and any required monitoring well to collect water meter readings and groundwater level measurements. Access shall be granted Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All Easement language is subject to review and approval by PRMD Project Review staff and County Counsel prior to recordation. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 744 Board of Supervisors, Dec 20, 2016 Exhibit A-3 Dispensary Regulations Sec. 26-88-256. - Medical cannabis dispensary uses. (a) Purpose. This section provides the location and operational standards for any medical cannabis dispensary within the unincorporated county in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents and businesses. (b) Applicability. Medical cannabis dispensaries shall be permitted only in compliance with the requirements of this section, and all other applicable requirements of the underlying zoning district. (c) Permit Requirements. A use permit issued in compliance with Sections 26-92-070 and 26-92-080 shall be required for any medical cannabis dispensary. Medical cannabis dispensaries shall also be subject to permit requirements and regulations established by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services. Additionally, medical cannabis dispensaries must comply with all other applicable building codes and requirements, including accessibility requirements. (d) Limit on Number of Dispensaries. No more than nine (9) medical cannabis dispensaries shall be permitted within the unincorporated county at any one time. (e) Compliance with Operating Plan and Conditions Required. A medical cannabis dispensary shall submit, as a part of the use permit application, an operating plan that specifies the manner in which operations will be handled and security provided, and which details the number of employees, number of patients, hours and days of operation allowed and approved. The operating plan shall provide that the dispensary shall require, at a minimum, a doctor’s written recommendation in compliance with state law, as well as a photo identification for any person entering the site. Any medical cannabis dispensary approved under this section shall be operated in conformance with the approved operating plan and shall meet any specific, additional operating procedures and measures as may be imposed as conditions of approval to ensure that the operation of the dispensary is consistent with protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community, qualified patients, and primary caregivers, and will not adversely affect surrounding uses. (f) Limited Term. Use permits for medical cannabis dispensaries shall be limited-term, and shall be issued for a maximum period of one year. (g) Exercise and Renewal of Permit. Use permits for medical cannabis dispensaries shall be exercised only by the applicant and shall expire upon termination of the business for which it was issued, or upon sale or transfer of ownership of the medical cannabis dispensary. All use permits issued for a medical cannabis dispensary shall include the following provision: "This use permit shall expire upon change of tenancy or sale or transfer of the business or property." Any use permit that is abandoned for a period of six (6) months shall automatically expire, and shall become null and void with no further April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 745 action required on the part of the county. A use permit renewal may be administratively approved by the planning director only if all of the following findings are made: (1) The use has been conducted in accordance with this section, with the dispensary’s approved operating plan, and with all applicable use permit conditions of approval; (2) The business for which the use permit was approved has not been transferred to another owner or operator; (3) There are no outstanding violations of health, safety, or land use. (h) Revocation or Modification. A use permit approved under this section may be revoked or modified at any time following public hearing in accordance with Section 26-92-120. (i) Signed Affidavit. The property owner and applicant, if other than the property owner, shall sign the application for the use permit, and shall include affidavits agreeing to abide by and conform to the conditions of the use permit and all provisions of the Sonoma County Code pertaining to the establishment and operation of the medical cannabis dispensary use, including, but not limited to, the provisions of this section. The affidavit(s) shall acknowledge that the approval of the medical cannabis dispensary use permit shall in no way permit any activity contrary to the Sonoma County Code, or any activity which is in violation of any applicable laws. (j) Location Requirements. (1) A medical cannabis dispensary shall not be established on any parcel containing a dwelling unit used as a residence, nor within one hundred feet (100′) of a residential zoning district. (2) A medical cannabis dispensary shall not be established within one thousand feet (1,000’) of any other medical cannabis dispensary, nor within five hundred feet (500′) from a smoke shop or similar facility selling drug paraphernalia. (3) A medical cannabis dispensary shall not be established within one thousand feet (1,000’) from any public or private school, park, childcare center, drug or alcohol treatment facility. (4) Notwithstanding, the subsections (j)(1)—(2) may be waived by the decision-maker when the applicant can show that an actual physical separation exists between land uses or parcels such that no off-site impacts could occur. (5) A medical cannabis dispensary proposed within the sphere of influence of a city will be referred to the appropriate city for consultation. (k) Operating Standards. The following are the minimum development criteria and operational standards applicable to any medical cannabis dispensary use: (1) The building in which the dispensary is located shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal rules, regulations, and laws including, but not limited to, building codes and accessibility requirements; (2) The dispensary shall provide adequate security on the premises, including lighting and alarms, to insure the safety of persons and to protect the premises from theft. The applicant shall submit a security plan for review and approval by PRMD. The Security Plan shall remain confidential. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 746 (3) The site plan, circulation, parking, lighting, facility exterior, and any signage shall be subject to design review committee review and approval. The planning director may waive this requirement where the applicant can demonstrate that existing facilities, including parking, lighting and landscaping, already meet the requirements of this section; (4) No exterior signage or symbols shall be displayed which advertises the availability of cannabis, nor shall any such signage or symbols be displayed on the interior of the facility in such a way as to be visible from the exterior; (5) No person shall be allowed onto the premises unless they are an employee, vendor or contractor of the dispensary, a primary caregiver, and/or a qualified patient or an employee of an agency having jurisdiction monitoring or investigating the terms of regulatory compliance. If the dispensary denies entry for monitoring and inspection to any employee of an agency having jurisdiction, the dispensary may be closed. In strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. no person under the age of eighteen (18) shall be allowed on the dispensary site. All persons entering the site shall present a photo identification and shall establish proof of doctor’s recommendation except as representing a regulatory agency. The operating plan submitted as a part of the use permit application shall specify how this provision will be complied with and enforced; (6) No dispensary shall hold or maintain a license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to sell alcoholic beverages, or operate a business that sells alcoholic beverages. No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed or consumed on the premises; (7) An exhaust and ventilation system shall be utilized to prevent off-site odors; (8) No dispensary shall conduct or engage in the commercial sale of any product, good or service unless otherwise approved by the use permit. A dispensary may sell live starter plants, clones and seeds from qualified nurseries, but shall not cultivate or clone cannabis. A dispensary may sell manufactured cannabis, including edible products, and vaporizing devices if allowed by a permit issued by the Department of Health Services. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the floor area, up to a maximum of fifty (50) square feet may be devoted to the sale of incidental goods for personal cultivation but shall not include clothing, posters or other promotional items. (9) No cannabis shall be smoked, ingested or otherwise consumed on the premises. The term "premises" includes the actual building, as well as any accessory structures, parking areas, or other immediate surroundings. (10) No dispensary may increase in size without amending the use permit. The size limitation shall be included in the operational plan required by 26-88-126(e), of this section; (11) Parking must meet the requirements of Section 26-86-010. (12) Operating days and hours shall be limited to Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., including deliveries, or as otherwise allowed by the use permit. Operating hours may be further restricted through the use permit process where needed to provide land use compatibility. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 747 (13) Medical cannabis delivery services may only be allowed with a dispensary use permit. (Ord. No. 5967, § I, 1-31-2012; Ord. No. 5748 § 2, 2007; Ord. No. 5715 § 2, 2007.) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 748 Board of Supervisors, Dec 20, 2016 Exhibit A-4 Cannabis Personal Use Standards Section 26-88-258 Cannabis Cultivation – Personal (a) Purpose. This section establishes development criteria and operating standards for personal cannabis cultivation for medical or adult use. Cultivation of cannabis for personal use shall be subject to the following standards and limitations as allowed in the base zone in compliance with Section 26-88-250. These standards shall apply to any cannabis growing environment including, but not limited to, outdoor, mixed light/greenhouse or indoor environments. 1) Residency Requirement. Cultivation of cannabis for personal use is limited to parcels with a residence and a full-time resident on the premises where the cultivation is occurring. 2) Maximum Personal Cultivation. Cultivation of cannabis for personal use is limited to no more than 100 square feet per residence, of which up to 6 plants can be cultivated for adult use purposes. 3) Prohibition of Volatile Solvents. The use of volatile solvents as defined herein to manufacture cannabis products is prohibited. 4) Outdoor Personal Cultivation. Cannabis plants shall not be located in front and side yard setback areas and shall not be visible from a public right of way. Outdoor cannabis cultivation is prohibited on parcels with multi-family units or in the medium and high density residential zones (R2 and R3). 5) Indoor and Mixed-Light Personal Cultivation. i. Indoor and mixed light personal cultivation must be contained within an enclosed accessory structure, greenhouse or garage. Cultivation within a structure approved for residential use as set forth in Chapter 7 of the County Code is prohibited, unless there is no other feasible alternative location. ii. All structures (including greenhouses) used for cultivation must be legally constructed with all applicable permits such as grading, building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing. iii. All structures associated with the cultivation shall not be located in the front yard setback area and shall adhere to the setbacks stated within the base zone. There shall be no exterior evidence of cannabis cultivation. Greenhouses shall be screened from the public right of way. iv. All structures used for cultivation shall have locking doors or gates to prevent free access. All cultivation structures shall be equipped with odor control April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 749 filtration and ventilation systems adequate to prevent an odor, humidity, or mold. v. Light systems shall be fully shielded, including adequate coverings on windows, so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. vi. The use of generators is prohibited, except as emergency back-up systems. vii. All cultivation operators shall comply with the Best Management Practices for Cannabis Cultivation issued by the Agricultural Commissioner for management of wastes, water, erosion control and management of fertilizers and pesticides. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 750 BUREAU OF MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION PROPOSITION 64 FAQ s April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 751 2 On November 8, 2016, a majority of California voters approved Proposition 64, which decriminalizes the cultivation, possession, and use of cannabis for nonmedical purposes. Some quick facts about the initiative: • The Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation is renamed the Bureau of Marijuana Control. • Cities and counties maintain local control. • Persons 21 and over may possess and cultivate specific amounts of cannabis for personal use as of November 9, 2016. • Persons 21 and over may purchase nonmedical cannabis when licensing authorities have enacted regulations and have a framework in place. Licensing will begin in January of 2018. • All taxes collected are placed in the Marijuana Tax Fund. Contact the following Department for questions regarding: Retailers, distributors, and microbusinesses bmcr@dca.ca.gov (800) 952-5210 Cultivation CDFA.MCCP@cdfa.ca.gov (916) 263-0801 Manufacturing and testing omcs@cdph.ca.gov (916) 558-1784 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 752 3 1. WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE INITIATIVE, CAN ANY ADULT 21 AND OVER WALK INTO A DISPENSARY AFTER NOVEMBER 9, 2016, AND PURCHASE CANNABIS? No. Dispensaries will only be licensed to sell medical cannabis, and will be prohibited from selling non-medical cannabis to individuals without a doctor’s recommendation. The initiative calls for licensing authorities to begin accepting applications and issuing licenses in January 2018, at which point any adult 21 and over may purchase non-medical cannabis. The Bureau of Marijuana Control is responsible for licensing dispensaries under the initiative. 2. WILL THE STATE BE ABLE TO MEET THE JANUARY 1, 2018, LICENSING DEADLINE? The agencies involved are taking appropriate action to meet the deadlines and requirements imposed by the initiative. The basic priorities under the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) regarding public and environmental safety remain the same under the initiative. 3. WILL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO SMOKE NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS ANYWHERE? No. The initiative prohibits consumption of cannabis in a public place unlicensed for such use, including near K-12 schools, on sidewalks, and other areas where children are present. 4. CAN PEOPLE EXPECT TO HAVE THEIR CRIMINAL RECORDS CHANGED? The purpose and intent of this section of the initiative indicates that it seeks to “[a]uthorize courts to resentence persons who are currently serving a sentence for offenses for which the penalty is reduced by the act, so long as the person does not pose a risk to public safety, and to redesignate or dismiss such offenses from the criminal records of persons who have completed their sentences as set forth in this act.” April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 753 4 Health and Safety Code Section 11361.8(a) states that “[a] person currently serving a sentence for a conviction, whether by trial or by open or negotiated plea, who would not have been guilty of an offense, or who would have been guilty of a lesser offense under the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act had that act been in effect at the time of the offense may petition for a recall or dismissal of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case to request resentencing or dismissal in accordance with Business and Professions Code Sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11362.1, 11362.2, 11362.3, and 11362.4 as those sections have been amended or added by that act.” 5. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA WILL BE ALLOWING AND REGULATING SOMETHING THAT IS STILL ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW? Although the federal government issued a memorandum in 2013 that outlined the Obama Administration’s expectations for state and local governments that enact cannabis related laws, we cannot predict whether or how that guidance might change in the future. 6. HOW WILL THE TRACK AND TRACE PROGRAM WORK FOR NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS? The California Department of Food and Agriculture will establish the track-and-trace program for medical cannabis and nonmedical cannabis. Track and trace will operate similar to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) requirements. This means the movement of cannabis and cannabis products will be documented throughout the supply chain from cultivation to sale. The system will ensure that if public safety concerns arise, the source can be quickly identified. Additionally, track and trace will be a tool to prevent product grown outside the legal framework from entering the regulated market and regulated product from being diverted to the black market. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 754 5 7. WILL MY MEDICAL CULTIVATION LICENSE WORK FOR NON-MEDICAL GROWS? No. Medical cultivation licenses are not valid for producing nonmedical product. However, a licensed medical cultivator could also obtain a nonmedical cultivation license under Business and Professions Code Section 26053, provided the site meets all the requirements for both the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA) and the initiative. The California Department of Food and Agriculture is responsible for licensing cultivators under the initiative. 8. WILL THERE BE DIFFERENCES ON HOW TO GROW CANNABIS FOR MEDICAL VERSUS NON-MEDICAL? The California Department of Food and Agriculture is responsible for licensing cultivators under the initiative. Cultivation requirements will generally remain the same for growing cannabis both for medical or nonmedical use. Cannabis products offered for sale will need to be clearly differentiated as medical or nonmedical. 9. WILL THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD PROGRAM GO AWAY? Although Proposition 64 amends some statutory provisions governing the Medical Marijuana Identification Card (MMIC) program, it does not abolish it. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will continue to print identification cards and maintain a registry database for verification of qualified patients and their primary caregivers. 10. WHO REGULATES EDIBLES? (NOT CONSIDERED A FOOD OR A DRUG, PER H&S CODE 109935) The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is responsible for regulating the manufacturers of cannabis-infused edibles for both medical and non-medical use. 11. HOW WILL NON-MEDICAL CANNABIS BE KEPT AWAY FROM KIDS? The initiative includes provisions designed to help keep cannabis away from children, including, but not limited to, marketing restrictions, school buffer zones, child-resistant packaging, and warning labels. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 755 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 756 7 12. WHAT STEPS WILL THE LICENSING AUTHORITIES TAKE TO IMPLEMENT PROPOSITION 64? The licensing authorities are closely analyzing the initiative as passed to determine how best to regulate both medical and nonmedical use in an expeditious and efficient manner. Proposition 64 requires implementation through California’s regulatory process. The licensing authorities intend to take a similar approach with the initiative by involving stakeholders and the public in the regulatory process. 13. HOW WILL PUBLIC SAFETY BE PROTECTED? Just as with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), licensing authorities will develop regulations for nonmedical use with public safety as a priority. The regulatory program will include licensing requirements and an enforcement component. 14. HOW WILL THE REGULATIONS FOR NON-MEDICAL USE DIFFER FROM REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS? All related regulations will be based on the language of that initiative. At the same time, the basic priorities regarding public safety, safe products, and environmental safety remain the same. 15. WHAT HAPPENS TO LICENSE FEES? Licensing fees will be deposited in each licensing authority’s account in the Marijuana Control Fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, each licensing authority will use the fees it has collected to perform the licensing authority’s duties under the act. April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 757 PDE_17-015 BUREAU OF MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION P.O. Box 138200 Sacramento, CA 95813-8200 E-mail: bmcr@dca.ca.gov www.bmcr.ca.gov April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 758 The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing branch is preparing to accept applications for cultivation licenses beginning January 1, 2018. Developing regulations to license cultivators of medical and adult-use cannabis Conducting a statewide Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to determine and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation Implementing an online licensing program and a track-and-trace system to record the movement of cannabis through the distribution chain The Three Licensing AuthoritiesWhat CalCannabis Is Working on Now Housed within the Department of Consumer Affairs, the bureau licenses testing labs, transporters, distributors, dispensaries, and microbusinesses. Housed within the Department of Food and Agriculture, CalCannabis licenses cannabis cultivators and establishes a track-and-trace system. Housed within the Department of Public Health, OMCS licenses manufacturers of cannabis products, such as edibles. BUREAU OF MARIJUANA CONTROL OFFICE OF MANUFACTURED CANNABIS SAFETY CALCANNABIS CULTIVATION LICENSING Who Does What DistributionPhaseRegulatingProgramThis graphic illustrates the movement of cannabis and cannabis products through the state agencies responsible for regulating cannabis. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Bureau CalCannabis OMCS 800-952-5210 bmcr@dca.ca.gov bmcr.ca.gov 916-263-0801 calcannabis@cdfa.ca.gov calcannabis.cdfa.ca.gov 916-445-0275 omcs@cdph.ca.gov cdph.ca.gov/programs/ pages/omcs.aspx CULTIVATION CalCannabis MEDICAL & ADULT USE MEDICAL & ADULT USE OMCS MANUFACTURING MEDICAL & ADULT USE Bureau DISTRIBUTION ADULT USE OMCS MEDICAL Bureau TESTING MEDICAL & ADULT USE Bureau DISPENSARY LICENSE REQUIRED FOR MEDICAL ONLY Bureau TRANSPORTATION April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 759 CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing is developing the regulations that will define the cannabis cultivation licensing process, as required by two California state laws. Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program Marijuana Cultivation Program ESTABLISHED BY THE MEDICAL CANNABIS REGULATION AND SAFETY ACT ESTABLISHED BY THE ADULT USE OF MARIJUANA ACT The law went into effect on January 1, 2016. This act establishes a licensing and regulatory framework for the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and sale of medical cannabis in California. California Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was approved by the people of California on November 8, 2016. This act establishes a licensing and regulatory framework for the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of cannabis for use by those aged 21 years or older. For more information, please visit: calcannabis.cdfa.ca.govCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 760 Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana An Analysis of Colorado’s Policy Decisions APRIL 2014 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 761 Acknowledgments CHI staff members contributing to this report: • Sara Schmitt, lead author • Kevin Butcher, lead researcher • Deborah Goeken, lead editor • Brian Clark • Amy Downs • Michele Lueck • Natalie Triedman The Colorado Health Institute thanks the following people for providing insight and information: • Matt Sundeen, Executive Director, Colorado Providers Association • Mason Tvert, Communications Director, Marijuana Policy Project • Mike Van Dyke, Section Chief, Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Our Funders April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 762 Table of Contents 4 Introduction 6 Policy Area One: Regulating the Marketplace 8 Policy Area Two: Limiting Youth Access to Marijuana 9 Policy Area Three: Setting Tax Rates and Targeting the Revenue 10 Graphic: Where the Money Comes From and Where it Goes 12 Policy Area Four: Creating a Structure for Research and Learning 13 Lessons Learned 13 Conclusion 14 Endnotes Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana An Analysis of Colorado’s Policy Decisions April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 763 4 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions Colorado is in the vanguard of an important public health policy shift. Colorado is one of two states with legalized retail marijuana use for adults, and the only state with up-and-running stores. Leaders and policymakers, faced with little more than a year between voter approval and the retail launch date, scrambled to meet an aggressive time frame to create the regulatory structure for the nation’s first legal marijuana marketplace. Rarely do policymakers confront the task of creating new public policy from the ground up. State leaders across Colorado – from the governor’s office to the Department of Revenue to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – teamed with private and academic partners to prepare for the January 1 opening of retail stores. Colorado’s policy work can be placed into four categories: • Regulating the marketplace; • Controlling access to marijuana by those under 21; • Setting tax rates and targeting the revenue; • Creating a structure for research and learning. Decisions ranged across a broad continuum, addressing issues as disparate as product packaging, security requirements and evaluating the potential health impact. Engaging local decision makers was particularly important for Colorado. Introduction Amendment 64 Colorado voters amended the state’s constitution to legalize marijuana on November 6, 2012. Amendment 64 allows: • Residents ages 21 and over to possess, use, grow and transfer one ounce of marijuana or less. • Residents ages 21 and over to grow up to six marijuana plants for personal use in a locked space. • Non-Colorado residents to purchase no more than one-quarter ounce. Retail stores may not collect or record personal information about consumers. The first $40 million in revenues from an excise tax must be dedicated to school construction. Finally, the amendment includes details on state and local regulatory responsibilities. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 764 Colorado Health Institute 5 APRIL 2014 At the same time, the state is grappling with how to enforce the new regulations to ensure public safety. Allocating tax revenues has emerged as one of the toughest issues, with different ideas about how the money should be spent as decision makers try to read the tea leaves from the early months of sales. Colorado’s efforts – both in creating marijuana policy and implementing it – are being closely watched across the nation. Today, more than half the states are considering some change in their laws, either decriminalizing marijuana or legalizing it for medical or recreational use.1 Both proponents and opponents of legalized marijuana are waiting to see how the rollout proceeds here. The public policy actions taken by Colorado will be scrutinized by leaders in other states. Colorado’s experiences in these early days of legalized marijuana offer early lessons. There are many ways to look at the implications of Colorado’s decisions. What will be the impact on individual and public health? How does legalization change the norms and expectations of use around a previously illegal substance? What does it mean for youth? In this brief, the Colorado Health Institute analyzes key policy decisions made so far in Colorado, highlights important issues yet to be addressed and the questions still facing decision makers, and focuses on lessons that can be learned from this earliest adopter state. Map1: Marijuana Laws in the United States, 2014 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 765 6 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions Colorado achieved a relatively smooth retail marijuana rollout, largely because of the groundwork that went into managing its medical marijuana industry.2 Presently, only existing medical marijuana stores are eligible for retail licenses, a strategy ensuring that the first stores to offer retail sales have established infrastructures and experience selling marijuana. The state will expand its licensing on July 1, 2014, awarding retail licenses to new retailers as well as existing medical marijuana outlets. These new stores can begin operating October 1, 2014.3 The Colorado General Assembly passed a law in 2013 creating the regulatory framework for retail sales. The Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division was given licensing and regulatory responsibility for both medical and retail marijuana. Colorado established specific licensing requirements for retail stores based on recommendations from the Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force, expert working groups and public input. The regulations address: • Background checks to prohibit convicted; felons from working in the retail marijuana industry; • License fees; • Store security; • Product labeling and packaging; • Retail marijuana advertising. Approximately 189 retail stores had received a state license as of April 1, with most located in Denver.4 But stores must also gain approval from their local governments, so there are probably fewer actually selling marijuana. Colorado had collected taxes from 83 retail marijuana businesses by the end of February, a number expected to rise.5 POLICY AREA ONE Regulating the Marketplace Washington, the only other state with legalized retail marijuana, has opted to limit the number of licenses, while Colorado has chosen to let the market dictate the number of stores.6 Washington is not expected to have open retail stores until later this year. Local governments across Colorado have adopted ordinances or regulations around business hours, retail locations and limits on the number of shops. Cities can impose additional operating fees, sales taxes or excise taxes and issue other guidelines. Denver, for example, won’t issue retail licenses to outlets other than established medical marijuana shops until 2016.8 Meanwhile, about 90 cities or towns have completely prohibited marijuana establishments, 30 have imposed further regulations or rules and 21 have established moratoriums to give themselves more time to decide.9 Colorado voters continue to weigh in on retail marijuana. Voters in 19 of 19 municipalities have approved ballot questions to impose extra taxes or fees on retail marijuana.10, 11 Federal-State Alignment Marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substance Act. But the U.S. Department of Justice has said the federal government will not intervene in Colorado’s retail marijuana industry, provided that Colorado successfully implements “strong and effective regulatory and enforcement” systems. Those systems should protect against a variety of federal concerns, including increased access by youth, out- of-state trafficking of marijuana, drugged driving and a more robust underground marijuana market.7 Colorado has adopted regulations to address these concerns. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 766 Colorado Health Institute 7 APRIL 2014 UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A CHI Analysis • Allow Denver, the state’s capital and largest city, is allowing retail marijuana stores, as are Boulder and Fort Collins, two other large cities along Colorado’s Front Range. Some of Colorado’s mountain resort towns, including Aspen, Breckenridge and Steamboat Springs, have decided to allow retail stores as well. Denver accounts for the majority of stores currently open in Colorado. • Moratorium Cities may choose to bar the licensure of establishments until a later date. Aurora, Colorado’s third largest city and close neighbor to Denver, is currently under a moratorium until May 2014. Though Aurora residents cannot buy marijuana within city limits, they can travel to Denver to do so. Snowmass Village, a ski resort area, has also chosen to wait. • Prohibition Colorado Springs, Colorado’s second most populous city, is one of the approximately 90 municipalities that has opted to prohibit marijuana establishments altogether, and is joined by other larger cities such as Grand Junction, Greeley and Longmont. Most smaller cities scattered throughout the state lean toward prohibition. Tourist-heavy Estes Park, home to Rocky Mountain National Park, has decided upon prohibition. Local Decisions Marijuana is legal to consume in all areas of the state, but localities are able to govern the industry as they see fit. Colorado’s medical marijuana industry provided a practical template for regulating retail marijuana, one that industry proponents have embraced. But an issue that has not been addressed is how these now-legal businesses conduct financial transactions. Marijuana businesses operate primarily as cash-only, raising security concerns and increasing the potential for crime and theft. Banks are reluctant to offer banking services due to a fear of federal prosecution, despite recent federal assurances.12 Colorado’s two largest banks have said they will not refinance or make commercial loans on properties that lease to marijuana businesses.13 Limited access to stable financing may compromise the security and sustainability of Colorado’s legal marijuana industry. U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter of Colorado has introduced legislation to allow banks to do business with marijuana retailers and other marijuana-related businesses in states with legal marijuana. The bill, introduced in 2013, remains stalled in House committees and has not been scheduled for hearings. The Colorado Banking Association contends that the only “real solution” to this issue is Congressional action.14 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 767 8 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions A guiding principle behind Colorado’s regulation of retail marijuana is to prevent young people under the age of 21 from using it.15 Efforts to restrict youth exposure to marijuana look similar to those intended to keep tobacco and alcohol off limits. Strict packaging requirements are designed to help prevent young children from accidentally consuming edible marijuana candies or cookies. School buffer zones and advertising restrictions aim to keep marijuana out of sight. Retail marijuana stores must check the identification of each person seeking to enter. But retail marijuana is restricted to adults ages 21 and over, while medical marijuana is available to those 18 and over. This means that Colorado has two regulatory options for shops with licenses for both medical and retail marijuana. The shops can either keep the sections physically separate or they can restrict all of their sales – even medical marijuana – to customers who are at least 21.16 The packaging rules aimed at limiting access to youth are based on recommendations from the expert workgroup and a health impact assessment conducted by the Colorado School of Public Health and Children’s Hospital Colorado. Packages for both retail and medical marijuana must be: • Opaque rather than see-through; • Resealable if intended for multiple uses; • Child-resistant; • Labeled with these words: “This product is intended for use by adults 21 years and older. Keep out of the reach of children.” Existing prohibitions on the use of tobacco products on school property were supplemented to include retail marijuana products. Like liquor stores, retail marijuana POLICY AREA TWO Limiting Youth Access to Marijuana stores can be restricted in their proximity to schools and child care facilities. For example, the city of Denver bans stores located within 1,000 feet of schools and child care facilities.17 Marijuana advertising is also regulated. Almost all forms of advertising, including television, radio, print, Internet and event sponsorship, must have “reliable evidence” that no more than 30 percent of the audience is under 21.18 UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A CHI Analysis Colorado has enacted policies and adopted regulations to keep marijuana away from youth. But just as young adults have avenues for obtaining alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana may also remain within their reach, even with these policies. Between 50 percent and 75 percent of Denver adolescents in substance use treatment programs had used someone else’s medical marijuana at least once.19,20 And a Colorado hospital treated 14 children who had ingested marijuana between October 2009 and December 2011 compared with none between 2005 and September 2009, according to a 2013 study.21 Medical marijuana began to be regulated in Colorado in 2010. How strongly Colorado enforces penalties for selling to children or targeting minors with advertising will be a key component in limiting access. The possible penalties include suspending or revoking licenses or fines of up to $100,000.22 It’s too soon to know whether these efforts will work or whether different policies are needed. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 768 Colorado Health Institute 9 APRIL 2014 POLICY AREA THREE Setting Tax Rates and Targeting the Revenue The potential for public revenue from regulated retail marijuana sales was a primary selling point for Amendment 64’s approval by voters. Revenues will come from a number of sources. Colorado voters in 2013 passed a measure imposing excise taxes on wholesale marijuana transactions up to 15 percent. They also approved a 10 percent statewide sales tax on retail marijuana in addition to the state’s 2.9 percent sales tax for all other goods (see graphic on Page 10). Local governments have established additional sales taxes and excise taxes. Most that have imposed an extra sales tax have settled at five percent, but Denver decided on 3.5 percent. Local excise taxes range from five percent to 15 percent.23 Municipalities determine how to allocate revenues collected through local taxes. The first $40 million in state excise taxes collected annually must fund capital projects in public schools. Fifteen percent of the state sales tax revenue will go to towns that allow retail marijuana sales, allocated in proportion to the total retail sales in each city. This means that cities with the highest sales will receive more revenue. Legislation is being considered that would direct state licensing fees to the Marijuana Cash Fund to support enforcement and regulation of dispensaries. The remaining tax revenues would go to a newly created Marijuana Tax Fund for the General Assembly to allocate. It’s not clear how much revenue retail marijuana will generate. State sales and excise tax revenues from retail sales in January, the first month of legalization, totaled almost $2 million.24 State sales tax revenues in February largely mirrored January’s take, with modest growth in retail marijuana sales. Sales tax revenues on February sales were above state projections while excise tax revenues were less than half of what was expected.25, 26 In 2013, the Colorado Legislative Council initially projected $67 million in revenues for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15. In the wake of January sales figures, the Department of Revenue projected annual revenues of $107 million. If FY 2014-15 marijuana revenues exceed the projected $67 million, taxpayers may be eligible to receive refunds under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment. Lawmakers have options for avoiding this, including statutory changes to the excise and sales taxes or a November ballot issue seeking to keep the additional marijuana revenue.27 Even less clear is how marijuana revenue will, or should, be spent. The Colorado Legislature, working in the final weeks of the session, is making decisions now. Allocating marijuana revenues may prove contentious. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper proposed limiting the spending to programs with direct or indirect relationships to marijuana use, including prevention of marijuana use, an impaired driving awareness campaign and enhanced substance use disorder benefits in Medicaid. Both marijuana advocates and treatment providers support approaches that fund broader April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 769 10 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions 100% After First $40M State50% 85% 50% 15% Local State State Local Where the Money Comes From and Where it Goes Retail marijuana revenues come from fees and taxes paid by marijuana establishments and consumers. Cities that allow retail sales may enact additional taxes or fees and keep that money. Most state tax revenues will be allocated by the General Assembly. Retail businesses pay application and licensing fees, and may have to pay operations fees if local governments enact them Taxes applied to wholesale marijuana sold from a cultivation facility to a retailer Taxes applied on retail marijuana purchases at the point of sale 100%100%100%100%Local State Local Local Local Excise Tax Operations Fees Application Fees Licensing Fees Local Sales Tax State Excise Tax State Sales Tax First $40M Schools Fees Excise Tax Sales Tax April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 770 Colorado Health Institute 11 APRIL 2014 treatment and prevention efforts. The state’s bipartisan budget-setting committee analysis of the governor’s proposal questioned many of its assumptions about the impact of retail marijuana on specific programs. The governor’s plan would spend approximately $54 million in marijuana revenue in FY 14- 15, a request that was scaled back following the release of February revenues. The current state budget for FY 14-15, which has yet to be approved by the governor, does not include any marijuana revenues. Colorado’s budget-setting committee is set to introduce a separate bill to establish a Marijuana Tax Fund and determine how to allocate approximately $25 million proposed for FY 14-15. Spending will be directed to drug education and prevention for youth, a marijuana public education campaign, training for law enforcement and funds for school health professionals to provide substance abuse prevention and early intervention services.28 The committee is proposing to annually delay spending by a year so spending is aligned with collected revenues. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A CHI Analysis Marijuana will bring new tax revenues to Colorado. Schools will see new funding for capital construction. But how should Colorado spend the rest? Colorado legislators have prioritized youth in its proposed spending decisions, allocating over 70 percent of anticipated FY 14-15 marijuana revenue spending to youth and school-related efforts. Prevention programs appear to go beyond marijuana, and address the multiple drug and alcohol-related influences on substance abuse. Has Colorado found the “sweet spot” for taxing retail marijuana, high enough to prevent and discourage youth from using, while generating adequate resources? Or are state and local taxes so high that consumers will turn to the illegal, and untaxed, market? Finally, it’s important to remember that marijuana tax revenues are a small fraction of the total budget. They may make a dent in some problem areas, but most likely won’t fund huge initiatives. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 771 12 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions Colorado is monitoring the prevalence and patterns of marijuana use and conducting surveillance and research to understand its health risks. Questions on marijuana use have been added to statewide surveillance surveys of pregnant women, children and adults, including the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, Child Health Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey. These data, paired with existing surveillance data, can provide insights on how retail marijuana influences use of other substances such as alcohol or illegal drugs.29 The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is monitoring changes in drug use patterns and health effects of retail marijuana use. CDPHE will convene an advisory group to develop strategies around prevention, targeting which health conditions to study, assessing health effects and establishing surveillance. Driving under the influence of marijuana, like alcohol, is a public health concern that Colorado has addressed. Driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal. Legislators have passed laws to increase education about impaired driving as well as establish a blood limit of five nanograms per milliliter (5ng/mL) of blood for driving under the influence of marijuana.30 How this level affects a person will depend on how it was ingested and a person’s ability to metabolize it, among other variables. Marijuana can remain in the blood stream for extended periods, unlike alcohol. So it is unclear whether this level actually equates to active intoxication and impairs driving ability. Observers expect it is a question that may find its way to the courts. Monitoring accidents associated with drivers below 5ng/mL will help to determine whether this level is adequate to protect public health and safety. POLICY AREA FOUR Creating a Structure for Research and Learning Limiting exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can also minimize public health risks. A state law passed in 2013 restricts the public use of marijuana and adds marijuana provisions to the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act. Private institutions such as hotels and rental apartments can determine whether to allow marijuana use on their grounds. While it is legal to consume marijuana on private property, Colorado municipalities are debating whether private porches are considered public spaces. Some city councils have attempted to ban marijuana consumption on places such as porches, where the activity could be seen or smelled. Most of these attempts have failed.31 UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A CHI Analysis Colorado is tackling issues concerning the public’s health by monitoring marijuana use, placing limits on drugged driving and keeping public spaces smoke-free. How marijuana sales impact crime and public safety – other important public health concerns – is still unknown. However, these issues have not materialized in the first three months of sales. Denver, where most retail outlets are located, has not seen widespread increases in crime, with overall property crime decreasing compared with the same time period in 2013.32 While data are limited and cannot be considered a trend, continued monitoring will yield important insights that are likely to drive future policy decisions. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 772 Colorado Health Institute 13 APRIL 2014 Policymakers thinking about how to regulate marijuana in their states can look to Colorado’s early experiences. Some of the lessons learned so far include: • The regulatory framework for medical marijuana can provide an important glide path for regulating retail businesses, essentially using old approaches to guide a new marketplace. • Engaging a broad network of stakeholders across state and local government, industry, business and academia to develop policy recommendations builds support for making difficult decisions. • Keeping marijuana away from children through a robust regulatory and enforcement environment is a critical state and federal priority. • Sharing regulatory responsibilities at the local level can help citizens feel empowered in a changing environment. • Deciding how to spend marijuana tax revenue is an enticing, yet challenging, exercise. It may take several years for trends to develop that help policymakers understand how much revenue can be realized from this new market. Lessons Learned Conclusion Colorado’s experience with retail marijuana sales provide early lessons about the policy decisions needed to support and regulate this new industry. Still, there are more questions than answers on the long-term implications of this historic action. And it’s a moving target. Decisions are being made in Colorado – in the General Assembly, at the ballot box and in homes across the state – that will shape the overall impact of this new policy. The Colorado Health Institute will closely monitor the public policy decisions that Colorado has made, analyzing which have been sound and which aren’t working as intended. • Legalizing marijuana creates opportunities to research and better understand the individual and public health impacts of use, especially since public sentiment has preceded public health knowledge. • The time and resource burdens on both the legislative and executive branches are substantial. Key Legislation • House Bill 13-1317: Created the regulatory framework for retail marijuana. • Senate Bill 13-283: Implemented measures concerning public health, established the Marijuana Cash Fund and detailed regulatory responsibilities. • House Bill 13-1318: Called for voter approval of marijuana excise and sales taxes. • House Bill 13-1325: Set the legal limit for driving under the influence of marijuana at 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. • House Bill 14-1122: Marijuana packaging requirements. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 773 14 Colorado Health Institute Early Lessons from Legalized Marijuana: An Analysis of Colorado‘s Policy Decisions 1 Lyman, R. “Pivotal Point is Seen as More States Consider Legalizing Marijuana,” The New York Times, February 26, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/momentum-is-seen-as- more-states-consider-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0 2 Kroft, S. “Medical Marijuana: Will Colorado’s ‘Green Rush’ Last?” 60 Minutes, CBS, December, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ medical-marijuana-colorado-green-rush/ 3 Colorado House Bill 13-1317 4 Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, “MED Licensed Retail Stores,” April 1, 2014. http://www. colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=C ontent-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobhea dervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22MED+Licensed+Retail+ Marijuana+Stores%2C+April+1%2C+2014.pdf%22&blobheaderv alue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs &blobwhere=1251961628540&ssbinary=true 5 Denver Business Journal, “Colorado Marijuana Revenue Climbs in Second Month,” April 9, 2014. http://www.bizjournals.com/ denver/morning_call/2014/04/colorado-marijuana-revenue- climbsin-second-month.html 6 Washington State Liquor Control Board, “Frequently Asked Questions about Implementing Initiative 502,” accessed April 16, 2014. http://lcb.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs_i-502#Licenses 7 Cole, J. M., “Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement,” United States Justice Department, August 29, 2013. http://www.justice.gov/ iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf 8 City and County Council of Denver, Council Bill 13-0570 9 Colorado Municipal League, “Election Results Retail Marijuana,” March 26, 2014. http://www.cml.org/issues.aspx?taxid=11076 10 Ibid 11 Colorado Municipal League, “News Release: April Municipal Election Ballot Results,” April 10, 2014. 12 Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses,” February 14, 2014. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/ guidance/pdf/FIN-2014-G001.pdf 13 Migoya, D., “Banks Won’t Finance Properties Where Pot Shops are Located,” The Denver Post: Business, February 19, 2014. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25174695/banks-wont- finance-properties-where-pot-shops-are?source=pkg 14 Migoya, D., “Only Congress Can Fix Pot Problem, Colorado Banking Group Says,” The Denver Post: Cannabist, February 8, 2014. http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/02/08/congress- marijuana-businesses-banking-laws-regulations/4240/ 15 Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, “Permanent rules related to the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code,” 2013. 16 Colorado House Bill 13-1317 17 City and County Council of Denver, Council Bill 13-0570 18 Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, “Permanent rules related to the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code,” 2013. 19 Salomonsen-Sautel, S., Sakai, J. T., Thurstone, C., Corley, R. and Hopfer, C., “Medical Marijuana Use among Adolescents in Substance Abuse Treatment,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(7), 694-702, July, 2012. http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(12)00286-9/abstract 20 Thurstone, C., Lieberman, S. A. and Schimiege, S. J., “Medical Marijuana Diversion and Associated Problems in Adolescent Substance Treatment,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(2- 3), 489-492, November, 2011. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0376871611001608 21 Wang, G. S., Roosevelt, G. and Heard, K., “Pediatric Marijuana Exposures in a Medical Marijuana State,” JAMA Pediatrics, 167(7), 630-633, July, 2013. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article. aspx?articleid=1691416 22 Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, “Permanent rules related to the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code,” 2013. 23 Colorado Municipal League, “Election Results Retail Marijuana,” March 26, 2014. http://www.cml.org/issues.aspx?taxid=11076 24 Ingold, J. “Colorado Saw $2 Million in Recreational Marijuana Taxes in January,” The Denver Post, March 11, 2014. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25314108/colorado-saw- 2-million-recreational-marijuana-taxes-january 25 Cotton, A. “Colorado Marijuana Tax Revenues Total $3.2 Million in February,” The Denver Post, April 10, 2014. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25532130/colorado- marijuana-tax-revenues-total-3-2-million 26 Wyatt, K. “Colorado Marijuana Sales up Slightly in 2nd Month,” The Pueblo Chieftain via Associated Press, April 8, 2014. http://www.chieftain.com/news/region/2456337-120/ pot-colorado-marijuana-taxes 27 Colorado General Assembly, Joint Budget Committee, “FY 2013- 14 and FY 2014-15 Staff Recommendations: Governor’s Proposal for Allocation of New State Resources Available from the Passage of Proposition AA and the Sales Taxes from Medical Marijuana,” March, 2014. 28 Correspondence with Miles Consulting, April 15, 2014. 29 Ramey, S. and Van Dyke, M., “Recreational Marijuana and the Role of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,” Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, April 3, 2014. http://cste.site-ym.com/blogpost/1084057/CSTE-Features 30 Colorado House Bill 13-1325 31 Meyer, J. P. “Denver Council Flips Vote on Pot Smoking in Front Yards,” The Denver Post, December 3, 2013. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24641054/ denver-council-flips-vote-front-yard-pot-smoking-ban 32 Lopez, G. “Remember When Legal Marijuana was Going to Send Crime Skyrocketing?” Vox, April 7, 2014. http://www.vox.com/2014/4/3/5563134/marijuana-legalization- crime-denver-colorado Endnotes April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 774 Colorado Health Institute 15 APRIL 2014 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 775 I NF OR MI NG POLICY •A D V A N C IN G HEALTHCOLORA D O H E ALTHINSTIT U T EThe Colorado Health Institute is a trusted source of independent and objective health information, data and analysis for the state’s health care leaders. The Colorado Health Institute is funded by the Caring for Colorado Foundation, Rose Community Foundation, The Colorado Trust and The Colorado Health Foundation. 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 930, Denver, CO 80203 • 303.831.4200 coloradohealthinstitute.org April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 776 Coco McPherson, Rolling Stone Magazine June 3, 2014 The Other Cannabis War
: The Battle Over Hemp How a 20-year campaign to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana scored an epic victory. In the annals of strange bedfellow politics, the story of how, in 2014, industrial hemp emerged from Drug War purgatory is an epic one. But even for long-time hemp advocates, the sight of Rep. Thomas Massie, a conservative Republican from northern Kentucky, biting jubilantly into a hemp bar on live TV last month was startling. The Great Marijuana Experiment: A Tale of Two Drug Wars Buried in February’s $956 billion farm bill is an amendment, co-sponsored by Rep. Massie, that legally distinguishes industrial hemp from marijuana after decades of conflation. It defines hemp as an agricultural crop rather than a drug — and effectively frees American farmers to grow it for the first time in almost 60 years. Widespread cultivation won't happen overnight - for one thing, the U.S. has no hemp seeds or hemp-processing facilities. But the sudden change in hemp's fortunes shocks its supporters. "If you'd asked me five years ago if I thought we could get Mitch McConnell to introduce a hemp bill, I'd have told you it was impossible," says Eric Steenstra, president of Vote Hemp, the advocacy group formed in 2000 to educate and lobby for hemp legalization in state legislatures and on the Hill. "This is huge." It’s also been a long time coming. For 20 years, legislators, farmers, hippies, activists, agency heads and agronomists have worked to recast hemp as a game-changer, an American cash crop that could jump-start the country's next economic revival. Kentucky took the legislative lead with outright advocacy by its agriculture department. Unlike a high-profile 2007 lawsuit in which two North Dakota hemp farmers took on the DEA without support from their elected officials in Washington, Kentucky brought its entire federal (and much of its state) delegation to the party. Among hemp’s biggest advocates are Kentucky’s Republican senator, Rand Paul, the avowed champion of limited government who tweets about the tragedy of the drug war, and James Comer, the state’s young Republican agriculture commissioner who successfully sued the DEA last month for seizing Kentucky’s imported hemp seeds and for interfering with the implementation of pilot programs made legal by the farm bill. And Massie, a fiscal hawk active in last year’s government shutdown who once studied robotics at MIT. Colorado, Vermont and Kentucky wasted no time launching their industrial hemp research and the pilot programs provided for in the farm bill. In an obscure notice dated April 16th, the USDA April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 777 alerted state and county officials that farmers in states that ok’d hemp production (15 so far) could now include hemp acreage in their crop reports. The floodgates have opened. From California and representing the activist left: David Bronner, president of his family's Magic Soap empire. Bronner has thrown the weight of probably the most iconic hippie brand in the world behind hemp legalization and GMO-labeling initiatives. In 2012, Bronner locked himself in a cage with a thatch of hemp plants in clear view of the White House; he was preparing a hemp oil sandwich when he was sawed out of his prison by the D.C. fire department and hauled away by police. Explaining industrial hemp has taken decades. A lot of people don’t know what it is and many think it’s pot. "It’s just been incredibly frustrating for the hemp industry that hemp has been lumped legally and in public perception with marijuana," Bronner tells Rolling Stone. Hemp isn't weed and hemp can’t get you high—it's a bust as a recreational drug. Hemp is marijuana's non-psychoactive sibling, derived, like weed, from the cannabis sativa plant. The current American hemp market is estimated at nearly half a billion dollars, with hemp’s oil, seed and fiber used in food, carbon-negative building materials, and automobile composites that are already inside millions of cars. Hemp cultivation is also as old as the country itself. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it, hemp was once legal tender, and several drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper. During WWII, American farmers were paid to grow it, cultivating more than 150 million pounds of industrial hemp to support the American war effort. The U.S. government's 1942 propaganda film, Hemp for Victory, depicts workers toiling happily to harvest lush fields of hemp; the fibrous plants to be later converted to materiel like rope and parachute webbing for the military. Despite its patriotic bona fides, cannabis sativa was a victim of reefer madness in almost every decade of the 20th Century. Praised, taxed, vilified, confused with pot and blamed for killing sprees and the theft of American jobs by immigrants. The final nail in hemp's coffin was its classification as a Schedule 1 narcotic in 1970's Controlled Substances Act. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation without a commercial hemp industry. All the hemp sold in the U.S., including the food and body products lining the shelves of Costco, the Body Shop and Whole Foods is imported. As Americans buy hemp, Britain, China, France and Germany are among the countries benefiting from America’s incoherent drug policy. Last year, Canadian farmers grew 67,000 acres of hemp and say they may not be able to grow enough to fill this year's orders. David Bronner began adding hemp oil — imported from Canada — to his liquid soaps in 1999. "I thought this was the most ridiculous piece of the drug war," he says "that a non-drug agricultural crop was caught up here." Even as hemp fought to differentiate itself from pot, it undeniably benefited from its association with it, successfully riding the wave of marijuana legalization in states throughout the country. And as hemp lobbyists worked to change cannabis laws, high-profile court cases highlighted the confusing and capricious application of federal drug laws to the non-drug plant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 778 In 2001, in a fit of drug war paranoia, the DEA declared a ban on foods that contain hemp including certain cereals, salad dressings, breads and veggie burgers — claiming that the foods contained THC. Affected businesses were given 120 days to dump their inventories. With the hemp food market just taking off, 200 hemp companies, including Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap, took the DEA to court. The lawsuit allowed the hemp industry to make its case in the media. Hemp won the bruising battle nearly three years later when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the government couldn't regulate the trace amounts of THC that occur naturally in hemp seeds. When the first hemp bill was introduced in Congress in 2005, it was lonely business. "At that point we had Ron Paul, a pariah in the Republican Party, recalls Steenstra. “Nobody wanted to do anything with us and we could barely get co-sponsors. We'd say hemp and they’d say 'no, no, no, that's pot.' We banged on a lot of doors and worked in state legislatures to get laws changed there. A lot of states considered marijuana to be all cannabis and they didn’t distinguish. We knew we had to change minds in both places." It wasn't until 2012 that the first hemp bill was introduced in the Senate, when Oregon’s liberal senator, Ron Wyden, took to the floor to call federal hemp prohibition "the poster child for dumb regulation." What worked was the lure of jobs and economic development. When Comer, a family farmer who served six terms in the Kentucky state legislature, ran for agriculture commissioner in 2011, campaigning on industrial hemp was a no-brainer. Kentucky was once the heartland of hemp production in the U.S. and people came out of the woodwork to talk to Comer about it. "And it was all over the spectrum," Comer tells Rolling Stone. "Liberals liked it because they were environmentalists and conservatives in the Tea Party liked it because it was an example of government overreach. Older voters were overwhelmingly for hemp because they remembered when their families grew it. They didn't know you could make automobile parts from it because at the time, all you made with hemp in Kentucky was rope." Comer is credited with extraordinary consensus building in a state known for legislative gridlock and political enmity. Early last year, the Kentucky legislature passed Senate Bill 50 over the objections of the state police commissioner who insisted that state police conducting pot eradication programs couldn't tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. On Capitol Hill last Thursday, Rep. Massie and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) each introduced amendments that would prevent the DEA and Justice Dept. from spending any money to interfere with states who are implementing their hemp laws. In the last 50 years there has only been one hemp vote in the House and that was last year. Suddenly there’ve been two more. Without seeds, how long will it take to make hemp just another American crop like soybeans? "There’s definitely a process we have to get through," says Bronner. "We’ve given the Canadians and the Europeans and the Chinese a huge head start on the modern global awareness of hemp. They’ve had years of breeding programs to optimize their cultivars for their climate conditions and we’ve been doing nothing." Canadian agronomist Anndrea Hermann says finding the right hemp varieties for the U.S. is crucial. "I would never tell a farmer anywhere, 'let's start mass cultivation next year,’" Hermann April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 779 tells Rolling Stone. Hermann lives in a country with a fully-regulated hemp industry. "And we have to have the farmers’ voice. If we don't have farmers, we don’t have agriculture." In Kentucky, farming programs for veterans that teach families how to grow their own food have just sewn hemp in collaboration with the agriculture department and Vote Hemp. Mike Lewis, a military veteran and food security expert who founded the group in 2012 when his brother returned from the war in Afghanistan with a brain injury, now has grant money for a hemp textile project and part-time work for twelve people. This in a state with a 19% poverty rate. "Appalachia has a strong history of textiles," Lewis observes. "In my vision that's what's missing from rural communities, ag income. People used to survive off tobacco. If it has to be hemp for textiles, let's do it. People call hemp a panacea, a pipe dream, but look how many people came together from all walks of life in Kentucky to make this happen." Rand Paul’s father — who got on the hemp bandwagon on a dare from Ralph Nader — saw it coming. "I use [hemp's illegality] quite frequently as an example of government stupidity," Ron Paul told Mother Jones in 2011. "And I am sure I get credibility for this, especially with the young people, because that's where I get my strongest support. If you are concerned about the economy, then why are we doing these dumb things?” April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 780 Colorado Topped $1 Billion in Legal Marijuana Sales in 2016 Fortune.com Tom Huddleston, Jr. Dec 13, 2016 It only took Colorado 10 months to pass $1 billion in legal cannabis sales in 2016, one year after the state came up just shy of that milestone revenue figure. Marijuana businesses in Colorado, which voted to legalize the drug recreationally in 2012, reported roughly $1.1 billion in legal sales of medical and recreational marijuana and related products this year through the month of October, according to the latest batch of tax data from the state's Department of Revenue. That number easily tops the roughly $996 million in total marijuana revenue the state reported in 2015. The Denver Post first reported the state's record sales figures, noting that Colorado saw $82.8 million in retail cannabis sales in October alone, along with more than $35 million in medical marijuana sales. With two months left in 2016, The Denver Post also notes that the state's legal marijuana market could hit $1.3 billion for the year, which would represent a 30% spike in sales over the previous year. In 2015, the state saw a 42% bump in legal cannabis sales from 2014, which was the year the state's legal recreational pot market opened for business. Medical marijuana has been legal in the state since 2000. Through October, Colorado has collected more than $150 million in taxes from legal marijuana sales, including nearly $50 million from a specific excise tax that directs funds to school construction projects. The first $40 million collected annually from the excise tax is earmarked for the school projects. Cannabis industry research firm ArcView Group estimates that the legal marijuana industry in the U.S. industry could reach nearly $22 billion in total annual sales by 2020. However, it remains to be seen how President-elect Donald Trump's administration will handle the issue of marijuana legalization, considering that the drug remains illegal on the federal level despite the fact that a growing number of states have voted in favor of legal pot. Since Colorado's legal recreational marijuana market was the first to open for sales nearly three years ago, three more states—Alaska, Oregon, and Washington—have launched their own recreational pot programs. Meanwhile, last month, voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada all approved ballot initiatives to legalize the drug for recreational purposes in those states. Following the election, more than 20% of the U.S. population will now live in a state where recreational marijuana is legal. Medical marijuana is also legal in 28 states. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 781 Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Early Findings A Report Pursuant to Senate Bill 13-283 March 2016 Colorado Department of Public Safety Division of Criminal Justice Office of Research and Statistics 700 Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80215 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dcj-ors April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 782 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 783 Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Early Findings A Report Pursuant to Senate Bill 13-283 March 2016 Prepared by Jack K. Reed, Statistical Analyst Office of Research and Statistics Stan Hilkey, Executive Director, Department of Public Safety Jeanne M. Smith, Director, Division of Criminal Justice Kim English, Research Director, Office of Research and Statistics April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 784   April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 785 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report benefitted from the assistance and review of many individuals. At the Governor’s Office, Andrew Freedman, Skyler McKinley, Elle Sweeney, Alice Wheet and Mark Bolton provided critical support for this work. In the Department of Public Safety, we are grateful to Executive Director Stan Hilkey along with Jeanne Smith, Peg Flick, Darla Hackworth, Major Steve Garcia, Janet Allbee, and Devon Rhoads. In the Department of Public Health and Environment, we thank Executive Director Larry Wolk, Karin McGowan, Mike Van Dyke, Lisa Barker, Katelyn Hall, Daniel Vigil, Ali Maffey, Rickey Tolliver, Amy Anderson, and Jeff Groff. Thanks to Department of Revenue Executive Director Barbara Brohl, Ron Kammerzell, and Lewis Koski of the Marijuana Enforcement Division. We appreciate the assistance provided by Highway Safety Manager Glenn Davis, Kevin Dietrick, and Alisa Babler in the Department of Transportation. In the Department of Human Services, we are grateful to Executive Director Reggie Bicha, Patrick Fox and Rebecca Helfand. Thanks to Duncan Anderson and Annette Severson in the Department of Education, and Michael Song and Carolyn Berry in the Attorney General’s Office. At the Judicial Branch, we benefitted from the help provided by Sherri Hufford, Kris Nash, Eileen Kinney, Andrea Chavez and Jessica Zender. We thank Ashley Kilroy, Netia Ingram, and Molly Duplechian from the Office of Marijuana Policy in the City and County of Denver. Thank you to James Henning, Mary Dulacki and Dan Kayser from the Denver Police Department, along with Chiefs John Jackson (Greenwood Village) and Marco Vasquez (Erie) representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police. Thanks to Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Director Tom Gorman, along with Kevin Wong and Chelsey Clark. Many thanks to Sarah Urfer at Chematox Laboratory for the invaluable toxicology data. Finally, thanks to Kathleen Maguire and Ann Pastore, previously of the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics--without your training this project would have seemed much more daunting. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 786 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 5 Executive Summary 10 Section One: Introduction 19 Section Two: Impact on Public Safety 39 Section Three: Impact on Public Health 53 Section Four: Impact on Youth 73 Section Five: Additional Information 81 Section Six: Summary of Challenges Appendices 83 Appendix A: Ogden memorandum 87 Appendix B: Cole memorandum 92 Appendix C: Arrests by county, agency, judicial district, age, race 109 Appendix D: Offenses by location 112 Appendix E: Court filings by age, charge category, judicial district, and charge classification 127 Appendix F: School discipline trends 130 Appendix G: Recent marijuana use, by region, grade level, adult status 132 Appendix H: Marijuana business licenses, by license type, city, and county 137 Appendix I: Marijuana licenses in Denver 140 Appendix J: Medical marijuana cardholders by county 142 Appendix K: Marijuana revenue collection and expenditure flowchart 144 Appendix L: Denver Police Department marijuana arrest data from internal analysis April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 787 5  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In 2013, following the passage of Amendment 64 which allows for the retail sale and possession of  marijuana, the Colorado General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 13‐283. This bill mandated the Division of  Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety to conduct a study of the impacts of Amendment 64,  particularly as these relate to law enforcement activities. This report seeks to establish and present the  baseline measures for the metrics specified in S.B. 13‐283, codified as C.R.S. 24‐33.4‐516.   The majority of the information presented here should be considered pre‐commercialization, baseline  data because much of the information is available only through 2014, and data sources vary  considerably in terms of what exists historically. Consequently, it is too early to draw any conclusions  about the potential effects of marijuana legalization or commercialization on public safety, public  health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be difficult due to the lack of historical data.  Furthermore, the information presented here should be interpreted with caution. The decreasing social  stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and to  health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to  increase when perhaps it has not. Finally, law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys continue  to struggle with enforcement of the complex and sometimes conflicting marijuana laws that remain.  Thus, the lack of pre‐commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law  enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these early findings into definitive statements of  outcomes.   Recognizing the challenges involved in interpreting the data presented here, the following findings are  summarized in this report:  Public Safety  The total number of marijuana arrests decreased by 46% between 2012 and 2014, from 12,894 to 7,004 (Table 1). Marijuana possession arrests, which make up the majority of all marijuana arrests, were nearly cut in half (‐47%). Marijuana sales arrests decreased by 24%, while arrests for marijuana production did not change appreciably (‐2%). Marijuana arrests that were unspecified, meaning the specific reason for the arrest was not noted by law enforcement, went down by 42%. As a share of all arrests in Colorado, marijuana was responsible for 6% of all arrests in 2012 and 3% in 2014. The number of marijuana arrests decreased by 51% for Whites, 33% for Hispanics, and 25% for African‐Americans. The marijuana arrest rate for African‐Americans (348 per 100,000) was almost triple that of Whites (123 per 100,000) in 2014. Ten major Colorado counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, and Weld) showed a decrease in arrests, ranging between ‐30% (El Paso) and ‐63% (Adams). The average decrease across these 10 counties was ‐46%. Denver’s April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 788 6  reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest  and citation systems. Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado Bureau of  Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest data reported by Denver include a  non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that year.  See Appendix L, Table 16 for internal marijuana arrest data from the Denver Police Department. In terms of court filings, the total number of marijuana‐related filings declined 81% between 2012 and 2015, from 10,340 to 1,954. The number of felony filings declined 45% (1,023 to 566), misdemeanors declined 1% (586 to 409), and petty offenses dropped 89% (8,728 to 979) between 2012 and 2015. The charge of marijuana possession dropped 88% (9,130 to 1,068). o Filings fell 69% for juveniles 10 to 17 years old, 78% for young adults 18 to 20 years old, and 86% for adults 21 or older. In terms of organized crime, between 2012 and 2015 there were 88 filings under the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (C.R.S.18‐17.104) that were in conjunction with some marijuana charge, including distribution (56), conspiracy (16), manufacture (10), and possession with intent to sell (6). The most common marijuana industry‐related crime in Denver is burglary, accounting for 63% of marijuana crime related to the industry in 2015. Traffic safety data is limited, but the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) found that the number of summons issued for Driving Under the Influence in which marijuana or marijuana‐in‐ combination with other drugs decreased 1% between 2014 and 2015 (674 to 665). o The prevalence of marijuana or marijuana‐in‐combination identified by CSP as the impairing substance increased from 12% of all DUIs in 2014 to 15% in 2015. o The Denver Police Department found summons where marijuana or marijuana‐in‐ combination was recorded increased from 33 to 73 between 2013 and 2015. Citations for marijuana or marijuana‐in‐combination account for about 3% of all DUIs in Denver. Toxicology results from Chematox Laboratory showed an increase in positive cannabinoid screens for drivers, from 57% in 2012 to 65% in 2014. Of those that tested positive on the initial screen, the percent testing positive for delta‐9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at 2 nanograms/millileter rose from 52% in 2012 to 67% in 2014.  o Fatalities with THC‐only or THC‐in‐combination positive drivers increased 44%, from 55 in 2013 to 79 in 2014. Note that the detection of any THC in blood is not an indicator of impairment but only indicates presence in the system. Detection of delta‐9 THC, one of the psychoactive properties of marijuana, may be an indicator of impairment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 789 7        The percent of 18 to 25 year‐old probationers testing positive for THC is stable, with 33% in  2012 and 32% in 2014. The percent of 26 or older probationers testing positive for THC is stable,  with 21% in 2012 and 20% in 2014.     Regarding illegal cultivation on public land, the number of seizures or plants seized on public  lands shows no discernible trend.     In terms of assessing the extent of diversion of marijuana to other states, the Colorado  Information Analysis Center (CIAC) compiled data from a service called Black Asphalt, an online  forum for law enforcement drug interdiction with more than 20,000 active members. From  January 1, 2014 to August 30, 2015 there were 261 drug‐related interdiction submissions in  which Colorado was the initiating state. Of those 261 submissions, 169 (65%) were for  marijuana/hashish.  Public Health   According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, administered by the Substance Abuse  and Mental Health Services Administration, the current prevalence rates for marijuana usage in  the past 30 days have increased significantly for young adults (18 to 25 years old), from 21% in  2006 (pre‐commercialization) to 31% in 2014 (post‐commercialization). Reported current  marijuana use by adults (26 years or older) increased significantly, from 5% in 2006 to 12% in  2014.     The Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a statewide telephone survey  conducted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In 2014 the  BRFFS was expanded to include questions about marijuana use. Overall, in 2014, 14% of adults  reported marijuana use in the past 30 days and 33% of current users reported using daily.      The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment analyzed data from the Colorado  Hospital Administration and categorized visits according to determine if the visit indicated  possible marijuana exposure or used a diagnosis/billing code indicating marijuana.     Hospitalizations with possible marijuana exposures, diagnoses, or billing codes per  100,000 hospitalizations increased from 803 per 100,000 before commercialization  (2001‐2009) to 2,413 per 100,000 after commercialization (2014‐June 2015).      The period of retail commercialization showed a significant increase in emergency  department visits, from 739 per 100,000 (2010–2013) to 956 per 100,000 ED visits  (2014–June 2015).     The number of calls to poison control mentioning human marijuana exposure has increased over  the past 10 years. There were 44 calls in 2006 and 227 in 2015.    Youth Impacts     Data on youth marijuana use is available from two sources, the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey,  with 40,000 students responding in 2013 and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, with  fewer than 1,000 respondents.   April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 790 8         o The HKCS results indicate a slight decline in “past 30 day use” of marijuana while the  NSDUH shows a gradual increase over time. In 2013, the HKCS found that 80% of high  school students did not use marijuana in the past 30 days. The HKCS shows that  marijuana use increases by grade level, and the NSDUH shows that youth use of  marijuana in Colorado is above the national average. The perception of health risk of  using marijuana is declining among youth in Colorado, according to both surveys.      The number of juvenile marijuana arrests increased 5%, from 3,234 in 2012 to 3,400 in 2014.  The rate of juvenile marijuana arrests per 100,000 increased from 598 in 2012 to 611 in 2014  (+2%).     o The number of White juvenile arrests decreased from 2,198 in 2012 to 2,016 in 2014      (‐8%).   o The number of Hispanic juvenile arrests increased from 778 in 2012 to 1,006 in 2014  (+29%).   o The number of African‐American juvenile arrests increased from 205 in 2012 to 324 in  2014 (+58%).     Data on drug tests from the Division of Probation Services shows that the percent of 10‐ to 14‐ year‐old group testing positive for THC one or two times increased from 19% in 2012 to 23% in  2014, while the percentage testing positive three or more times went from 18% to 25%. The  percent of 15‐ to 17‐year‐olds testing positive one or two times went down slightly, from 26% in  2012 to 25% in 2014, while those testing positive three or more times increased from 23% to  25%.     The Colorado Department of Education data shows that that drug suspension rates increased  from 391 (per 100,000 registered students) in the 2008‐09 school year to 506 in 2009‐10. The  drug suspension rate has fluctuated somewhat since then and was 509 in the 2014‐15 school  year. The drug expulsion rate was 65 (per 100,000 registered students) in the 2008‐09 school  year, increasing to 90 in 2009‐10, and then decreasing to 50 by 2014‐15.    o In the 2014‐15 school year, discipline for drugs accounted for 41% of all expulsions, 31%  of all law enforcement referrals, and 6% of all suspensions in Colorado.    o Note that Senate Bill 12‐046 and House Bill 12‐1345 targeted reform of “zero tolerance”  policies in schools, and appear to have decreased expulsions, suspensions, and referrals  to law enforcement.1 To assess drug‐endangered children, data from CDPHE’s Child  Health Survey (targeting parents with children ages 1‐14) was obtained. Of parents with  children ages 1–14, 6.9% have some type of marijuana product around the house.  When asked about where it is kept, 92% report storing it in a location the child cannot  access    Additional Information                                                                 1 See Rosa, J., Krueger, J., and Severson, A. (May 2015). Moving from Zero Tolerance to Supportive School Discipline Practices.  Office of Dropout Prevention and Student Re‐engagement, Colorado Department of Education.   April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 791 9        In December 2015, there were 2,538 licensed businesses in Colorado. Seventy percent of the  licenses for marijuana businesses are concentrated in the counties of Denver (1,112), El Paso  (308), Pueblo (202), and Boulder (169).      Total revenue from taxes, licenses, and fees increased from $76,152,468 in 2014 to  $135,100,465 in 2015 (+77%). Excise tax revenue dedicated to school capital construction  assistance was $35,060,590 in 2015.     In November 2015 there were 109,922 individuals registered as medical marijuana cardholders.  The most common conditions reported were severe pain (93%), muscle spasms (20%), and  severe nausea (12%).     Colorado’s property crime rate decreased 3%, from 2,580 (per 100,000 population) in 2009 to  2,503 in 2014.     Colorado’s violent crime rate decreased 6%, from 327 (per 100,000 population) in 2009 to 306 in  2014. It should be noted that the most fundamental challenge to interpreting data related to marijuana over  time stems from unmeasured changes in human behavior concerning marijuana. Legalization may result  in reports of increased use, when it may actually be a function of the decreased stigma and legal  consequences regarding use rather than actual changes in use patterns.  Likewise, those reporting to  poison control, emergency departments, or hospitals may feel more comfortable discussing their recent  use or abuse of marijuana for purposes of treatment. The impact from reduced stigma and legal  consequences makes certain trends difficult to assess and will require additional time to measure post‐ legalization. Additionally, for example, the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in  recognizing drug use, from 32 in 2006 to 288 in 2015, can increase drug detection rates apart from any  changes in driver behavior.  For these reasons, these early, baseline findings should be carefully  considered in light of the need to continue to collect and analyze relevant data.   April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 792 SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION In 2013, following the passage of Amendment 64 which allows for the retail sale and possession of marijuana, the Colorado General Assembly passed Senate Bill 13-283. This bill mandated the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Public Safety to conduct a study of the impacts of Amendment 64, particularly as these relate to law enforcement activities. This report seeks to establish and present the baseline measures for the metrics specified in S.B. 13-283, codified as C.R.S. 24-33.4-516. The majority of the information presented here should be considered pre-commercialization, baseline data because much of the information is available only through 2014, and data sources vary considerably in terms of what exists historically. Consequently, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and it may always be difficult because of the lack of historical data. Furthermore, the decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead to individuals being more willing to report use on surveys and to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not. Finally, law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys continue to struggle with enforcement of the complex and sometimes conflicting marijuana laws that remain. Thus, the lack of pre-commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement combine to make it difficult to translate these early findings into definitive statements of outcomes. There were several challenges in locating appropriate data for some of the metrics specified in S.B. 13- 283. Those challenges are discussed in detail in the report, but it should be made clear that there are many areas of interest where the data to measure impacts do not currently exist. This report is organized as follows: Section One describes the mandate to report per Senate Bill 13-283, data sources and the data collection methods used, the history of marijuana laws in Colorado, and the federal response. Section Two focuses on the public safety impacts of marijuana legalization while Section 3 presents information concerning public health. Section 4 presents impacts on youth, Section 5 provides additional information, and Section 6 summarizes the challenges involved in measuring the impact of legalization. Purpose of this Report The structure and data elements in this report are derived from Senate Bill 13-283, codified as C.R.S. 24- 33.4-516. The bill instructed the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice to assess the impact of retail marijuana legalization by studying specific topics enumerated in the legislation, and listed in the table below. After the passage of SB 13-283 the Governor’s Office of Marijuana Coordination commissioned a study to understand “the legislative requirements for recreational marijuana reporting” and “the existing data April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 793 management capabilities within the State of Colorado.” The Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Summary Report, prepared by Rebound Solutions in 2014,2 identified the data required by the legislative mandate, assessed the current state of the data available to meet the requirements, made recommendations for modifying current data sources, and identified strategic priorities and recommendations for improving the state’s data management capabilities. The gap analysis identified issues with the data required in S.B. 13-283 and classified the problems based on two criteria: current capability to collect the data, and the strategic value of each element. A number of limitations were identified including the following: a complete lack of data, lack of data specific to marijuana, lack of trend data, lack of statewide data, lack of definitive information on impairment from marijuana, and data silos that do not allow for tracking an individual across systems. Additionally, the difficulties in meeting the S.B. 13-283 requirement for data specifically from 2006–2008 and 2014–2016 were identified. Data collection requirements of S.B. 13-283 Statutory Category Statutory Definition Impacts on Public Safety Marijuana-Initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement Marijuana-initiated contacts by law enforcement, broken down by judicial district and by race and ethnicity Marijuana Criminal Arrest Data Marijuana arrest data, including amounts of marijuana with each arrest, broken down by judicial district and by race and ethnicity Marijuana-Related Traffic Accidents Traffic accidents, including fatalities and serious injuries related to being under the influence of marijuana Out-of-State Diversion Diversion of marijuana out of Colorado Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics Crime occurring in and relating to the operation of marijuana establishments Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel Services Utilization of parcel services for the transfer of marijuana Probation Data Probation data Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Outdoor marijuana cultivation facilities Money Laundering Money laundering relating to both licensed and unlicensed marijuana Organized Crime The role of organized crime in marijuana 2Rebound Solutions (2014), Marijuana data discovery and gap analysis summary report. Prepared for the Governor’s Office of Marijuana Policy Coordination. Available at https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/resources/MarijuanaDataDiscoveryandGapAnalysis.pdf April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 794 Impacts on Youth Comprehensive School Data Comprehensive school data, both statewide and by individual school, including suspensions, expulsions, and police referrals related to drug use and sales, broken down by specific drug categories Drug Endangered Children Data related to drug-endangered children, specifically for marijuana Diversion to Minors Diversion of marijuana to persons under twenty-one years of age Impacts on Public Health Data on Emergency Room Visits and Poison Control Data on emergency room visits related to the use of marijuana and the outcomes of those visits, including information from Colorado Poison Control Center Monitor Health Effects of Marijuana (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) Monitor changes in drug use patterns, broken down by race and ethnicity, and the emerging science and medical information relevant to the health effects associated with marijuana use. The Department shall appoint a panel of health care professionals with expertise in cannabinoid physiology to monitor the relevant information. The panel shall provide a report by January 31, 2015, and every two years thereafter to the State Board of Health, the Department of Revenue, and the general assembly. The Department shall make the report available on its website. The panel shall establish criteria for studies to be reviewed, reviewing studies and other data, and making recommendations, as appropriate, for policies intended to protect consumers of marijuana or marijuana products to the general public. The Department may collect Colorado-specific data that reports adverse health events involving marijuana use from the all-payer claims database, hospital discharge data, and behavioral risk factors. Source: Derived from Rebound Solutions (2014), Marijuana data discovery and gap analysis summary report. https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/resources/MarijuanaDataDiscoveryandGapAnalysis.pdf, retrieved 2/24/2016. The report also made two enterprise recommendations. First, establish a data governance authority to implement the recommendations in the report. This authority would prioritize, collect, and manage coordinated data collection efforts while fostering strong cross-departmental collaboration. The streamlined data collection process would be facilitated by the creation of a data warehouse. The second recommendation called for clarifying legislative definitions for the terms marijuana-initiated law enforcement contacts, drug endangered children, and probation data. Thus far, these terms have not April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 795 been defined. There have been attempts to define “drug endangered children,” but consensus has not been reached by stakeholders. However, the legislature continues to work on defining this term. “Marijuana-initiated law enforcement contacts” has not been defined and, more importantly, contact data of any kind (marijuana-related or otherwise) is not routinely collected by law enforcement agencies. Thus far, there has not been an attempt to have the term “probation data” clarified. Short- and Long-term Plan Regarding Data Reporting The reporting requirements of SB 13-283 specify a report due at an undetermined time after the data collection period ends in 2016. The Governor’s Office of Marijuana Coordination and the Division of Criminal Justice have agreed to two additional near-term reporting goals. This report represents the first near-term goal, presenting baseline data so that stakeholders and members of the public will have an idea of the starting points for many of the required data elements. The second near-term goal is the creation of a web-based data portal that will allow users to interact dynamically with the available data. This portal will allow for updated data to become available to stakeholders and the public in advance of the more expansive written report. The Governor’s Office of Information Technology is currently working on obtaining the funds required to build a data warehouse that will feed the data to the portal. Data Sources This report would not be possible without the collaboration and cooperation of officials from many different entities including the following: Colorado State Government •Colorado Attorney General’s Office, Peace Officer Standards and Training •Colorado Department of Education •Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health •Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Office of Demography •Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Center for Health and Environmental Data •Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Disease Control and Environmental Epidemiology Division •Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Prevention Services Division •Colorado Department of Public Safety, Colorado Bureau of Investigation •Colorado Department of Public Safety, Colorado Information Analysis Center •Colorado Department of Public Safety, Colorado State Patrol •Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division •Colorado Department of Revenue, Taxation Division •Colorado Department of Transportation •Colorado State Judicial Branch Municipal and Private •Chematox Laboratory April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 796 •City and County of Denver, Office of Marijuana Policy •Colorado Hospital Association •Denver Police Department •Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center Federal •U.S. Bureau of Land Management •U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration •U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration •U.S. Forest Service •U.S. National Park Service Data Collection Methodology The data in this report were collected in several ways. First, many sources provide public information on agency websites in the form of reports, briefing papers, and spreadsheets available for download. When this is the case, links to the original source material are provided. Second, several sources provided individual-level, nonpublic data for analysis. Third, summary data not published elsewhere were provided. The data presentations in this report were sent to the original data sources for comment to ensure the original information is accurately represented. Brief History of Marijuana Laws in Colorado Federal Law The Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA)3 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Drugs classified as Schedule I are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of other Schedule I drugs include heroin, MDMA (ecstasy, Molly), LSD (acid), mescaline (peyote), and psilocybin (mushrooms). The Schedule I classification puts state laws legalizing medical or recreational marijuana at odds with the CSA. As of December 2015, there were 23 states plus the District of Columbia allowing medical marijuana, 17 states allowing cannabidiol 4 exclusively, and four states plus the District of Columbia allowing for the sale of recreational marijuana.5 The widespread growth of medical marijuana legalization over the past 20 years has put an increasing number of states, including Colorado, in conflict with the CSA. The potential for more states to legalize recreational marijuana is currently heightening this conflict. 3 21 U.S.C. § 811. 4 Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive substance derived from cannabis with potential medical uses. For a review of some relevant research, see Scuderi, C. et al. (2009). Cannabidiol in medicine: a review of its therapeutic potential in CNS disorders, Phytotherapy Research, 23 (5), 597-602. 5 National Conference of State Legislatures, State Medical Marijuana Laws (2016), http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state- medical-marijuana-laws.aspx, retrieved 2/3/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 797 Colorado Law There have been five general eras of marijuana law in Colorado, including strict prohibition (pre-2000), medical without commercialization (2000–2009), medical with commercialization (2010–2012), recreational without commercialization (2013), and recreational with commercialization (2014- present).6 These represent distinct eras in both the legal status and commercial availability of marijuana. •Prior to 2000: Illegal to possess or grow •2000–2009: Amendment 20 approved and medical marijuana is legalized. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issues registry identification cards to individuals who have received recommendations from a doctor that it will help a debilitating medical condition. It is legal to possess up to two ounces and grow six plants (or more with doctor’s recommendation) with a registry identification card. No regulated market exists. Individual grow operations or caregiver grow operations limited to five patients is allowed. •2010–2012: Medical marijuana is commercialized and regulated with licensed dispensaries, grow operations, and product manufacturers open in jurisdictions allowing these types of businesses. •2013: Amendment 64 takes effect. Personal possession and grow limits for recreational marijuana are in place but sales are not commercialized. Medical continues as a regulated, commercial market. •2014 to present: Recreational and medical marijuana fully regulated and commercialized. Licensed retail stores open on January 1, 2014. Amendment 20 In 2000, Colorado passed Amendment 20 which allows those suffering from certain debilitating medical conditions to grow and possess a limited amount of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation that it may help their condition.7 Patients are required to register with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and obtain a registry identification card that indicates their status as a certified medical marijuana patient. The current list of conditions eligible for a card includes cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, or severe pain. Amendment 20 provides an affirmative defense from prosecution for cardholders who are allowed to grow six plants (three mature, three immature) and possess up to two ounces of finished product, unless a doctor determines that additional marijuana is needed to treat a patient’s condition. Patients can choose to grow their own marijuana or designate a caregiver to grow it for them. A caregiver was initially limited to growing medical marijuana for five patients and themselves if a medical marijuana cardholder. The justification for this limit was challenged in Denver District Court and 6 Others group 2010–-2013 as the era of medical commercialization and do not differentiate 2013 as it did not increase the availability of marijuana in the commercial market. 7 Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, § 14. Additional information can be accessed at Ballotpedia, Colorado Medical Use of Marijuana, Initiative 20 (2000), https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Medical_Use_of_Marijuana,_Initiative_20_(2000), retrieved 2/3/2016. A detailed review of the history of medical marijuana in Colorado and the recent status of the medical marijuana code can be found in the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies’ 2014 Sunset Review: Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, available at https://drive.google.com/a/state.co.us/file/d/0B8bNvcf083ydTFpkdVRwdnhTazQ/view, retrieved 1/29/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 798 was overturned.8 In 2009, the Colorado Board of Health rejected the five-patient limit for caregivers. The U.S. Department of Justice also issued what is known as the Ogden Memo (see Appendix A), which gave guidance to U.S. Attorneys that where prosecution for marijuana was concerned, they should not “focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” 9 The combination of the Court decision, the Board of Health’s rejection of the five-patient caregiver limit, and the Ogden Memo set the stage for the commercialization of medical marijuana. In 2010, two laws were passed: a medical marijuana code was promulgated by the Legislature through the passage of HB 10-1284, which established a regulatory structure within the Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE); and SB 10-109, which clarified the definition of a “bona fide physician patient relationship.” The Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) was created within DOR to license and regulate the medical marijuana industry in Colorado.10 The commercialization of medical marijuana followed and the number of patients registered with CDPHE increased dramatically, from about 5,000 in 2009 up to almost 119,000 in 2011. Amendment 64 Prior to the passage of Amendment 64 in 2012, Initiative 44 was put on the ballot in 2006 in an attempt to legalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for adults 21 and older. The initiative failed, with 59% of Colorado voters saying no to the question of allowing possession and use.11 In 2012, a more expansive initiative was placed on the ballot that would not simply allow for possession but would create the first legal marketplace for recreational marijuana in the world. Amendment 64 passed, with 55% of voters saying yes to the question.12 Amendment 64 allows for individuals 21 years or older to grow up to six plants (three mature and three immature) and keep all of marijuana produced on the same premises, possess up to one ounce of marijuana, and give away up to one ounce of marijuana to someone 21 years or older. It also instructed Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division to create rules, regulations, and licenses to allow for the first recreational marijuana marketplace in the world by July 1, 2013. This included rules for licensing, ownership, security, labeling, production control, reduction of diversion, health and safety standards, advertising, and privacy guarantees. These rules resulted in the Retail Marijuana Code.13 8 Lagoy v. Colorado, 2007 CV 6089 (Denver County District Court, 2nd Judicial District, November 15, 2007; Denver County District Court, 2nd Judicial District, November 5, 2009). 9 U.S. Department of Justice (2009). Ogden memo: Investigations and prosecutions in states authorizing the medical use of marijuana, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2009/10/19/medical-marijuana.pdf, retrieved 2/1/2016. 10 Medical Marijuana Code: C.R.S. 12-43.3-101 et seq. For additional information on the MED see https://www.colorado.gov/enforcement/marijuanaenforcement. 11 Ballotpedia, Colorado Marijuana Possession, Initiative 44 (2006), available at https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Marijuana_Possession,_Initiative_44_(2006), retrieved 1/29/2016. 12 Ballotpedia, Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Amendment 64 (2012), https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative, Amendment_64_(2012), retrieved 1/29/2016. 13 Retail Marijuana Code: C.R.S. 12-43.4-101 et seq. and https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/laws-constitution- statutes-and-regulations-marijuana-enforcement. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 799 The MED began accepting applications for retail stores on October 1, 2013. At that time applicants needed to have a current medical marijuana license to be eligible for a retail license. The first stores opened on January 1, 2014.14 Additional rule-making has been conducted by the Department of Revenue, Department of Public Health and Environment, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Regulatory Affairs to clarify a variety of issues that have arisen with the advent of the first legal marijuana marketplace.15 Examples include issues regarding pesticide application, testing for mold and solvents, THC homogeneity in manufactured products, and many others. Federal Response In the wake of Amendment 64 and other recreational legalization efforts throughout the country, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) issued what is known as the Cole Memo (see Appendix B).16 This gave guidance to U.S. Attorneys across the country. The Cole Memo set forth USDOJ’s enforcement priorities, including: 1.Preventing distribution of marijuana to minors 2.Preventing revenue from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels 3.Preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states 4.Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity 5.Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana 6.Preventing driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) and exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use 7.Preventing growth on public lands with attendant public safety and environmental damages 8.Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that USDOJ’s Office of the Deputy Attorney General is monitoring the effects of marijuana legalization in two ways.17 First, “U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases that threaten federal marijuana enforcement priorities and consult with state officials about areas of federal concern, such as the potential impact on enforcement priorities of edible marijuana products. Second, officials reported they collaborate with DOJ components, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other federal agencies, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and assess various marijuana enforcement-related data these agencies provide.” The GAO report 14 For a detailed review of the history of the regulation of retail marijuana see Department of Regulatory Agencies (2015), 2015 sunset review: Colorado retail marijuana code, available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8bNvcf083ydSlh4NWtHTjFoa2s/view, retrieved 2/4/2016. 15 A compendium of amendments, statutes, and rules is available in the Colorado marijuana laws and regulations 2014 (2015). LexisNexis: Charlottesville, VA. This publication is updated annually to reflect changes in statutes and rules. 16 U.S. Department of Justice (2013). Cole memo: Guidance regarding marijuana enforcement, available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf, retrieved 1/29/2016. 17 U.S. Government Accountability Office (2015). State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Document its Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Legalization, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-1, retrieved 2/3/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 800 indicates that the USDOJ has not documented its monitoring approach, leading to a gap in their knowledge about state-level adherence to the Cole memo. In Colorado, the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA), which is funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is tracking the impact of marijuana legalization in the state and has produced three reports of its findings.18 In sum, this report presents data from many sources in an effort to provide a baseline for preliminarily assessing the impact of the commercialization of marijuana on public safety, public health, and youth in Colorado, drawing from a myriad of data sources. The 2014 data gaps analysis report by the Rebound Solutions first identified problems with some of the data elements enumerated in S.B. 13-283, and these issues are discussed throughout this report. The history of marijuana laws in Colorado, along with the Ogden and Cole Memos, reflect the dynamic environment in which regulations and enforcement are critical components. The impact of Amendment 64 on public safety is the focus of the next section. 18 RMHIDTA (2016). The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact, http://www.rmhidta.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/687/MenuGroup/RMHIDTAHome.htm, retrieved 2/3/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 801 19  SECTION TWO   IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY  Overview  The potential impacts to public safety from the legalization of marijuana were of concern to the  legislature, law enforcement officials, district attorneys, and other public safety stakeholders across the  state. Since no jurisdiction had yet legalized marijuana, the public safety impacts were unknown. The  Cole Memo provided guidance on several public safety impacts of concern to the U.S. Department of  Justice. The specific public safety areas of interest addressed in S.B. 13‐183, some of which were  influenced by the Cole Memo, included:  Marijuana‐initiated law enforcement contacts Marijuana arrests Crime around marijuana establishments Marijuana‐related traffic accidents and DUID (Cole Memo) Organized crime and money laundering (Cole Memo) Probation infractions Illegal cultivation on public land (Cole Memo) Diversion out of state (Cole Memo) Transfer using parcel services Data Collection Challenges  Meeting the reporting requirements of S.B. 13‐183 was challenging. Obtaining data or even the number  of years of data required by S.B. 13‐283 was difficult, and in some cases the data do not exist.  “Marijuana‐initiated law enforcement contact,” for example, is not a term used by any law enforcement  agency, nor is contact data (for any purpose) collected systematically by law enforcement agencies.  Further, S.B. 13‐283 requires this contact data to be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, and it is not known  how a law enforcement officer would determine race/ethnicity on individuals involved in a marijuana‐ initiated contact. In sum, this information does not exist and therefore cannot be included in this  analysis.  Information on arrests is available, but only from 2012 to 2014 due to improvements in data reporting.  The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s  data collection system, and are managed locally by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. NIBRS has  significantly more information than the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), including information about  drug type, which is not available in UCR arrest data. However, Colorado only recently—in 2012‐‐ became  a “NIBRS state” with nearly all agencies reporting greater details on crime incidents. For this reason,  information concerning Colorado arrests related to marijuana offenses is unavailable for analysis prior to  2012.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 802 20  Data on crime around marijuana establishments are not collected in any central repository, but Denver  began a process in 2012 to assess whether such crime was a significant problem, and we report this  information below.   Likewise, information on diversion of marijuana out of state and transfer using parcel services is not  collected in any central location. Additionally, with an enhanced focus on marijuana it is possible that  law enforcement agencies would become more aware of the issue and increase interdiction efforts,  potentially resulting in an increase in seizures which may or may not be related to an actual increase in  diversion.  The challenges faced in collecting information on traffic accidents and driving under the influence are  significant. The current statute on impaired driving does not differentiate between driving under the  influence of alcohol and driving under the influence of drugs. There is no central repository for  toxicology results that would allow for an examination of impaired driving throughout the state. The  current data system that collects information on roadway fatalities does not capture the specific  toxicology results that would indicate impairment, does not consistently capture information on  surviving drivers involved in fatalities, and is limited to results from three drugs detected in the driver’s  system.  S.B. 13‐283 mandates the analysis of “probation data.” Probation infractions associated with marijuana  use are analyzed here, but these are also difficult to measure. The State Judicial Branch’s database does  not capture whether an infraction was marijuana‐related or even related to drugs in general.   This report attempts to begin answering the important questions identified in SB 13‐283. Despite  significant challenges in meeting all of the statute’s reporting requirements, this report examines the  data that are available to help inform the stakeholders in Colorado about these issues.   Arrests and Offenses  Data on marijuana arrests and offenses for the period 2012–2014 were obtained from the Colorado  Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) National Incident‐Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database. The NIBRS  database includes detailed information on arrests and offenses, which the previous summary reporting  system did not allow. Colorado became fully NIBRS compliant in 2012, which limits the years of data  available for this report.  Marijuana Arrests  Overall  The total number of marijuana arrests decreased by 46% between 2012 and 2014, from 12,894 to 7,004  (Table 1). Marijuana possession arrests, which make up the majority of all marijuana arrests, were  nearly cut in half (‐47%). Marijuana sales arrests decreased by 24%, while arrests for marijuana  production did not change appreciably (‐2%). Marijuana arrests that were unspecified, meaning the  specific reason for the arrest was not entered by law enforcement, went down by 42%. As a share of all  arrests in Colorado, marijuana was responsible for 6% of all arrests in 2012 and 3% in 2014.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 803 21  Age Group  There was a 78% reduction in arrests for the 21 and older age group for whom marijuana possession is  now legal. This compares with a 33% reduction in the 18‐ to 20‐year‐old group who may possess legally  if they have a medical marijuana card. Juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 showed a 5% increase in  the number of marijuana arrests. In 2014, juveniles accounted for almost half (49%) of all marijuana  arrests compared to 25% in 2012. (For details on arrest type, see Appendix C, Table 4.)  Race/Ethnicity  The decrease in the number of marijuana arrests by race is the greatest for White arrestees (‐51%)  compared to Hispanics (‐33%) and African‐Americans (‐25%). The marijuana arrest rate for Whites and  Hispanics is comparable, but the marijuana arrest rate for African‐Americans is almost three times that  of Whites (348/100,000 for Blacks and 123/100,000 for Whites)(Table 1). (For details on arrest type, see  Appendix C, Table 4.)  Gender  The number of males arrested for marijuana showed a slightly larger decrease (‐47%) than the number  of females arrested (‐39%). The distribution of arrests remained about the same, with males  accounting for four out of five arrests. (For details on arrest type, see Appendix C, Table 4.)  County  Ten major Colorado counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson,  Larimer, Mesa, and Weld) all showed a decrease in arrests, ranging between ‐30% (El Paso) and ‐63%  (Adams). The average decrease in these 10 counties was ‐46% (see Appendix C, Table 1). Denver’s  reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest and  citation systems. Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation until  July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest data reported by Denver include a non‐criminal civil citation,  which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that year. See Appendix L, Table 16 for internal marijuana arrest data from the Denver Police Department. Agency  The trends for each agency reporting marijuana arrests to the National Incident-Based Reporting  System (NIBRS) are presented in Appendix C, Table 2. Nearly all other major departments reported  decreases in marijuana arrests, ranging from a ‐77% decrease for the Adams County Sheriff’s Office to a  ‐13% decrease for the Lakewood Police Department (see Appendix C, Table 2). Also, please see the note  regarding Denver in the previous paragraph.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 804 22  Table 1. Marijuana arrests and rates in Colorado, 2012–2014  Total marijuana arrests Marijuana arrests per 100,000  population  2012 2013 2014  % change  2012–2014 2012 2013 2014  % change  2012–2014  Total 12,894 6,502 7,004 ‐46% 249 123 131 ‐47% Arrest type  Possession 11,370 5,435 5,998 ‐47% 219 103 112 ‐49% Unspecified 1,038 726 600 ‐42% 20 14 11 ‐44% Sales 301 225 230 ‐24%6 4 4 ‐26% Production 179 111 176 ‐2%3 2 3 ‐5% Smuggling 6 5 0 100%<1 <1 0 ‐‐ Age group  10 to 17 years old 3,235 3,125 3,400 5% 591 561 598 1% 18 to 20 years old 3,347 2,277 2,244 ‐33% 1490 997 978 ‐34% 21 years or older 6,312 1,100 1,360 ‐78% 170 29 35 ‐79% Race/Ethnicity  White 9,343 4,476 4,552 ‐51% 260 123 123 ‐52% Hispanic 2,384 1,372 1,590 ‐33%219 124 140 ‐36% African‐American 958 543 716 ‐25%468 275 348 ‐26% Other 209 111 146 ‐30%71 35 44 ‐37% Gender  Male 10,474 5,269 5,517 ‐47% 403 200 206 ‐49% Female 2,420 1,233 1,487 ‐39% 93 47 56 ‐40% Note: Denver under‐reported marijuana arrests in 2012 and 2013, due to an issue with different arrest and citations systems. Denver  over‐reported arrests in 2014 due to including a non‐criminal civil citation. See Appendix L, Table 16 for internal marijuana arrest data from the Denver Police Department. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident‐Based Reporting System data.  Marijuana Offenses  Overall  The number of marijuana offenses reported to or that become known to law enforcement decreased at  around the same rate as arrests (Table 2). The number of offenses went down 44%, from 19,346 in 2012  to 10,814 in 2014. The biggest decrease was for possession, down 45% from 2012 to 2014. Offenses for  producing were down 24% and sales were down 23% from 2012 to 2014.   Age Group  The difference in the offense trend by age group is similar to the trend for arrests. There was a  substantial decrease in adult arrests, down 76%, and a somewhat smaller decrease in the 18 to 20 age  group, down 36%. The number of youth cited for marijuana offenses increased by 6%.  Additionally,  youth under 18 accounted for nearly half (48%) of marijuana offenses known to law enforcement in  2014, compared to 25% in 2012.  Gender  A decrease in offenses occurred across both genders, with a 45% reduction in male offenses and a 40%  reduction in female offenses. Females accounted for 15% of all offenses in 2012, rising to 22% of all  offenses in 2014.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 805 Table 2. Marijuana offenses and offense rates in Colorado, 2012–2014 Total marijuana offenses Marijuana offenses per 100,000 population Age group 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012-2014 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012-2014 Total 19,346 9,784 10,814 -44% 373 186 202 -46% Offense type Possession 18,278 9,068 9,983 -45% 352 172 187 -47% Producing 434 176 331 -24% 8 3 6 -26% Sales 612 500 474 -23% 12 9 9 -25% Smuggling 22 40 26 18% 0 1 0 15% Age group 10 to 17 years old 4,886 4,522 5,158 6% 394 362 409 4% 18 to 20 years old 5,237 3,365 3,363 -36% 2,331 1,473 1,466 -37% 21 years or older 9,049 1,781 2,214 -76% 243 47 57 -76% Gender Male 15,344 7,788 8,428 -45% 591 295 315 -47% Female 3,926 1,935 2,337 -40% 152 74 87 -42% Note: Race/ethnicity of suspect is not captured accurately for offenses and is not reported in this table. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System data. Location NIBRS captures information on the place an offense was reported to have occurred. There are 57 categories, including places like public transportation, bars, convenience stores, homes, parks/playgrounds, parking lots, primary/secondary schools, colleges, etc. Data for offenses grouped by place are presented in Figure 1 and data for all places individually are in Appendix D, Table 6. The place with the biggest numeric increase is elementary/secondary schools, where offenses increased from 1,766 offenses in 2012 to 2,363 offenses in 2014 (+34%). Figure 1. Marijuana offenses, by location type, 2012–2014 Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System data. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 806 Marijuana Court Filings The Colorado State Judicial Branch’s data system 19 was queried for marijuana filings 20 occurring between 2006 and 2015. The State Judicial data system captures information from the County and District Courts throughout the state, with the exception of Denver County Court. The data include information on statute, charge description, charge classification, judicial district, defendant age, and defendant race.21 The charges were categorized according to the text entered into the charge description field. The total number of marijuana-related filings declined 81% between 2012 and 2015, from 10,340 to 1,954 (Table 3). The number of felony filings declined 45% (1,023 to 566), misdemeanors declined 1% (586 to 409), and petty offenses dropped 89% (8,728 to 979) between 2012 and 2015. The charge of marijuana possession dropped 88% (9,130 to 1,068), possession with intent to distribute dropped 4% (329 to 315), distribution dropped 23% (304 to 235), manufacture dropped 68% (314 to 102), and conspiracy dropped 48% (50 to 26) between 2012 and 2015. Filings for public consumption increased in 2013 and 2014 but dropped in 2015, resulting in no real change between 2012 and 2015. The age of defendants is grouped into three categories. Between 2012 and 2015, filings declined 69% in the 10- to 17-year-old group; in the 18- to 20-year-old group, filings declined 78%; in the 21 and older age group, filings declined 86%. In the second half of 2015 there were 29 filings for manufacturing concentrate (i.e., hash oil, wax, shatter) using an inherently hazardous substance, such as butane (C.R.S. 18-18-406.6, effective date July 1, 2015). 19 Misdemeanor and petty offense charges from the City and County of Denver are not entered in the State Judicial database and are therefore presented in a separate table. Felony charges from Denver are included. 20 This includes charges under C.R.S. 18-18-406, excluding the subsections for synthetics and salvia. 21 The race category does not consistently capture whether a defendant’s ethnicity is Hispanic and will not be used in this report. Upon examining the data, only 7% of defendants were characterized as Hispanic compared to 21% of the general population and 23% of the marijuana arrestee population. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 807 Table 3. Marijuana court filings, by classification, category, and age group, 2006–2015 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 11,903 12,368 11,460 11,099 10,502 10,276 10,340 4,089 3,268 1,954 Charge classification Felony 1,652 1,641 1,481 1,483 1,404 1,064 1,023 645 426 566 Misdemeanor 1,383 1,072 804 668 646 615 586 408 537 409 Petty offense 8,866 9,650 9,175 8,942 8,449 8,594 8,728 3,036 2,304 979 Charge category Possession 10,284 10,740 10,006 9,605 9,010 8,984 9,130 3,160 2,400 1,068 Possession with intent to sell 702 692 661 649 519 387 329 256 242 315 Distribution 391 377 344 359 350 294 304 286 226 235 Manufacture 323 376 285 284 366 346 314 95 82 102 Public consumption 102 129 106 144 176 214 204 257 288 206 Conspiracy 56 40 34 50 60 46 50 32 29 26 Other 45 14 24 8 21 5 9 3 1 2 Age group 10 to 17 years old 1,777 1,888 1,676 1,619 1,688 1,583 1,665 1,530 1,180 519 18 to 20 years old 2,702 2,911 2,875 2,859 2,648 2,695 2,599 1,561 1,324 560 21 years or older 7,410 7,551 6,883 6,603 6,151 5,983 6,057 988 757 868 Note: The City and County of Denver do not report misdemeanors or petty offenses to the Colorado State Judicial Branch. Source: Data provided by the Colorado State Judicial Branch. The Denver County Court, which processes petty offenses and misdemeanors, operates separately from the State Judicial data system. The number of marijuana filings remained relatively stable, increasing by just 18 from 2014 to 2015 (Table 4). The types of filings did change, with an increase in public consumption and offenses within 1,000 feet of schools, and a decrease for minor in possession and offenses around the 16th Street Mall.22 Table 4. Misdemeanor and petty offense filings for marijuana in Denver County Court, by charge, 2014–2015a Offense Charge 2014 2015 Total 1,174 1,192 Minor in possession 371 297 Public consumption 484 548 Offenses within 1,000 feet of schoolsb 24 120 Offenses on/within one block of 16th St. Mallb 138 48 Offenses in public space/park/recreational facilityb 157 179 aThe month of April has a disproportionate share of filings, with 199 in 2014 and 319 in 2015. bOffenses include consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, or growth of marijuana. Source: Data provided by City and County of Denver, Office of Marijuana Policy. Organized Crime and Money Laundering The number of filings in which the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (COCCA) is charged in conjunction with a marijuana charge is presented in Table 5. There was no identifiable trend in the number of filings from 2006 to 2015. The most common marijuana filings were for distribution (54% of 22 The 16th Street Mall is an open-air pedestrian mall located in downtown Denver that has a substantial number of restaurants and shops. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 808 total) and conspiracy (22% of total). In 2015, there were 40 COCCA filings in conjunction with a distribution of marijuana charge, an increase from previous years. Table 5. Colorado Organized Crime Control Act filings associated with a marijuana charge, 2006–-2015 Filed in conjunction with: Year Total filings Distribution Conspiracy Manufacture Possession with intent Possession 2006 10 5 4 0 1 0 2007 1 0 0 1 0 0 2008 3 1 0 1 1 0 2009 8 2 1 0 2 3 2010 18 10 4 3 0 1 2011 15 3 7 3 1 1 2012 31 9 11 7 4 0 2013 16 7 5 3 1 0 2014 1 0 0 0 1 0 2015 40 40 0 0 0 0 Note: These data reflect cases in which a defendant is charged with violating the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (C.R.S. 18-17.104) in conjunction with a filing for a marijuana charge (C.R.S. 18-18-406). Source: Colorado State Judicial Branch. Crime Around Marijuana Establishments The number of crimes around marijuana establishments is difficult to measure. Colorado does not have a statewide database that places all reported crimes at a specific location. The Denver Police Department began a project to review all reported crime and determine if there is a clear connection or relationship to marijuana. Additionally, it codes whether the crime is related to the marijuana industry or not. The total number of industry-related crimes has remained stable and makes up a very small portion of overall crime in Denver (Table 6). The most common industry-related crime is burglary, which accounts for 62% of all industry-related crime. There has been concern that, due to the cash-only nature of the industry, robbery would be prevalent but this has not proven to be the case. The number of nonindustry-related marijuana crimes is small and has remained stable. Robbery accounted for 33% of nonindustry-related crime in 2015, followed by burglary at 30%, and larceny/theft at 20%. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 809 Table 6. Marijuana-related crime in Denver, 2012–2015 2012 2013 2014 2015 Industry 170 156 175 183 Assault 1 3 3 2 Robbery 2 4 7 5 Burglary 130 102 115 114 Larceny/theft 12 17 24 22 Criminal mischief 20 18 14 13 Other crimes 5 12 12 27 Nonindustry 50 85 97 69 Assault 4 8 9 8 Robbery 19 22 26 23 Burglary 15 30 38 21 Larceny/theft 10 13 18 14 Criminal mischief 0 4 0 0 Other crimes 2 8 6 3 Source: Denver Open Data Catalog, Crime Marijuana, http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-crime-marijuana, retrieved 1/15/2016. Traffic Safety Driving Under the Influence Detection Issues The issue of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), particularly marijuana, is one that is receiving increased attention due to legalization. It is difficult to gauge the scope of the DUID problem for a number of reasons. First, there is no criminal charge that specifies the driver is impaired by drugs instead of, or in combination with, alcohol. The current statute applies to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.23 Second, there is no central repository of toxicology results that would allow for an analysis of trends. Information is available from some laboratories but those results cannot be linked with court cases at this time. Third, law enforcement may choose not to pursue additional toxicology testing if the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is above .08, which is the per se limit above which a driver is considered to be under the influence in Colorado statute. The additional time and cost required for further toxicology testing may not be considered worthwhile if the burden of proof for impairment is already being met by a BAC level. Colorado has established a limit of 5 ng/ml of delta 9-THC in whole blood that creates a permissible inference that a “defendant was under the influence of one or more drugs.”24 After an arrest, if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect is impaired by drugs and/or alcohol,25 the officer may transfer the suspect to a location where blood can be drawn for further toxicology screening. During this 23 C.R.S. 42-4-1301. 24 C.R.S. 42-4-1301 (6)(a)(IV). 25 An officer may also transport a suspect for blood screening in cases where alcohol is the only substance suspected. There are evidentiary breath alcohol testers available to law enforcement which are easier to administer and available in jails and some police stations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 810 time, the officer must also obtain a warrant to draw the suspect’s blood. The delta-9 THC level in blood decreases rapidly in the first hour after use, then gradually thereafter, making prompt testing critical.26 The Colorado Task Force on Drunk and Impaired Driving 27 is working to improve the data available to conduct research on this topic. Additionally, the Colorado State Patrol began a pilot program in 2015 to test oral fluid devices that detect THC in saliva. The program’s outcomes are being evaluated by comparing outcomes of the oral fluid testing and blood testing results. The results will be published after analysis by researchers at the University of Colorado, Denver. Finally, the findings below should be considered in light of the fact that the number of peace officers who have been trained to identify driving impairment from drugs other than alcohol has increased substantially in recent years. In 2012 there were 129 peace officers statewide trained as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and by November 2015 there were 228. Hundreds of additional peace officers have also received training in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). Colorado State Patrol The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) accounts for about 20% of all arrests for driving under the influence in Colorado. It began collecting information on the perceived impairing substance(s) of drivers at the beginning of 2014. CSP has the most drug recognition experts of any law enforcement agency in the state, with 65 (9% of all sworn personnel) as of December 2015. These factors combine to make CSP the best agency to use as a benchmark for issues related to impaired driving in Colorado. According to the data collected by the State Patrol, the total number of reported DUIs dropped 18% between 2014 (5,546) and 2015 (4,546) (Table 7). Summons in which alcohol was the only substance decreased by 988 (-18%). The number of summons in which marijuana or marijuana-in-combination was recorded decreased by nine (-1%) between 2014 and 2015. The prevalence of marijuana or marijuana- in-combination (marijuana only, marijuana and alcohol, and marijuana and other drugs) as the perceived impairing substance increased from 12% of all DUIs in 2014 to 15% in 2015. Table 7. DUI summons issued by the Colorado State Patrol, by substance, 2014–2015 2014 2015 N % N % Total DUI citations 5,546 100% 4,546 100% Alcohol only 4,672 84% 3,684 81% Marijuana only 354 6% 347 8% Marijuana and alcohol 209 4% 209 5% Marijuana and other drugs 111 2% 109 2% Other drugs only 200 4% 197 4% Note: Substance is based on trooper perception and may not reflect results from toxicology tests. Source: Data provided by the Colorado State Patrol. 26 Atha, M. (2000). Blood and urine drug testing for cannabinoids, available at: http://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf. 27 For more information on the CTFDID, please see https://www.codot.gov/about/committees/DUI-taskforce. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 811 Denver Police Department The Denver Police Department began collecting data on DUID in 2013 (Table 8). The number of cases of driving under the influence of marijuana or marijuana-in-combination is small but has been increasing, from 33 in 2013 to 73 in 2015. In 2014, it accounted for 2.5% of all DUI citations in Denver and in 2015 it accounted for 3.0% of all DUI citations. Table 8. Driving under the influence in Denver, by impairment reason, 2013–2015 2013 2014 2015 DUI Total 2,896 2,619 2,532 DUID 84 129 148 Marijuana 33 66 73 Other 51 63 75 Marijuana includes marijuana alone or in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Other includes other drugs alone or in combination with alcohol. Mandated Treatment for Driving Under the Influence Drivers convicted of driving under the influence in Colorado are mandated to attend approved treatment classes before their driver’s license privilege can be reinstated. When they are admitted into treatment, the primary drug of abuse is captured in the Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System (DACODS). Overall, admissions for DUI treatment dropped 12% from 2007 to 2014 (Figure 2). In that same period, admissions in which marijuana was listed as the primary drug increased by 48%. Figure 2. DUI treatment admission trends Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 812 Toxicology A total of 11 labs are currently certified by the CDPHE to perform toxicology testing for DUI/DUID purposes. Only four of the 11 labs routinely perform blood drug analysis for DUI/DUID where a fatality has not occurred: the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Colorado State University, Rocky Mountain Instrumental Labs, and Chematox. Chematox is a private lab based in Boulder that performs a large number of screenings for more than 160 law enforcement agencies. In 2014, Chematox performed 4,371 toxicology screenings (Table 9). Of those 4,371, 65% tested positive on the initial cannabinoid screen for metabolites of THC, which can be present for weeks after consumption. Of those that tested positive on the initial screen, 67% tested positive for psychoactive Delta-9 THC at 2ng/ml or greater. The trend for positive initial cannabinoid screens was stable from 2010 to 2013 (approximately 58%) and then jumped to 65% in 2014. The trend for detecting active THC at 2ng/ml or higher in whole blood has been moving upward since 2009. The 2 ng/ml threshold was used to detect probable recent use and not necessarily impairment. Table 9. Toxicology screening for cannabinoids and active THC by Chematox Lab, 2009–2014 Year Total screens % positive cannabinoid screens % active THC 2ng/ml or higher 2009 1,514 52% 28% 2010 2,809 58% 38% 2011 3,987 59% 49% 2012 4,263 57% 52% 2013 4,333 58% 63% 2014 4,371 65% 67% Source: Sara Urfer, Chematox Laboratory. Fatality Analysis Reporting System The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is a program administered federally by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and statewide by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). FARS contains data derived from a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must involve a motor vehicle traveling on a traffic way customarily open to the public and must result in the death of at least one person (occupant of a vehicle or a nonmotorist) within 30 days of the crash. The FARS database includes 143 coded data elements that characterize the crash, the vehicles, and the people involved.28 FARS includes information from toxicology testing of drivers and others involved in the crash when it is available. The percentage of drivers tested for drugs has remained between 45% and 50% for the past three years, according to information provided by CDOT. The status of the driver 28 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2014), Fatality Analysis Reporting System, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811992.pdf, retrieved 1/14/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 813 has an impact on testing prevalence, with 81% of deceased drivers tested compared to 14% of living drivers in 2014. This limits any conclusions that can be drawn about the prevalence of DUID in Colorado. Additionally, in 2013, the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) began working with CDOT to enhance the collection of toxicology data. In 2012, 9% of drivers had a drug test conducted, but the results were not reported to CDOT. The partnership between CDOT and RMHIDTA, where additional contact was made with coroners or law enforcement to obtain results, has virtually eliminated this problem of missing data. This improvement in the completeness of Colorado’s FARS data, however, makes comparisons to years prior to 2013 difficult. The type of testing reported also precludes making any definitive statements about driver impairment. The primary compound in cannabis that produces psychoactive effects is Delta-9-THC, which begins to dissipate in blood rapidly after consumption. There are other active metabolites of THC (11-OH-THC) which dissipate quickly and inactive metabolites (THC-COOH) that are detectable in blood for longer periods of time.29 It is not possible to tell in the FARS data if the test detected psychoactive Delta-9-THC or the other metabolites of THC. The results reported here only indicate the presence of THC and are not statements about driver impairment. The number of fatalities in which the driver tested positive for THC-only or THC-in-combination increased from 55 in 2013 to 79 in 2014 (Table 10). The number of fatalities in which the driver tested positive for THC-only increased from 23 in 2013 to 37 in 2014. Fatalities in which the driver tested positive for THC-in-combination increased from 32 in 2013 to 42 in 2014. The percentage of all fatalities with a THC positive (alone or in combination) driver increased from 12% in 2013 to 15% in 2014. Table 10. Fatalities from motor vehicle crashes in Colorado, by driver toxicology results, 2013–2014 2013 2014 N fatalities % N fatalities % Total fatalities 481 100% 488 100% No alcohol or drugs 141 29% 153 32% Alcohol only 78 16% 107 22% THC only 23 5% 37 7% THC and alcohol 18 4% 31 6% THC and other drugs 9 2% 5 1% THC, alcohol, and other drugs 5 1% 6 1% Other drugs only 44 9% 27 6% Alcohol and other drugs 20 4% 17 3% Unknown 143 30% 105 22% Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, Fatality Analysis Reporting System. 29 Huestis, M., Henningfield, J., and Cone, E. (1992). Blood cannabinoids I: Absorption of THC and formation of 11-OH-THC and THC-COOH during and after marijuana smoking, Journal of analytical toxicology, 16, 276-282. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21817925_Blood_cannabinoids_I_absorption_of_THC_and_formation_of_11-OH- THC_and_THC-COOH_during_and_after_marijuana_smoking, retrieved 1/15/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 814 The number of drivers testing positive for THC-only or THC-in-combination increased from 47 in 2013 to 67 in 2014 (Table 11). The number testing positive for THC-only increased from 18 to 29. The percentage of drivers who tested positive for THC (alone or in combination) increased from 8% in 2013 to 10% in 2014. However, only about half of all drivers involved in fatal crashes are tested for drugs. Table 11. Drivers in fatal motor vehicle crashes in Colorado, by toxicology results, 2013-2014 2013 2014 N drivers % N drivers % Total drivers 627 100% 684 100% No alcohol or drugs 150 24% 140 21% Alcohol only 87 14% 95 14% THC only 18 3% 29 4% THC and alcohol 16 3% 28 4% THC and other drugs 8 1% 5 1% THC, alcohol, and other drugs 5 1% 5 1% Other drugs only 36 6% 25 4% Alcohol and other drugs 20 3% 16 2% Unknown 287 46% 341 50% Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Law Enforcement Training to Detect Impairment Three training programs were administered in fiscal year 2015 using the marijuana tax revenue funds allocated to Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) for law enforcement training from Senate Bill 14-215. Training data are provided by the State of Colorado’s Department of Law for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is a peace officer trained to recognize, document and articulate impairment in drivers under the influence of drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. The course to become a DRE is 56 hours, the DRE instructor course is an additional 24 hours, and an annual eight hour update is required. In fiscal year 2015 training was completed for 56 DREs, 17 DRE instructors, and 160 DREs attended the required update training (Table 12). As of December 2015, a total of 228 DREs were certified statewide (Figure 3), an increase from 32 in 2006. The Colorado State Patrol (65) and Denver Police Department (31) have the greatest number of DREs. The Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program was created to address the gap in training between the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing and the Drug Recognition Expert program. ARIDE bridges the gap between these two programs by providing officers with general knowledge related to drug impairment and by promoting the use of DREs. ARIDE training is 16 hours long. In fiscal year 2015 ARIDE training was completed for 562 peace officers (Table 12). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 815 The Introduction to Marijuana for Law Enforcement (Marijuana 101) course is designed to clarify legal issues for peace officers. Topics covered are potential lawsuits, the difference between Amendments 20 and 64, changes to possession charges and limits, the meaning of being a caregiver and medical marijuana patient, how marijuana has changed the way law enforcement conducts and develops probable cause for a search, how to query a medical marijuana card on the Colorado Crime Information Center database, and investigations. This course allows the peace officers attending to participate in scenario-based training and gain an understanding of marijuana laws. In fiscal year 2015 this training was provided to 2,256 peace officers, 40 civilians, 70 school resource officers, and 14 “train the trainers” (Table 12). Table 12. POST Training Funded by marijuana tax revenue, July 2014–June 2015 Training Hours required Number of classes Number officers trained Drug Recognition Expert Operator 56 3 56 Instructor 24 2 17 Annual update 8 2 160 ARIDE 16 35 562 Marijuana for Law Enforcement Law enforcement 4 103 2,256 officers/ 40 civilians School Resource Officers 2 1 70 Train the Trainer 8 2 14 Source: Colorado Attorney General’s Office, Peace Officer Standards and Training. Figure 3. Cumulative drug recognition experts in Colorado, 2006–2015 Source: Data provided by Colorado Department of Transportation. Probationer Drug Test Results Colorado’s Probation Departments conduct drug tests on adult probationers. The frequency of testing is determined by assessment, court orders, and other case-related information. There is no link currently between probationer drug testing results and their probation status so it is not known if changes in drug April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 816 34  use patterns are affecting probation violations. Table 13 presents information on the percentage of  probationers tested who are positive for THC, categorized by the number of times they tested positive in  a year. The percent of the 18‐ to 25‐year‐old group who tested positive for THC one or two times  decreased from 20% in 2012 to 17% in 2014. The percent testing positive three or more times increased  from 13% to 15%. The 26‐ to 35‐year‐old group showed a similar trend, from 21% in 2012 to 20% in  2014. The percent testing positive just one or two times decreased from 13% to 11%, while those testing  positive three or more times increased from 8% to 9%. The 36 and older group went from 15% testing  positive in 2012 to 13% in 2014. The percent testing positive just one or two times decreased from 9% to  7%, while those testing positive three or more times held steady at 6%.   Table 13. Adult probationer drug test results for THC, 2012–2014  Percent of probationers  testing positive  Age Group  Times tested  positive 2012 2013 2014  18–25 years old  N probationers 17,349 17,245 15,869  0 times 67% 68% 68%  1–2 times 20% 18% 17%  3 or more times 13% 14% 15%  26–35 years old  N probationers 15,221 16,794 17,003  0 times 79% 80% 80%  1–2 times 13% 11% 11%  3 or more times 8% 8% 9%  36 years or older  N probationers 16,314 18,598 19,300  0 times 86% 87% 87%  1–2 times 9% 8% 7%  3 or more times 6% 5% 6%  Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.  Source: Data provided by Colorado State Judicial Department.  The percent of all drug tests that are positive for THC has remained stable for all adult age groups (Table  14). For 18‐ to 25‐year‐olds, 12% of their tests were positive in both 2012 and 2014. For 26‐ to 35‐year‐ olds, 7% of their tests were positive in both 2012 and 2014. The percent of drug tests for those 36 years  or older dropped slightly, from 5% to 4%.  Table 14. Adult probationer drug test results:   percent of tests that are positive for THC, 2012–2014  Age group 2012 2013 2014  18–‐25 years old 12% 12% 12% 26–35 years old 7% 7% 7% 36 years or older 5% 4% 4% Source: Data provided by Colorado State Judicial Department.  Illegal Cultivation on Public Land  The issue of marijuana being grown illegally on public land was of concern to the legislature. Contact  was made with the National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 817 to determine what enforcement action had been taken in the last seven years. The number of growing operations and plants seized shows no discernible trend (Table 15). The year with the greatest activity was 2012, with 11 grow operations seized, accounting for approximately 46,622 plants. Two maps, Figures 4 and 5, show the number of grow operations and plants seized from 2009–2012 and 2013– 2015. Table 15. Marijuana plants seized on public land, by agency, 2009–2015 Plants seized Year Grows seized National Forest Service Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Total number of plants 2009 8 29,200 177 4 29,381 2010 5 15,665 0 0 15,665 2011 4 3,970 0 0 3,970 2012 11 46,662 0 0 46,662 2013 3 4,980 0 0 4,980 2014 4 4,484 0 0 4,484 2015 6 22,830 2,200 0 25,030 Source: Data provided by National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Figure 4. Marijuana on public lands, by county, number of seizures, and number of plants seized, 2009–2012 Note: Darker shaded areas indicate a higher number of plants eradicated. Source: Data provided by National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 818 Figure 5. Marijuana on public lands, by county, number of seizures, and number of plants seized, 2013–2015 Note: Darker shaded areas indicate a higher number of plants eradicated. Source: Data provided by National Forest Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Drug Enforcement Administration Cannabis Eradication Program The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) initiated the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP), which is the only nationwide law enforcement program that exclusively targets drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) involved in cannabis cultivation (Table 16). Through its nationwide cannabis eradication efforts, the DEA provides resources to support the 128 state and local law enforcement agencies that actively participate in the program. This assistance allows for the enhancement of already aggressive eradication enforcement activities throughout the nation. The number of outdoor grow sites eradicated in Colorado went down from 16 in 2011 to 3 in 2012 and remained low through 2014 (Table 16). The number of outdoor plants destroyed has also decreased each year since 2011, from 26,020 in 2011 down to 2,630 in 2014. The trend in number of indoor grows and plants seized have not shown a consistent pattern. The number of arrests decreased from 60 in 2010 to 11 in 2011 and has stayed low since then. The number of weapons seized has gone up however, from 0 in 2011 to 47 in 2012, 11 in 2013, and 23 in 2014. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 819 Table 16. Drug Enforcement Administration cannabis eradication/suppression program in Colorado, 2006–2014 Year Outdoor grow sites Outdoor plants Indoor grow sites Indoor plants Bulk processed marijuana (pounds) Number of arrests Weapons seized Assets seized (value) 2006 14 3,819 47 3,667 1,727 193 19 $932,679 2007 31 2,498 45 2,430 57 143 29 $903,944 2008 17 5,564 29 24,469 64 36 0 $3,094,240 2009 28 29,655 7 235 62 5 0 $12,500 2010 7 6,331 50 5,492 0 60 0 $153,674 2011 16 26,020 3 4 125 11 0 $15,626 2012 3 21,235 7 2,069 515 9 47 $354,325 2013 2 5,562 19 11,042 1,636 2 11 $257,938 2014 3 2,630 18 5,426 381 6 23 $2,066,855 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. Cannabis Eradication, http://www.justice.gov/dea/ops/cannabis.shtml, retrieved 4/20/2015; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, URL: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook, retrieved 9/16/2014. Diversion Out of State The Colorado Information Analysis Center (CIAC), in the Department of Public Safety, is developing a comprehensive overview of where and how marijuana is being diverted out of Colorado. At present, staff is working to identify data sources that can reliably report on marijuana that is diverted from Colorado to other states. CIAC has compiled data from a service called Black Asphalt, an online forum for law enforcement drug interdiction that has more than 20,000 active online members from almost all states. Nationally, between January 1, 2014 and August 30, 2015 there were 261 drug-related interdiction submissions 30 in which Colorado was the originating state. Of these 261 submissions, 169 (65%) were for marijuana/hashish. Almost all of the marijuana seizures (166 of 169) were destined for states outside of Colorado, most commonly Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, and Missouri. It is unknown whether that marijuana is coming from licensed businesses, caregivers, personal growers, or the general black market, thus a conclusion that it is related to legalization of marijuana is premature. Locally, CIAC received data from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. Between January 1, 2015 and December 15, 2015, Wyoming reported 48 submissions in which Colorado was the originating state and 47 of them were for marijuana/hashish. CIAC is expanding its marijuana diversion data collection capabilities and future reports will include data from a wider variety of data sources and longer periods of time. In a study published in 2015, researchers from the University of Nebraska, Omaha 31 compared marijuana arrests for the period 2000–2004 (prior to medical commercialization) to 2009–2013 (after 30 A submission can include seizures of drugs, cash, or weapons. 31 Ellison, J. & Spohn, R. (2015). Borders up in smoke: Marijuana enforcement in Nebraska after Colorado’s legalization of medicinal marijuana, Criminal Justice Policy Review, available at Online First, http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/11/23/0887403415615649.abstract. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 820 medical commercialization). They focused on comparing arrest trends in Nebraska counties bordering Colorado, counties along the I-80 corridor, and all other counties in Nebraska (control group) to determine if proximity to Colorado or a major transportation artery was associated with an increase in marijuana arrests. They found that the “rate of marijuana arrests and jail admissions is quite low (i.e., less than 2.5 arrests per 1,000 residents)” (p.10) and were most commonly for possession. They also found that for both 2000–2004 and 2009–2013, border counties and counties along the I-80 corridor had higher arrest rates for marijuana possession. Additionally, border counties experienced a significant increase in both possession and sales arrest rates after commercialization when compared to other counties in the control group. Counties along the I-80 corridor did not show a significant increase in arrest rates for either possession or sales after commercialization compared to the control group. Transfer Using Parcel Services CIAC is working to gather data from the United States Postal Inspection Service, UPS, and FedEx. These data should be available for future reports. Summary The public safety data provided in this report will act as baseline measurements for future reports. Not enough time has elapsed after legalization to allow for any definitive statements about impacts, but the attention being paid to this topic has enhanced the efforts to collect information. This enhanced attention has the potential to change patterns of enforcement independent of any change in the behavior of Colorado residents and visitors alike. The long-term public safety impacts of legalization will not be clear for several years and, even then, separating out marijuana legalization as the cause of any change will be difficult. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 821 SECTION THREE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH Overview The impacts of marijuana legalization on public health in Colorado are still being assessed. This section summarizes several sources of epidemiological data. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulates environmental health and safety for the state and is required to measure and report on the public health impacts of marijuana legalization. CDPHE has produced a report, Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2014,32 which should be reviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the public health concerns in the state. CDPHE is measuring marijuana use patterns by county and race/ethnicity, as is required by statute. There are two primary sources of data on this topic. The first comes from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), a long-term survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The second is from CDPHE’s version of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). These are discussed below. Trends in admissions to emergency departments and hospitalizations with an indication of marijuana exposure, billing code, or diagnosis code are also examined below. This information comes from Colorado Hospital Association data analyzed by CDPHE. The limitations of these data are also discussed. Trends in marijuana exposure calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center from 2006 to 2014 that were analyzed from CDPHE are also detailed below. Data provided by the Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health provide information on two treatment topics in this section. The first focuses on licensed facilities that report treatment admissions in which marijuana is listed as the client’s primary drug of abuse. The second looks at trends in frequency of use by clients in treatment for marijuana abuse. Adult Usage National Survey on Drug Use and Health The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) conducts the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).33 NSDUH is the primary source of information on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use and abuse and mental disorders in the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population, age 12 and older. The survey generates estimates at the national, state, and substate levels. NSDUH is state-based, with an independent, multistage area probability sample within each state and the District of Columbia. SAMHSA produces 32 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Monitoring marijuana-related health effects, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/monitoring-marijuana-related-health-effects. 33 Descriptions of NSDUH derived from information available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh/reports. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 822 state-level estimates from a two-year rolling average. This means that each year presented in this report actually represents two years of data. For purposes of reporting, only the second year is presented in these tables and figures.34 The two-year prevalence rates for Colorado residents 18 and older are based on weighted estimates from between 1,200 and 1,300 survey respondents.35 Figures 6, 8, 10 and 12 have additional information that needs explanation. First, there are bars above and below each estimate which represent the 95% confidence intervals of that estimate. These intervals show that there is a 95% chance that the true value is found within the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. These intervals are affected by the standard error of the mean and the number of people in the sample. The standard error of the mean is a measure of how different the sample mean is likely to be from the true population mean. Additionally, the more people that are in the sample, assuming they are chosen at random from the population of interest, the more precise the measurement, resulting in a smaller confidence interval. Further, the triangles in these figures represent the results of a statistical comparison between the estimate for that particular year and 2014. The Welch’s unpaired t-test was used to test a statistically significant difference between the means because the years have different variance estimates. The standard deviation for each year was calculated using the values from the confidence intervals and number of people in the sample. If a year is marked with a triangle it indicates a statistically significant difference from 2014 with a two-tailed probability (p) value less than .05. This means that if 100 samples are drawn from a population, a similar difference between the two means would occur 95 times. Young Adult Trends (18–25 Years Old) The current prevalence rates for marijuana usage have increased significantly for young adults (18–25 years old), from 21% in 2006 to 31% in 2014 (Figure 6). This change contrasts with a decline in cigarette use (down from 40% to 32%) and other illicit drug use (down from 10% to 8%) during this same period (Figure 7). Alcohol use has not changed appreciably, with current usage rates staying around 69% during this period. 34 For example, data indicated as 2014 is actually the average of 2013 and 2014. 35 Estimates for smaller substate regions are based on three-year averages and the most recent results only cover the 2010– 2012 period. The updated estimates will be presented once data for the 2013-2015 period become available. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 823 Figure 6. Past 30-day marijuana use, 18–25 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Please see Page 40 for an explanation of confidence intervals and the statistical tests used for this analysis. Figure 7. Past 30-day substance use, 18–25 years old, 1999–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. The perception of a great risk from once-per-month marijuana use has decreased significantly in young adults in Colorado, from 19% to 8% in the period from 2006 to 2014 (Figure 8). The national average April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 824 went down significantly, from 25% to 14%. The perception of risk for Colorado residents has been lower than the national average and both have decreased over time. The gap between the nation and Colorado for perceived risk has remained relatively stable at between 5% and 6%. The perception of great risk for smoking a pack of cigarettes a day or regular binge drinking has remained stable (Figure 9). Figure 8. Perception of great risk for using marijuana once a month, 18–25 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Please see Page 40 for an explanation of confidence intervals and the statistical tests used for this analysis. Figure 9. Perception of great risk for using various substances, 18–25 years old, 1999–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 825 Adult Trends (26 Years or Older) Reported current marijuana use by adults increased from 5% in 2006 to 12% in 2014 (Figure 10). The 2014 usage rate is significantly higher than the rate from any other time from 2006 to 2013. When compared to current national marijuana usage, Colorado shows a consistently higher rate. Adult usage has also increased significantly at the national level, but the gap between the two rates has widened from about 1% difference in 2006 to more than a 6% difference in 2014. The prevalence trends for alcohol, cigarette, and other illicit drug use show no appreciable changes over this same period (Figure 11). Figure 10. Past 30-day marijuana use, 26 years or older, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Please see Page 40 for an explanation of confidence intervals and the statistical tests used for this analysis. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 826 Figure 11. Past 30-day substance use, 26 years or older, 1999–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. The perceived risk in adults from using marijuana once a month shows a significant decrease for marijuana, from 33% in 2006 down to 20% in 2014 (Figure 12). The perception of great risk at the national level has also decreased, from 42% in 2006 to 30% in 2014. The gap between the nation’s perception of risk and Colorado’s has remained relatively stable over time. The perception of great risk for smoking a pack of cigarettes a day or regular binge drinking has remained stable (Figure 13). Figure 12. Perception of great risk for using marijuana once a month, 26 years or older, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Please see Page 40 for an explanation of confidence intervals and the statistical tests used for this analysis. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 827 Figure 13. Perception of great risk for using various substances, 26 years or older, 1999–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System The Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a system of telephone surveys sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor lifestyles and behaviors related to the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. In recent years, health professionals and the public have become increasingly aware of the role of such lifestyle factors as cigarette smoking, being overweight, sedentary lifestyle, and the nonuse of seat belts in contributing to injury, illness, and death.36 Questions regarding marijuana use and other marijuana-related behaviors were added to the Colorado BRFSS in 2014. These results will act as baseline measurements for adult usage rates and other behaviors based on a sample that is larger than the one that produces estimates for the NSDUH. In the 2014 administration, the BRFSS questions regarding marijuana were asked in two of the three sample splits, resulting in a final sample size of 7,708.37 CDPHE is conducting additional analyses of these data that will be presented in future reports. Overall, 14% of Colorado adults (age 18 and over) reported current use of marijuana and 49% reported use at some time in their life (Table 17). The average age at first use was 18 years old. According to the BRFSS, 33% of current users report using daily. Additionally, 19% of current users report driving after using. Age group and gender were both significant predictors of current marijuana use. Males were more likely to report current use of marijuana (17%) than females (10%). Residents under 25 were much more likely 36 Additional information on the Colorado BRFSS can be accessed here: http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adult_Health_Data. 37 The survey for the BRFSS is split into three sample groups that may have questions regarding different topics. The questions about marijuana were asked in two of the three sample splits. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 828 to report current use (29%) than those 25–44 years old (17%), 45–64 (10%), or those 65 and older (3%).38 Individuals who attended college reported lower current usage rates (12%) than those who did not receive a high school diploma (17%) or were high school graduates (16%). Interestingly, this trend was reversed when the question concerned lifetime usage. Income level was also related to marijuana use, with 20% of those earning less than $25,000 per year reporting current use, while 12% of those earning $25,000–$49,999 and 11% of those earning $50,000 or more reported use in the past 30 days. Sexual orientation was also related to current marijuana use. Those who reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, or bisexual reported current use 30% of the time compared to 13% of those who identified as heterosexual. Race was not a significant predictor of marijuana use. However, there were differences between African-Americans reporting current use (19%) and Whites (14%) and Hispanics (12%). Table 17. Reported marijuana use among Colorado adults, by demographic characteristics, 2014: BRFSS Current use Lifetime use Age at first use Colorado 13.6% 48.9% 18.1 years Gendera Male 17.2 54.7 17.5 Female 10.0 43.0 18.8 Age groupa 18–24 years old 28.8 52.1 16.0 25–44 years old 16.6 53.5 17.2 46–64 years old 10.3 56.1 18.0 65 years or older 3.0 23.3 26.8 Education levela Less than high school 16.8 36.9 17.1 High school graduate 16.3 45.5 17.5 Some college or more 12.3 52.0 18.4 Income levela < $25,000 19.8 46.6 17.8 $25,000–$49,999 12.3 46.3 18.6 $50,000+ 11.1 53.4 18.0 Race/ethnicity White 14.1 51.7 18.2 Black 19.2 56.8 18.0 Hispanic 11.7 36.9 17.5 Other 8.0 44.8 17.9 Sexual orientationa Heterosexual 12.9 48.7 18.1 Gay, lesbian, or bisexual 30.0 64.4 17.5 a Groups showed significant difference at p < .05. Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. 38 The differences in current usage rates were significantly different (p < .05) level for these categories. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 829 The BRFSS results for Colorado are grouped into 21 Health Statistics Regions (HSRs). Larger counties act as their own regions, while smaller counties are combined into larger regions so there are enough cases to make valid estimates for those areas. Figure 14 shows the variation in usage rates across Colorado. The highest current usage is reported in Region 16 (Boulder and Broomfield) at 19%. The lowest rate was reported in Region 5 (Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, and Lincoln) at 1%. Detailed data on each region’s usage is presented in Appendix G, Table 12. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 830 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System. Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits CDPHE analyzed data from the Colorado Hospital Administration and categorized visits according to their International Classification of Diseases, Volume 9 ICD-9-CM codes to determine if the visit indicated possible marijuana exposure or used a diagnosis/billing code indicating marijuana. Use of these codes does not mean that the visit is motivated by marijuana exposure but simply that it is a possibility. The four codes used include: 305.2-Marijuana (Cannabis Abuse); 304.3-Marijuana (Cannabis Dependence); 969.6-Poisoning by psychodysleptics (hallucinogens); and E854.1-Accidental poisoning by psychodysleptics (hallucinogens). For the purposes of 969.6 and E854.1, hallucinogens can include cannabis, LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin (mushrooms). The data reflect four different eras of legalization in Colorado (Figure 15). In 2000 (prior to medical legalization), the rate was 575 hospitalizations per 100,000. This increased significantly during the era when medical marijuana was legalized but not commercialized (2001–2009), rising to 803 hospitalizations per 100,000. The era of medical marijuana commercialization (2010–2013) saw another significant jump, to 1,440 hospitalizations per 100,000. Finally, the most recent era of retail Figure 14. Reported marijuana use by Colorado adults in past 30 days, by region, 2014: BRFSS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 831 commercialization (2014–June 2015) has shown another significant increase, to 2,413 hospitalizations per 100,000. The data on Emergency Department (ED) visits is more limited due to changes in reporting. The period of retail commercialization showed a significant increase in ED visits, from 739 per 100,000 (2010–2013) to 956 per 100,000 ED visits (2014–June 2015). Figure 15. Rates of hospitalizations (HD) and emergency department (ED) visits with possible marijuana exposures, diagnoses, or billing codes per 100,000 HD and ED visits, by legalization eras in Colorado Source: Data provided by Colorado Hospital Association with analysis provided by CDPHE. Note: Data for 2015 covers January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015. NA = Data not available. An individual can be represented more than once in the data; therefore, the rate is HD or ED visits with marijuana codes per 100,000 total HD or ED visits. The most recent information on monitoring health-related effects can be found at CDPHE’s website on this topic: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/monitoring-marijuana-related-health-effects. Poison Control The Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center (RMPDC) provided data to CDPHE for analysis. The number of calls to poison control mentioning human marijuana exposure has increased over the past 10 years (Figure 16). There were 44 calls in 2006 and 227 in 2015. The increases occurred across all age groups, with the biggest jumps in the 8-year-old and younger age group (4 in 2006 to 49 in 2015) and the 25 and older group (8 in 2006 to 78 in 2015). There were two years in which the total increases are most notable, in 2010 (+51 from 2009) and again in 2014 (+98 from 2013). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 832 Figure 16. Human marijuana exposure calls to Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, by age group, 2006–2015 Note: Human marijuana exposure calls to RMPDC were determined by the presence of the generic code ‘Marijuana-0083000’ from the National Poison Data System. Source: Data provided by Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center with analysis provided by CDPHE. Treatment Trends The Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health (OBH) requires licensed drug and alcohol treatment centers to submit information on all individuals admitted to treatment. The data are entered into OBH’s Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System (DACODS) and are the source of the information provided in this section. These data include the top three drugs of abuse, demographic characteristics, referral source, referral reason, time in treatment, client residence, and much more. The age at first use for those seeking treatment for marijuana abuse has remained stable at around 14.2 years (Figure 17) during the period of 2007–2014. The age at first treatment has increased since 2010, from 23.3 years up to 25.4 years. The time from first usage to first treatment is increasing, from around nine years in 2010 to 11.2 years in 2014. The reasons behind this change are unknown at this time, but OBH is tracking this development. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 833 Figure 17. Age at first use of marijuana and age at first treatment, 2007–2014 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. Treatment admission rates (per 100,000 population) with marijuana as one of the three reported drugs of abuse are detailed in Figure 18. The rate has decreased since 2009 for those under 18, from its peak at 271 to 180 admissions per 100,000 population in that age group. The admission rate has also decreased for those in the 18–20 age group, from 1,733 to 1,066 admissions per 100,000. The one group showing an increase are those 21 or over, from 569 to 618 per 100,000. This is an interesting finding, because this oldest age group is the only one for whom marijuana use is considered legal. Figure 18. Treatment admission rate reporting marijuana as drug of abuse, by age group, 2007—2014 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 834 The DACODS also collects information on frequency of drug use in the 30 days prior to treatment (Figure 19). In 2007, 52% of clients seeking treatment were occasional users (1–7 days of use in the past 30 days) and 22% were heavy users (22 days or more). By 2014, this distribution changed and the same percentage of occasional users (36%) and heavy users (36%) were admitted to treatment. This indicates that those seeking treatment were more likely to be heavy users prior to admission. The most common method of marijuana use was smoking (91%), followed by inhalation (5%), and oral (4%). Figure 19. Reported marijuana use in past 30 days, by number of reported days of use, 2007–2014 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. In sum, the impacts of marijuana legalization on public health in Colorado are still being assessed. Surveys of marijuana use show that, among young adults (18-25), past 30-day use increased from 21% in 2006 39 to 31% in 2014. Past 30-day use among adults ages 26 and older increased from 5% in 2006 to 12% in 2014. Since 2000, rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits possibly related to marijuana have increased, as have the number of calls to poison control. Drug treatment admission rates for marijuana increased somewhat between 2007 and 2014 for those over the age of 21. 39 Note that the 2006 NSDUH survey for Colorado showed the lowest past 30-day use since 1999. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 835 SECTION FOUR IMPACT ON YOUTH Overview This section focuses on the impact of marijuana legalization on youth. The general questions concern youth use, diversion of marijuana to youth, youth arrests, comprehensive school information, drug- endangered children, and other potential impacts. These topics will be addressed using two surveys that ask about drug use and other risky behavior. The first is the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which is a biannual survey administered to high school and middle school youth by CDPHE. The second is the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a national survey administered annually to those 12 and older by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The public safety impacts are examined by using official arrest and offense data from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, court filings data, and drug testing information from the State Division of Probation Services in the Judicial Branch. Information about schools is gathered using discipline data from the Colorado Department of Education. These data include trends on suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals for drugs. The data system in place from 2004–2015 did not capture whether marijuana was the specific drug that led to the discipline as it was grouped with all other drugs. However, since the most commonly used illicit drug in the youth population is marijuana, changes in discipline trends can logically be linked to changes in marijuana use. Discussions with school administrators also support this assumption. The question about legalization’s impact on drug-endangered children is difficult to answer. The term “drug-endangered children” has not been defined by the legislature, and choosing what data elements to gather is problematic. The Department of Human Services does not currently collect specific information on whether drug use or abuse is a contributing factor in at-risk families. With that in mind, a few data elements may act as proxies for the time being. The Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a group of health-related telephone surveys that collect data about residents regarding their health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services. The Child Health Survey is a component of the BRFSS that asks parents about various behaviors, including parental marijuana usage and marijuana storage in the home. Questions about marijuana were first added in 2014, meaning that the data presented in this report will act as baseline measures. A second proxy for drug-endangered children will be reports from persons entering substance abuse treatment regarding how many children they are responsible for. While seeking treatment does not necessarily equate to endangering one’s children, it is one of the few proxies available and it may provide useful information. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 836 Youth Usage Survey Data Healthy Kids Colorado Survey The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS) collects health information biennially (every odd year) from Colorado public school students.40 Surveys are completed by students from a random sample of selected schools and randomly selected classrooms within those schools. Results are weighted to represent student enrollment in all Colorado public high schools (2005, 2009, 2011, 2013 41) and public middle schools (2013). The HKCS and other sample-based surveys use statistical weights to account for the fact that information is obtained from a sample and used to represent the larger population. The weights account for sampling design, school and student nonparticipation and nonresponse, and overall adjustments in grade, sex, and ethnicity that match the sample and the population. A total of 224 randomly selected schools and 40,206 randomly selected students participated in the 2013 HKCS. The sample includes 25,197 students in 106 public high schools, 14,187 students in 110 public middle schools, and 822 students in eight alternative high schools. The overall response rate is the product of the school participation rate and the student response rate. Overall response rates in 2013 were 63% for middle schools, 58% for high schools, and 24% for alternative high schools. The high school student response rates for 2005–2013 are presented in Table 18. It should be noted that the 2013 survey administration changed compared to previous years. CDPHE partnered with the Colorado Department of Human Services and the Colorado Department of Education and the sampling design and frames were also changed. The sample was stratified and sampled by region for the first time. Also, regular and alternative high schools were sampled separately rather than together as done in the past. These types of methodological changes have potential effects on prevalence estimates. Therefore, careful interpretation should be used to prevent misrepresentation of the data. Table 18. Sample information for Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS) High school Middle schoola Year N Responses Response rate N Responses Response rate 2005 1,498 60% -- -- 2007b 734 29% -- -- 2009 1,511 62% -- -- 2011 1,523 67% -- -- 2013 25,197 58% 14,187 63% 40 More detailed information about the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey can be accessed here: https://www.colorado.gov/cdphe/hkcs. 41 The response rate from the 2007 survey was too low to allow for accurate weighting. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 837 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. aThe middle school survey was not conducted prior to 2013. bThe response rate from the 2007 survey was too low to allow for accurate weighting of the data and these data are not presented. The trend for students reporting ever using marijuana has shown a gradual decline in the past two surveys, going down by about three percentage points in each survey (Table 19). The trend for students reporting past 30-day marijuana use has remained relatively stable, with no significant change from 2005 to 2013. Finally, the percentage of students trying marijuana before the age of 13 has not changed significantly over the last four survey administrations. Table 19. High school student marijuana usage trends, 2005–2013: HKCS 2005 2009 2011 2013 Ever used marijuana (one or more times during their life) 42.4% 42.6% 39.5% 36.9% Currently used marijuana (one or more times during the 30 days before the survey) 22.7 24.8 22.0 19.7 Tried marijuana before age 13 years (for the first time) 9.9 8.3 9.0 8.1 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. The prevalence trends for the three most commonly used substances are presented in Figure 20. The three trends are all downward, with the biggest reduction being for current alcohol use, down from 47% in 2005 to 31% in 2013. Figure 20. Past 30-day substance use among high school students, 2005–2013: HKCS Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. The results for past 30-day marijuana use by grade level are presented in Figure 21. There are increases in reported use for each grade, with the biggest jumps being from eighth to ninth grade (+5.0 percentage points) and from ninth to tenth grade (+5.3 percentage points). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 838 Figure 21. Past 30-day marijuana use, by grade level, 2013: HKCS Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. The number of times high school students reported using marijuana in the past 30 days is presented in Table 20. In 2013, the most common number of times used is one to two (6.6%), followed by three to nine (4.7%), and then 40 or more (4.1%). That is, students were more likely to be either light users or heavy users, with fewer in the intermediate range. This distribution of usage frequency is similar to that reported in the NSDUH. Table 20. High school students reporting number of times used marijuana in past 30 days, 2005–2013: HKCS Usage frequency category 2005 2009 2011 2013 0 77.3% 75.2% 78.0% 80.3% 1 or 2 6.9% 7.6% 7.1% 6.6% 3 to 9 5.5% 6.0% 4.7% 4.7% 10 to 19 3.9% 3.0% 2.6% 2.4% 20 to 39 2.6% 2.2% 2.3% 1.9% 40 or more 3.8% 6.0% 5.3% 4.1% Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. In 2013, the HKCS began reporting data for the 21 health statistics regions (HSRs) in Colorado. Large counties represent their own HSR, while smaller counties are grouped together. This grouping allows estimates to be produced for areas with small student populations. A table with results for all HSRs is available Appendix G, Table 12. The area with the highest reported past 30-day usage by high school students is Region 7 (Pueblo County), where 32.1% of high school students reported using marijuana in the past 30 days (Figure 22). This is followed by Region 10 (Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray, and San Miguel Counties) at 26.7%, and Region 20 (Denver) at 26.6%. The areas with the lowest usage include Region 5 (Cheyenne, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 839 Elbert, Kit Carson, and Lincoln) at 9.4%, Region 1 (Logan, Morgan, Philips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma) at 11.4%, and Region 3 (Douglas) at 13.2%. Figure 22. Past 30-day marijuana use by high school students, by health statistics region, 2013 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. Note: Jefferson County (Region 21), Colorado’s second largest school district with 29,042 high school students, did not participate in the 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. For the middle school sample, Region 7 (Pueblo) has the highest 30-day prevalence rates at 22.8%, followed by Region 20 (Denver) at 19.2%, and then Region 6 (Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, and Powers) at 12.3% (Figure 23). The areas with the lowest middle school rates are Region 3 (Douglas) at 1.3%, Region 11 (Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, and Routt) at 2.1%, and Region 4 (El Paso) at 2.5%. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 840 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. Note: Jefferson County (Region 21), Colorado’s second largest school district with 16,491 middle school students, did not participate in the 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. The HKCS also asks about various student opinions and behaviors concerning marijuana (Table 21). The perception of moderate/great risk of using marijuana regularly 42 was reported by 76.4% of middle school students and 54.0% of high school students. The judgment of how easy it would be to get marijuana is very different as students age, with 16.2% of middle school students reporting that it would be sort of/very easy to get marijuana, and 54.9% of high school students expressing this belief. Student perceptions about the wrongness of marijuana use also vary by age, with 89.3% of middle school students believing use is wrong/very wrong and 60.2% of high school students expressing this opinion. 42 The frequency implied by the term “use marijuana regularly” is not explicitly defined in this question. This is also a different measure of risk than that used in the NSDUH, which asks about perceived great risk for using once a month. Figure 23. Past 30-day marijuana use by middle school students, by health statistics region, 2013: HKCS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 841 Table 21. Student opinions regarding marijuana, by school level, 2013: HKCS Question Middle school High school Percentage of students who think people who use marijuana regularly have moderate/great risk of harming themselves 76.4% 54.0% Percentage of students who feel it would be sort of easy or very easy to get marijuana if they wanted 16.2 54.9 Percentage of students who think it is wrong/very wrong for someone their age to use marijuana 89.3 60.2 Percentage of students who think their parents would feel it is wrong/very wrong if they used marijuana 96.3 86.4 Percentage of students who rode one or more times during the past 30 days in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been using marijuana NA 19.7 Among students who drove a car or other vehicle during the past 30 days, the percentage who drove one or more times when they had been using marijuana NA 10.9 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Adolescent_Health_Data. National Survey on Drug Use and Health The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) conducts the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).43 The NSDUH is the primary source of information on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use and abuse and mental disorders in the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population, age 12 and older. The survey generates estimates at the national, state, and substate levels. The NSDUH is state-based, with an independent, multistage area probability sample within each state and the District of Columbia. SAMHSA produces state-level estimates from a two-year rolling sample. This means that each year presented in this report actually represents two years of data. For purposes of reporting, only the second year is presented in these tables and figures.44 The two-year usage prevalence rates for Colorado residents 12 to 17 years old are based on weighted estimates from between 575 to 650 survey respondents. For a full explanation of the confidence intervals and tests for difference of means see Section 2, page 40. The 30-day marijuana usage prevalence for Colorado youth was significantly above the national average for the period 2009–2014 (Figure 24).45 The 2014 30-day usage prevalence within Colorado is significantly higher than the period from 2006 to 2008. However, the prevalence increase within Colorado since 2009, from 10.2% to 12.6%, was not statistically significant. The recent upward trend in Colorado usage differs from the national trend, which shows a relatively flat usage rate, fluctuating between 6.7% and 7.6% for the last eight years. 43 Descriptions of the NSDUH derived from information available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data- nsduh/reports. 44 For example, data indicated as 2014 is the combination of 2013 and 2014. 45 Means tests were conducted comparing 2014 with each other year. If the term “significant” is used, it denotes a 5% probability (p < .05) that the difference identified is by chance. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 842 Figure 24. Past 30-day marijuana use, 12–17 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. This increase in Colorado youth’s marijuana usage is in contrast to the general downward trends in usage of alcohol, cigarettes, and other illicit drugs (Figure 25). Figure 25. Past 30-day substance use, 12–17 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. Colorado youth’s perception of great risk for using marijuana once per month has been consistently lower than the national average (Figure 26). Both the Colorado and national trends have shown steep April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 843 declines in perception of risk. The perception of great risk from using marijuana once a month among Colorado youth declined from 29.9% in 2006 to 17.0% in 2014. The perception of great risk in Colorado for 2014 is significantly lower than for the period 2005–2010 and for 2012. The national rate went from 34.3% in 2006 down to 23.5% in 2014. The gap between the two rates has remained relatively consistent, at five to six percentage points. Figure 26. Perception of great risk for using marijuana once a month, 12–17 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Note: The 95% confidence intervals are represented by the bars above and below the estimate for each year. These indicate that 95 times out of 100 the true value should fall within that range. Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. The reduced perception of risk for marijuana use contrasts with almost no change in the perception of great risk for regular cigarette smoking or binge drinking (Figure 27). The difference in the frequency of behavior under question should be noted and taken into consideration when interpreting this disparity. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 844 Figure 27. Perception of great risk for using various substances, 12–17 years old, 2006–2014: NSDUH Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/population-data-nsduh, retrieved 12/17/2015. In sum, data on youth use is available from two sources, the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, with 40,000 students responding in 2013 and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, with fewer than 1,000 respondents. The HKCS results indicate a slight decline in “past 30 day use” of marijuana while the NSDUH shows a gradual increase over time. The HKCS shows that marijuana use increases by grade level, and the NSDUH shows that youth use of marijuana in Colorado is above the national average, and the perception of risk of using marijuana is declining among youth in Colorado. Criminal Justice Involvement Arrest Trends The total rate (+2%) and number (+5%) of juvenile marijuana arrests increased from 2012 to 2014 (Table 22). The demographic characteristics of this change reveal some differences in trends based on gender and race/ethnicity. The percentage increase in the rate (+23%) and number (+26%) of female juvenile arrests contrasts with the decrease in the rate (-3%) and number (-1%) of male juvenile arrests between 2012 and 2014. The rate (-9%) and number (-8%) of White juvenile arrested decreased during this period. The rate and number of arrests for the largest minority populations increased: the rate (+22%) and number (+29%) of Hispanic juvenile arrests increased, and the rate (+52%) and number (+58%) of African-American juvenile arrests increased markedly. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 845 Table 22. Juvenile marijuana arrest trends, by gender and race/ethnicity, 2012– 2014 Arrest total Arrest rate (per 100,000) 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012–14 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012–14 Total 3,235 3,125 3,400 +5% 598 571 611 +2% Gender Female 712 736 900 +26% 269 275 331 +23% Male 2,523 2,389 2,500 -1% 911 854 880 -3% Race/Ethnicity White 2,198 2,019 2,016 -8% 686 628 624 -9% Hispanic 778 808 1,006 +29% 489 495 598 +22% African-American 205 260 324 +58% 904 1,133 1,376 +52% Asian 28 24 29 +4% 182 150 174 -4% Native American 18 8 7 -61% 521 236 206 -61% Pacific Islander 0 0 1 -- 0 0 122 -- Unknown 8 6 17 +113% -- -- -- -- Note: Colorado arrest records do not include juveniles under the age of 10; therefore, juvenile arrest rates are based on Colorado population aged 10–17. Approximately 3% of the juvenile population is classified as multiracial and is not included in the racial breakdown. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, available from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/asrh/2014/SC-EST2014-ALLDATA6.html. Offense Trends The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) captures information on the place where an offense was reported to have occurred. There are 57 categories, which include places like public transportation, bars, convenience stores, homes, parks, parking lots, primary/secondary schools, colleges, etc. The only place where marijuana offenses have increased is elementary/secondary schools, up 34% from 2012 to 2014 (Figure 28). Figure 28. Marijuana offenses in Colorado schools, 2012–2014 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 846 Probation Testing Data Colorado’s Probation Departments conduct drug tests on juvenile probationers. The frequency of testing is determined by assessment, court orders, and other case-related information. Table 23 presents information on the percentage of juvenile probationers who test positive for THC. The percent of 10- to 14-year-old group testing positive for THC one or two times increased from 19% in 2012 to 23% in 2014, while the percentage testing positive three or more times went from 18% to 25%. The percentage of 15- to 17-year-olds testing positive one or two times went down slightly, from 26% in 2012 to 25% in 2014, while those testing positive three or more times increased from 23% to 25%. There is no link currently between probationer drug testing results and their probation status so it is not known if changes in drug use patterns are affecting probation violations. Table 23. Juvenile probationer test results for THC, 2012–2014 Percent of probationers testing positive for THC Age Group Times tested positive 2012 2013 2014 10 to 14 years old N probationers 660 528 425 0 times 63% 58% 52% 1-2 times 19% 18% 23% 3 or more times 18% 25% 25% 15 to 17 years old N probationers 3,244 2,671 2,193 0 times 50% 51% 49% 1-2 times 26% 24% 25% 3 or more times 23% 26% 25% Note: The number of active juvenile clients decreased from 5,156 in 2012 to 4,061 in 2014. Source: Colorado State Judicial Branch. The percentage of total tests with positive results for THC is presented in Table 24. For 10 to 14 year olds, the percentage of tests positive for THC increased from 31% in 2012 to 39% in 2014. There are similar results for the 15 to 17 year old group, with 28% of tests coming back positive in 2012, then increasing to 33% in 2014. Table 24. Juvenile drug test results, percent of tests that are positive for THC, 2012–2014 Age Group Times tested 2012 2013 2014 10 to 14 years old N tests 2,587 2,301 1,655 % positive 31% 35% 39% 15 to 17 years old N tests 24,221 19,993 15,180 % positive 28% 31% 33% Note: The number of active juvenile clients decreased from 5,156 in 2012 to 4,061 in 2014. Source: Colorado State Judicial Branch. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 847 In sum, arrest rates per 100,000 juveniles for marijuana-related offenses increased 2% overall between 2012 and 2014, but for certain groups, the arrest rate increased substantially: females, Blacks and Hispanics. Additionally, since 2012 there has been an increase in marijuana offenses on school property. Finally, more juveniles on probation are testing positive for marijuana. School Data School Discipline Data Trends There is concern that marijuana legalization may lead to an increase in school discipline for drug-related activity. School discipline, including suspension or expulsion, can disrupt academic achievement, increase the probability of future involvement in the justice system, and normalize punitive social control early in a student’s life.46 The Colorado Department of Education reports disciplinary data on suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals for each school year.47 A number of reasons for discipline are reported, including drugs, alcohol, tobacco, serious assault, minor assault, robbery, other felonies, disobedience, detrimental behavior, destruction of property, and other violations. The drug category covers all drugs and does not break out marijuana separately. However, since marijuana is currently the most commonly used illicit drug in elementary and secondary schools, changes in trends are likely to be related to changes in use and possession of marijuana. In 2015, legislation was passed instructing the Department of Education to begin collecting discipline data about marijuana separately from other drugs. The first marijuana-specific data are expected in fall 2016. Prior to the 2012 school year, legislation (S.B. 12-046/H.B. 12-1345) modified some zero-tolerance policies that had resulted in what some considered “unnecessary expulsions, suspensions, and law enforcement referrals.”48 This change in the law should be taken into account when examining disciplinary trends. The school-level data for suspensions, expulsions, and law enforcement referrals were provided by the Colorado Department of Education. These raw numbers were transformed into rates per 100,000 students to take the increased number of students into account.49 In the 2008–2009 school year, 818,443 students were enrolled in Colorado schools and by 2014–2015 that number had increased to 889,006.50 A student may be involved in more than one disciplinary incident, so these rates should not be equated to the percentage of students receiving disciplinary action in any given year. 46 Ramey, D. (2016). The influence of early school punishment and therapy/medication on social control experiences during young adulthood, Criminology, Online Early publication, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745- 9125.12095/abstract. 47 Colorado Department of Education, Suspension and expulsion statistics, available at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/suspend-expelcurrent. 48 Colorado School Safety Resource Center, Discipline in Schools, available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cssrc/ discipline-schools. 49 The raw numbers are included in Appendix F, Table 12. 50 Colorado Department of Education, pupil membership, available at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/pupilcurrent. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 848 The drug suspension rate decreased 12% from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009 (Figure 29). The drug suspension rate began to increase in 2009–2010, up 29% from 2008–2009. Since that increase, the drug suspension rate has remained relatively stable. This increase is in contrast to a decrease in the overall suspension rate. Figure 29. Total and drug suspension rates per 100,000 students, 2004–2015 Source: Colorado Department of Education, http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/suspend-expelcurrent, retrieved 12/15/2015. The drug expulsion rate decreased 16% from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009 (Figure 30). The drug expulsion rate increased 39% in 2009–2010, plateaued in 2010–2011, and has been decreasing since then. This decrease occurred in conjunction with a decrease in the total expulsion rate. Figure 30. Total and drug expulsion rates per 100,000 students, 2004—2015 Source: Colorado Department of Education, http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/suspend-expelcurrent, retrieved 12/15/2015. The law enforcement referral rate for drug-related behaviors has followed a trend similar to that for expulsions (Figure 31). There was a 13% increase in the referral rate from 2008–2009 to 2009–2010, a plateau in 2010–2011, and then a gradual decrease until 2013–2014. There was a marked decrease, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 849 down 51%, from 2013–2014 to 2014–2015. The reasons for this decline are not entirely clear. Discussions with administrators point to changes in policies regarding referrals to law enforcement rather than a reduction in student possession or use. Figure 31. Total and drug law enforcement referral rates per 100,000 students, 2004–2015 Source: Colorado Department of Education. The percentage of drug expulsions among all expulsions was stable from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009 at around 25% (Figure 32). It increased by nine percentage points, from 26% to 35%, in 2009–2010. In 2014–2015, 41% of all expulsions in Colorado were for drugs. The percentage of drug referrals among all law enforcement referrals follows a similar pattern. It was stable from 2004–2005 to 2008–2009 at around 23%, began to increase in 2009–2010, and then peaked in 2013–2014 at 37% of all law enforcement referrals. The 2014–2015 school year saw a decrease that coincides with the decrease in law enforcement referrals for drugs overall. The percentage of drug suspensions among all suspensions also increased, but it remains around 6% of all suspensions. Figure 32. Percent of disciplinary incidents for drugs 2004–2015 Source: Colorado Department of Education. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 850 Drug suspension and expulsion rates for 2014–2015, categorized by percent minority representation in the school,51 are presented in Figure 33. The drug expulsion rate is lowest in schools where more than 75% of the student population represents a minority population (31 expulsions per 100,000 students). The drug expulsion rate is highest in schools where 26% to 50% of the school population is minority (70 expulsions per 100,000 students). The drug suspension rates are lowest in schools with a smaller proportion of minorities. In schools with a proportion of minorities 25% or lower, there are 313 drug suspensions per 100,000 students. The drug suspension rate in schools with 51% to 75% minority is 651 per 100,000 students, and in schools where the minority population is over three-quarters, the drug suspension rate is 658 per 100,000 students. Schools with the highest proportion of minorities have a drug suspension rate 110% higher than schools with the lowest proportion of minorities. Figure 33. Drug suspension and expulsion rates, by minority representation in school, 2014-15 school year Source: Colorado Department of Education. Drug suspension and expulsion rates, categorized by percent receiving free or reduced school lunch (FRSL),52 are presented in Figure 34. The drug expulsion rates are lowest in the schools where more than 75% of students are receiving FRSL (28 FRSLs per 100,000 students) and highest in schools where between 51% and 75% of students are receiving FRSL (96 FRSLs per 100,000 students). 51 Percent minority was calculated by adding the number of African-American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial students, then dividing that by the total student population in the school. The percentages were collapsed into four categories for ease of display. Rates were calculated by using the formulas: (Number of suspensions*100,000/Number of students enrolled in school) and (Number of expulsions*100,000/Number of students enrolled in school). 52 Percentages calculated by adding the number of students receiving free or reduced price school lunch and dividing by the total number of students in the school. Rates were calculated by using the formulas: (Number of suspensions*100,000/Number of students enrolled in school) and (Number of expulsions*100,000/Number of students enrolled in school). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 851 Drug suspension rates are lowest in schools where one-quarter or less of the student body receives FRSL (302 per 100,000) and highest in schools where between 51% and 75% are receiving FRSL (713 per 100,000 students). Figure 34. Drug suspension and expulsion rates, by percent receiving free/reduced lunch at school, 2014–2015 school year Source: Colorado Department of Education. In sum, over the last ten years, the overall suspension rate has declined while the drug-related suspension rate has increased, yet a decline occurred in the last year. The total expulsion rate has declined, as has the drug-related expulsion rate. In 2014-2015, drug related expulsions represented 41% of all expulsions. Drug-related suspensions and expulsion rates were highest in schools with large minority populations. Overall, referrals to law enforcement declined significantly in the last ten years, and drug-related referrals to law enforcement also declined somewhat in the last few years. It should be noted that recent declines in rates of suspension and expulsion, and fewer referrals to law enforcement, are likely to be associated with school reform efforts mandated in S.B. 12-046 and H.B. 12- 1345. Drug-Endangered Children Senate Bill 13-283 requires that information be collected on the impacts of marijuana legalization on drug-endangered children. There is no agreement on the definition of that term, so there is no formal definition, which makes reporting difficult. The Colorado Department of Human Services does not have a method to track whether a child welfare case was prompted by any specific drug. There is also no way to identify whether an arrest or court filing for child abuse/child endangerment has marijuana as a causal or contributing factor. This creates a significant gap in the information available on this topic. In an attempt to address the General Assembly’s concern about drug- endangered children, this report uses information from two sources to examine the issue. First, data from a statewide survey of parents about their marijuana use and product storage at home is presented, followed by data from the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 852 DACODS examining marijuana treatment trends for people reporting children under 18 who are dependent on their income. Child Health Survey The Child Health Survey 53 (CHS) is done as an adjunct to the annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) conducted by CDPHE. Once respondents complete the BRFSS, the interviewer asks them if they have a child between the ages of the ages of one and 14, and asks about their willingness to complete the child health survey. Approximately ten days later, the parent is called to complete the survey on a variety of topics, including their child's physical activity, nutrition, access to health and dental care, behavioral health, school health, sun safety, injury, and many others. Questions regarding parental marijuana use, storage, and consumption methods were added to the CHS in 2014. Of parents with children ages 1–14 who participated in the 2014 BRFSS and the Child Health Survey, 4% reported using marijuana in the past month. The reported methods of use include smoking (76%), vaping (39%), and eating in food (14%). Of parents with children ages 1–14, 7% have some type of marijuana product around the house. When asked about where it is kept, 92% report storing it in a location the child cannot access, 89% report using a childproof container/packaging, and 71% report using a locked container (data not presented). Parental Treatment Trends At intake, the Office of Behavioral Health records in DACODS the number of children whom the client supports financially and otherwise. Seeking treatment for marijuana abuse does not necessarily indicate that the children dependent on the client for support are drug-endangered. However, if a person’s drug usage has reached the point where treatment is required, there are several potential impacts, including the involvement of human services or the criminal justice system. The number of people seeking treatment for marijuana as their primary substance of abuse who are also responsible for children shows no clear trend (Figure 35). 53 Additional information about the Child Health Survey is available at http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/topics.aspx?q=Maternal_Child_Health_Data. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 853 Figure 35. Number seeking treatment for marijuana abuse who are responsible for children, 2007– 2014 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. Future Possibilities for Data Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System CDPHE describes the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) as “a surveillance system designed to identify and monitor behaviors and experiences of women before, during, and after pregnancy. Information is collected by surveying a sample of women who have recently given birth.”54 PRAMS added questions about marijuana use beginning with its 2014 survey and these data will be available for inclusion in future reports. Changes to Human Services Data System (Trails) The Colorado Department of Human Services uses a data system known as Trails to track cases through the child welfare system. The current system does not allow case workers to capture information on whether the presence or use of specific drugs is putting a child at risk. Trails is currently undergoing an upgrade, and it is hoped that future versions will have the ability to track the impact of various drugs in the child welfare system. In sum, in an effort to assess the impact of marijuana legalization on drug endangered children, two sources of information were explored. The Child Health Survey, administered by CDPHE, found that, of parents with children ages 1-14, 4% reported using marijuana in the past month, and 7% reported having marijuana in the household. Of those with marijuana in the household, 92% reported that they store it in a location that the child cannot access. Data from OBH shows that the number of people 54 For more information, see https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/pregnancysurvey. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 854 seeking treatment for marijuana as their primary substance of abuse who are also responsible for children shows no clear trend in terms of increasing or decreasing over the past several years. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 855 SECTION FIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LICENSING AND REVENUE Marijuana Enforcement Division The Marijuana Enforcement Division 55 (MED) is tasked with licensing and regulating the medical and retail marijuana industries in Colorado. The Division implements legislation, develops rules, conducts background investigations, issues business licenses, and enforces compliance mandates in order to maintain a robust regulatory structure. MED promotes transparency and clarity for all stakeholders by utilizing a highly collaborative process through which it develops industry regulations and furthers its primary mission of ensuring public safety. Licensees Statewide Licenses for retail stores and medical centers (Figure 36) are concentrated in Denver County (365), El Paso County (120), and Boulder County (53). Licenses for retail or medical cultivations (Figure 37) are concentrated in Denver County (594), El Paso County (152), and Pueblo County (116). Licenses to manufacture products (Figure 38) are concentrated in Denver County (143), Pueblo County (42), and El Paso County (36). There are 17 labs certified to test retail marijuana 56 (Figure 39) and ten are located in Denver. Overall, the City and County of Denver accounts for 44% of all licensed marijuana businesses in Colorado. 55 Additional information on the MED can be obtained at https://www.colorado.gov/enforcement/marijuanaenforcement. 56 Labs test for potency of products, homogeneity of THC throughout a product, solvents, and microbial contamination. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 856 Figure 36. Retail store and medical center licensees, by county, December 2015 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, MED Licensed Facilities, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities, retrieved 12/20/2015. Figure 37. Retail and medical cultivation licensees, by county, December 2015 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, MED Licensed Facilities, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities, retrieved 12/20/2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 857 Figure 38. Retail and medical product manufacture licenses, by county, December 2015 . Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, MED Licensed Facilities, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities, retrieved 12/20/2015. Figure 39. Product testing lab licenses, by county, December 2015 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, MED Licensed Facilities, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities, retrieved 12/20/2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 858 Tax Revenue Data The total revenue from taxes, licenses, and fees increased 77% from calendar year 2014 to 2015, going from $76,152,468 up to $135,100,465 (Table 25). The revenue increase was driven primarily by the sales taxes, excise taxes, licenses, and fees for retail marijuana. In calendar year 2015, total revenue from retail marijuana accounted for $108,783,986, or 81% of all marijuana revenue. The excise tax revenue collected to fund the public school capital construction assistance fund reached $35,060,590 in calendar year 2015, which is close to the $40 million estimated to result from Amendment 64. This represented a 163% increase from 2014. The taxes distributed to local governments increased 89%, from $4,553,122 to $8,626,922. The tax revenue from marijuana should be put in context of all tax revenue collected in Colorado. In fiscal year 2015 (June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015) gross collections for all tax revenue totaled $14.2 billion dollars.57 Marijuana taxes make up about 0.95% of all tax revenue collected in the state. For a graphical depiction of the flow of marijuana revenue see Appendix K. Table 25. Tax revenue, license, and application fees collected from marijuana licensees, calendar years 2014, 2015 2014 2015 2014 to 2015 % change TAXES Sales tax transfer to marijuana cash fund (2.9% rate) $ 19,709,086 $ 27,936,012 42% Medical marijuana $ 10,886,966 $ 11,451,375 5% Retail marijuana $ 8,822,120 $ 16,484,635 87% Retail marijuana sales tax (10% rate) $ 30,364,796 $ 57,582,835 90% Local government distribution $ 4,553,122 $ 8,626,922 89% Marijuana cash fund transfer $ 25,798,923 $ 48,885,799 89% Collections not yet allocated $ 12,750 $ 60,115 371% Retail marijuana excise tax $ 13,341,001 $ 35,060,590 163% Public school capital construction assistance fund transfer (15% rate) $ 13,303,365 $ 35,027,041 163% Marijuana cash fund transfer $ - $ - - Collections not yet allocated $ 37,636 $ 33,549 -11% Total marijuana tax transfers and distributions $ 63,414,883 $ 120,579,434 90% LICENSES AND FEES License and applications fees transfer to marijuana cash fund $ 12,737,585 $ 14,521,031 14% Medical marijuana $ 9,032,155 $ 9,831,845 9% Retail marijuana $ 3,705,430 $ 4,689,186 27% Total marijuana cash fund transfers $ 58,245,594 $ 91,342,840 57% Total all marijuana taxes, licenses, and fees $ 76,152,468 $ 135,100,465 77% Note: Annual data represent a calendar year and not a state fiscal year. Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division. Colorado Marijuana Tax Data, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data, retrieved 2/18/2016. 57 Colorado Department of Revenue (2016). Annual Report 2015, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/2015%20Annual%20Report_1.pdf, retrieved 2/18/2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 859 MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARDHOLDERS Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Process The Medical Marijuana Registry is administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) pursuant to CRS 25-1.5-106. To apply for a medical marijuana registry card, a person must be a Colorado resident with a valid Social Security number, be receiving treatment for a qualifying debilitating medical condition, and be examined by a doctor with whom the person has a bona fide physician-patient relationship. The doctor must recommend the use of marijuana for the patient’s condition and specify the number of plants required to alleviate the symptoms of the condition. If the applicant is a minor, additional requirements apply, including a signed parental consent form, two separate physician recommendations, and a copy of the minor’s state-issued birth certificate. Cardholders can choose to grow their own marijuana plants or designate a caregiver to grow the plants for them. The commercial dispensary market can act as the caregiver and can service the number of patients allowed by the Marijuana Enforcement Division.58 Cardholders also have the choice of designating a private person as their caregiver. Trend Data The number of medical marijuana cardholders began to increase in 2009, after the commercialization of the caregiver market was allowed (Figures 40). From 2009 to 2011, more than 113,000 cardholders were added to the registry. The number of cardholders plateaued in 2011, and has remained relatively consistent since 2013 at around 111,000. Figure 40. Number of medical marijuana cardholders, 2009–November 2015 Note: Data come from each January’s report, except for November 2015. Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, medical marijuana statistics and data, available at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/medical-marijuana-statistics-and-data. 58 The Marijuana Enforcement Division licenses each dispensary to grow up to a certain number of plants based on the number of patients registered and their recommended plant count. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 860 As of November 2015, there were 109,922 registered cardholders in Colorado (Table 26). The average age of a cardholder was 42.5 years old. The majority are male (65%) and their average age is 41.4 years, while the average age of female cardholders (35%) is 45.0 years. The majority of cardholders are over 40 (51%). The three most common conditions reported are severe pain (93%), muscle spasms (20%), and severe nausea (12%). A cardholder can report more than one debilitating condition. Table 26. Medical marijuana cardholder characteristics, November 2015 Patient characteristics N % Total 109,922 100.0% Gender Male 71,339 64.9% Female 38,583 35.1% Age group 0-10 241 <1% 11-17 137 <1% 18-20 5,508 5.0% 21-30 25,451 23.2% 31-40 22,635 20.6% 41-50 17,517 15.9% 51-60 20,348 18.5% 61-70 15,135 13.8% 71 and older 2,942 2.7% Reported conditiona Cachexia 965 <1% Cancer 3,926 3.6% Glaucoma 1,290 1.2% HIV/AIDS 612 <1% Muscle spasms 21,526 19.6% Seizures 2,585 2.4% Severe nausea 12,599 11.5% Severe pain 102,121 92.9% aDoes not sum to 100% because patients may report more than one debilitating medical condition. Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, medical marijuana statistics and data, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/medical-marijuana- statistics-and-data. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 861 OVERALL CRIME IN COLORADO Offense rates for both property and violent crime remained relatively stable from 2008 to 2014, showing a slight decrease of about 5% over this period (Table 27). Table 27. Offenses and offense rates in Colorado, by offense type, 2008–2014 Number of total offenses Offense rate, per 100,000 population Year Property Violent Property Violent 2008 132,212 16,062 2,639 321 2009 131,141 16,608 2,580 327 2010 132,623 16,676 2,570 323 2011 131,800 16,278 2,575 318 2012 136,483 15,719 2,630 303 2013 138,275 16,056 2,622 305 2014 133,927 16,355 2,503 306 Note: Violent crime includes murder/non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Two additional offenses were added into the category of rape in 2013. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, as analyzed by Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. See: Crime Statistics, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dcj-ors/ors-crimestats. The trends in arrests for violent crime and weapons remained relatively stable in the past several years (Table 28). The overall trend for drug arrest rates was downward, with a 22% drop between 2012 and 2014. This coincides with the drop in marijuana arrests. The arrest rate for property crime was stable from 2006 to 2012, but then jumped by 15% in 2013 and another 10% in 2014. An increase in the number of larceny arrests is primarily responsible. Table 28. Arrests and arrest rates in Colorado, by crime type, 2006–2014 Number of total arrests Arrest rate, per 100,000 population Year Drug Property Violent Weapon Drug Property Violent Weapon 2006 19,893 24,606 7,183 2,421 486 601 176 59 2007 19,377 24,836 6,430 2,406 466 598 155 58 2008 18,763 26,664 6,849 2,207 444 631 162 52 2009 17,382 27,103 7,239 1,935 405 632 169 45 2010 16,946 24,813 6,806 1,831 389 570 156 42 2011 16,374 25,106 6,213 1,824 370 568 140 41 2012 16,804 24,707 5,578 1,809 374 550 124 40 2013 12,476 29,019 5,909 1,850 273 635 129 41 2014 13,521 32,643 6,064 2,178 290 701 130 47 Note: Violent crime includes murder/non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Drug and weapon crimes include crimes classified in those categories. Two additional offenses were added into the category of rape in 2013. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, as analyzed by Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. See: Crime Statistics, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dcj-ors/ors-crimestats. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 862 In sum, licenses for retail and medical marijuana stores are concentrated in Denver, El Paso and Boulder counties. Overall, 44% of all licensed businesses are located in Denver County. Revenue from taxes, licenses and fees totaled $135,100,465 in 2015; retail establishments accounted for 81% of all marijuana revenue. Marijuana taxes make up about 1% of all tax revenue collected in the state. In addition, in November 2015, there were 109,922 medical marijuana card holders; 93% of card holders report severe pain as the debilitating condition. Finally, across the state, crime has remained fairly stable between 2008 and 2014; drug arrests declined 22% between 2012 and 2014. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 863 SECTION SIX SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES OVERVIEW The most fundamental challenge to collecting data related to marijuana over time stems from unmeasured changes in human behavior concerning marijuana. The decreasing social stigma around marijuana use could lead to individuals being more willing to report use on surveys. Legalization could result in reports of increased use, when it may actually be a function of the decreased stigma and legal consequences regarding use. Likewise, those reporting to poison control, emergency departments, or hospitals may feel more comfortable discussing their recent use or abuse of marijuana for purposes of treatment. The impact from this reduced stigma and legal consequences makes certain trends difficult to assess and will require additional time to measure post-legalization. Legalization also is likely to change how law enforcement responds to crimes involving marijuana. There are still many statutes prohibiting production, distribution, and high quantity possession of marijuana and marijuana products. Additionally, there are many challenges related to collecting the specific information required by S.B. 13- 283. Law enforcement contact data is not collected so is unavailable for analysis, for example. Very little data is available to address the “drug-endangered children” mandate. Another challenge is that the amount of data on several topics is limited, and some was not collected prior to legalization of marijuana. For example, the diversion of marijuana out of Colorado is not tracked in any systematic way. While there is a reporting mechanism for these data its use is not required and the database only contains an unknown percentage of seizures. Additionally, there may be changes in enforcement patterns by agencies, particularly those in adjoining states, which increase the interdiction of marijuana independent of an actual increase in trafficking. It is also possible that there are co-occurring increases in trafficking and enforcement that are magnifying the interdiction amounts. Systematic data on driving under the influence of marijuana are also not available at this time. Some agencies are tracking this issue, but their efforts are recent and do not allow for any kind of trend analysis. This limits both the geographic and temporal scope of the available data. Additionally, the increase in law enforcement officers who are trained in recognizing drug use, from 32 in 2006 to 288 in 2015, can increase detection rates apart from any changes in driver behavior. Finally, there is also the issue of lag time between when data are collected and when they become available. For example, arrest and offense data become publicly available in June of the following year. Data on vehicle fatalities do not become available until October of the following year due to the time it takes to collect final information from coroners and law enforcement. Survey data on usage have significant lag time, sometimes up to a year after the data are finalized. These limitations are not ones that can be easily remedied due to the nature of the data cleaning, validation, and weighting that must occur before results can be made public. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 864 NEXT STEPS Two steps to improve reporting on the impact of marijuana legalization will be undertaken in the near term. First, the Division of Criminal Justice will work with the Governor’s Office of Information Technology and the Governor’s Office of Marijuana Coordination to create a data warehouse that can systematically hold all of the information currently being collected. This data warehouse can be used to drive a web-based portal that will enable public to access continually updated data. It will also allow for more in-depth analysis by creating a mechanism to link data sources. Second, current data collection capabilities in different agencies will be improved. Several agencies are currently undergoing data infrastructure upgrades. This makes it an excellent time to work on improving the ability to collect information related to impacts of the legalization of marijuana. In sum, efforts are underway to expand data collection efforts and increase the availability of data to increase the ability to assess the impact of marijuana legalization in Colorado. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 865 Appendix A Ogden Memorandum April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 866 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 867 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 868 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 869 Appendix B Cole Memorandum April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 870 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 871 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 872 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 873 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 874 Appendix C Arrests by county, agency, judicial district, age, and race April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 875 93  Appendix C, Table 1. Number and rate of marijuana arrests, by county, 2012–2014  Number of arrests Arrest rate (per 100,000)  County 2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  Total 12,894 6,502 7,004 ‐46% 249 123 131 ‐47%  Adams 2,297 989 847 ‐63%  500 211 177 ‐65%  Alamosa 2 7 12 500% 13 44 75 488%  Arapahoe 1,467 699 818 ‐44%  246 115 133 ‐46%  Archuleta 17 3 6 ‐65% 141 25 49 ‐65%  Baca 17 7 1 ‐94%  455 191 27 ‐94%  Bent 0 1 0 ‐‐ 0 18 0 ‐‐  Boulder 714 433 353 ‐51%  234 140 113 ‐52%  Broomfield 297 131 132 ‐56% 510 220 216 ‐58%  Chaffee 47 14 17 ‐64%  259 77 91 ‐65%  Cheyenne 2 1 0 ‐100% 107 53 0 ‐100%  Clear Creek 44 7 6 ‐86%  487 78 67 ‐86%  Conejos 2 0 0 ‐100% 24 0 0 ‐100%  Costilla 0 0 1  ‐‐ 0 0 28 ‐‐  Crowley  0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Custer 1 1 2 100%  24 23 45 92%  Delta 15 15 8 ‐47% 49 50 26 ‐47%  Denvera  --  -- 836  --   --  -- 126  --  Dolores 0 1 1 ‐‐ 0 50 49 ‐‐  Douglas 528 330 218 ‐59%  177 108 70 ‐60%  Eagle 274 130 96 ‐65% 529 248 181 ‐66%  Elbert 17 19 17 0%  133 79 90 ‐32%  El Paso 857 521 598 ‐30% 73 80 70 ‐4%  Fremont 38 11 5 ‐87%  81 24 11 ‐87%  Garfield 164 71 67 ‐59% 288 124 115 ‐60%  Gilpin 98 7 4 ‐96%  1,788 125 70 ‐96%  Grand 14 2 4 ‐71% 99 14 27 ‐72%  Gunnison 37 29 31 ‐16%  240 188 197 ‐18%  Hinsdale  0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Huerfano 13 0 4 ‐69%  198 0 62 ‐69%  Jackson  0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Jefferson 1,508 788 950 ‐37%  276 143 170 ‐38%  Kiowa 1 3 0 ‐100% 70 214 0 ‐100%  Kit Carson 19 14 4 ‐79%  234 174 49 ‐79%  Lake 27 3 3 ‐89% 105 99 150 43%  La Plata 55 53 82 49%  371 41 40 ‐89%  Larimer 899 468 456 ‐49% 290 148 142 ‐51%  Las Animas 7 5 1 ‐86%  47 35 7 ‐85%  Lincoln 1 0 0 ‐100% 18 0 0 ‐100%  Logan 41 3 28 ‐32%  186 14 127 ‐31%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 876 94  Appendix C, Table 1. Number and rate of marijuana arrests, by county, 2012–2014  Number of arrests Arrest rate (per 100,000)  County 2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  Mesa 629 418 431 ‐31% 425 283 289 ‐32%  Mineral  0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Moffat 105 22 20 ‐81% 799 168 152 ‐81%  Montezuma 74 6 12 ‐84%  291 23 46 ‐84%  Montrose 133 50 46 ‐65% 327 123 112 ‐66%  Morgan 51 19 34 ‐33%  180 67 119 ‐34%  Otero 22 3 6 ‐73% 118 16 32 ‐73%  Ouray 0 0 4  ‐‐ 0 0 85 ‐‐  Park 9 1 4 ‐56% 56 6 24 ‐57%  Phillips 2 1 0 ‐100%  46 23 0 ‐100%  Pitkin 7 0 10 43% 41 0 57 41%  Prowers 90 32 38 ‐58%  729 262 308 ‐58%  Pueblo 23 19 22 ‐4% 14 12 14 ‐5%  Rio Blanco 26 4 18 ‐31%  382 59 265 ‐31%  Rio Grande 28 5 2 ‐93% 236 43 17 ‐93%  Routt 92 36 60 ‐35%  397 154 251 ‐37%  Saguache 11 0 2 ‐82% 174 0 32 ‐82%  San Juan 0 1 0  ‐‐ 0 146 0  ‐‐  San Miguel  0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Sedgwick 1 3 1 0%  42 128 43 1%  Summit 63 5 5 ‐92% 224 17 17 ‐92%  Teller 56 45 28 ‐50%  240 193 118 ‐51%  Washington 20 2 1 ‐95% 423 42 21 ‐95%  Weld 503 340 330 ‐34%  191 126 119 ‐37%  Yuma 2 4 0 ‐100% 20 40 0 ‐100%  Otherb 1,261 272 322 ‐74% ‐‐  ‐‐  ‐‐ ‐‐  a Denver’s reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest and citation systems.  Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest  data reported by Denver includes a non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that  year. See Appendix K, Table 16 for internal data provided by the Denver Police Department's Data Analysis Unit. b “Other” applies to arrests by agencies that are not in a fixed county, such as the Colorado State Patrol.  Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident‐Based Crime Reporting System data.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 877 95       Appendix C, Table 2. Number of marijuana arrests, by agency, 2012–2014  Agency 2012 2013 2014    % change  2012‐2014  Total 12,894 6,502 7,004 ‐46%  Adams County SO 683 263 160 ‐77%  Adams State College 0 7 12 ‐‐  Aims Community College PD 2 0 0 ‐100%  Alamosa County SO 2 0 0 ‐100%  Arapahoe Community College 1 1 1 0%  Arapahoe County SO 77 39 50 ‐35%  Archuleta County SO 1 0 0 ‐100%  Arvada PD 482 235 263 ‐45%  Aspen PD 7 0 10 43%  Ault PD 2 0 4 100%  Auraria PD 5 0 0 ‐100%  Aurora PD 725 394 512 ‐29%  Avon PD 60 7 22 ‐63%  Baca County SO 4 3 0 ‐100%  Basalt PD 7 4 1 ‐86%  Bent County SO 0 1 0  ‐‐  Berthoud PD 4 5 0 ‐100%  Black Hawk PD 67 0 1 ‐99%  Boulder PD 135 75 72 ‐47%  Breckenridge PD 1 0 4 300%  Brighton PD 200 122 163 ‐19%  Broomfield PD 297 131 132 ‐56%  Brush PD 10 2 0 ‐100%  Buena Vista PD 1 2 2 100%  Burlington PD 8 6 1 ‐88%  Campo PD 13 4 0 ‐100%  Canon City PD 20 7 4 ‐80%  Carbondale PD 0 1 0  ‐‐  Castle Rock PD 112 63 38 ‐66%  Centennial PD 78 32 34 ‐56%  Center PD 4 0 1 ‐75%  Central City PD 0 4 2  ‐‐  Chaffee County SO 19 3 3 ‐84%  Cherry Hills Village PD 0 4 0  ‐‐  Cheyenne County SO 2 1 0 ‐100%  Clear Creek County SO 31 4 5 ‐84%  Colorado Mental Health Institute‐Pueblo 0 0 1 ‐‐  Colorado School of Mines PD 7 6 7 0%  Colorado Springs PD 426 247 321 ‐25%  Colorado State Patrol 1,261 271 322 ‐74%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 878 96  Appendix C, Table 2. Number of marijuana arrests, by agency, 2012–2014  Agency 2012 2013 2014   % change  2012‐2014  Colorado State University‐Fort Collins 84 53 41 ‐51%  Commerce City PD 188 148 94 ‐50%  Conejos County SO 2 0 0 ‐100%  Cortez PD 8 1 1 ‐88%  Costilla County SO 0 0 1 ‐‐  Craig PD 87 21 18 ‐79%  Crested Butte PD 2 4 5 150%  Cripple Creek PD 14 7 5 ‐64%  Custer County SO 1 1 2 100%  Dacono PD 4 0 1 ‐75%  De Beque PD 0 5 0 ‐‐  Del Norte PD 9 0 0 ‐100%  Delta County SO 0 2 0 ‐‐  Delta PD 14 10 4 ‐71%  Denver PDa  --  -- 836  --  Division of Gaming Investigation 0 1 0 ‐‐  Dolores County SO 0 1 1 ‐‐  Douglas County SO 229 162 121 ‐47%  Durango PD 22 9 7 ‐68%  Eagle County SO 79 52 31 ‐61%  Eagle PD 17 3 7 ‐59%  Eaton PD 2 5 0 ‐100%  Edgewater PD 6 5 0 ‐100%  El Paso County SO 152 114 105 ‐31%  Elbert County SO 8 2 1 ‐88%  Elizabeth PD 9 17 16 78%  Empire PD 2 2 0 ‐100%  Englewood PD 250 94 94 ‐62%  Erie PD 26 22 43 65%  Estes Park PD 18 2 1 ‐94%  Evans PD 58 33 28 ‐52%  Federal Heights PD 78 14 4 ‐95%  Firestone PD 7 15 8 14%  Florence PD 11 3 0 ‐100%  Fort Collins PD 285 180 201 ‐29%  Fort Lewis College PD 33 42 68 106%  Fort Lupton PD 47 3 10 ‐79%  Fort Morgan PD 34 17 27 ‐21%  Fountain PD 152 90 71 ‐53%  Fowler PD 1 0 0 ‐100%  Frederick PD 17 8 16 ‐6%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 879 97       Appendix C, Table 2. Number of marijuana arrests, by agency, 2012–2014  Agency 2012 2013 2014    % change  2012‐2014  Fremont County SO 7 1 1 ‐86%  Frisco PD 15 0 0 ‐100%  Fruita PD 26 41 37 42%  Garden City PD 1 1 3 200%  Garfield (Rifle Co. Court) 0 9 2  ‐‐  Garfield County SO 14 8 0 ‐100%  Georgetown PD 0 1 0  ‐‐  Gilpin County SO 31 3 1 ‐97%  Glendale PD 3 2 0 ‐100%  Glenwood Springs PD 136 51 55 ‐60%  Golden PD 78 41 50 ‐36%  Granby PD 14 2 4 ‐71%  Grand Junction PD 500 308 309 ‐38%  Greeley PD 249 176 141 ‐43%  Greenwood Village PD 131 49 30 ‐77%  Gunnison PD 32 24 16 ‐50%  Gunnison County SO 0 1 2  ‐‐  Haxtun PD 0 0 4 ‐‐  Holyoke PD 2 1 0 ‐100%  Hotchkiss PD 1 1 4 300%  Hudson PD 2 0 4 100%  Huerfano County SO 1 0 1 0%  Idaho Springs PD 11 0 1 ‐91%  Jefferson County SO 421 214 203 ‐52%  Johnstown PD 9 1 0 ‐100%  Keenesburg PD 0 1 0 ‐‐  Kersey PD 0 6 2  ‐‐  Kiowa County SO 1 3 0 ‐100%  Kit Carson County SO 11 8 3 ‐73%  La Junta PD 20 3 6 ‐70%  La Plata County SO 0 2 7  ‐‐  Lafayette PD 125 26 36 ‐71%  Lake County SO 10 0 1 ‐90%  Lakeside PD 13 0 1 ‐92%  Lakewood PD 379 224 331 ‐13%  Lamar PD 71 27 28 ‐61%  Larimer County SO 223 66 65 ‐71%  LaSalle PD 4 0 0 ‐100%  Leadville PD 17 3 2 ‐88%  Lincoln County SO 1 0 0 ‐100%  Littleton PD 167 62 65 ‐61%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 880 98       Appendix C, Table 2. Number of marijuana arrests, by agency, 2012–2014  Agency 2012 2013 2014    % change  2012‐2014  Lochbuie PD 0 2 1 ‐‐  Logan County SO 37 2 12 ‐68%  Lone Tree PD 91 13 5 ‐95%  Longmont PD 74 49 73 ‐1%  Louisville PD 0 1 10 ‐‐  Loveland PD 285 162 147 ‐48%  Manitou Springs PD 66 43 68 3%  Mead PD 3 8 12 300%  Meeker PD 4 0 1 ‐75%  Mesa County SO 103 64 73 ‐29%  Milliken PD 0 3 10 ‐‐  Minturn PD 1 0 0 ‐100%  Moffat County SO 18 1 2 ‐89%  Monte Vista PD 19 3 2 ‐89%  Montezuma County SO 66 5 11 ‐83%  Montrose County SO 25 12 11 ‐56%  Montrose PD 108 38 35 ‐68%  Monument PD 17 5 1 ‐94%  Morgan County SO 7 0 7 0%  Morrison PD 2 0 0 ‐100%  Mountain View PD 1 0 1 0%  Mt Crested Butte PD 3 0 8 167%  Northglenn PD 214 100 110 ‐49%  Otero County SO 1 0 0 ‐100%  Ouray PD 0 0 4 ‐‐  Pagosa Springs PD 16 3 6 ‐63%  Palisade PD 0 0 12 ‐‐  Palmer Lake Marshal 1 0 0 ‐100%  Paonia PD 0 2 0 ‐‐  Parachute PD 13 2 10 ‐23%  Park County SO 9 1 4 ‐56%  Parker PD 96 92 54 ‐44%  Pikes Peak Community College PD 5 0 1 ‐80%  Prowers County SO 19 5 10 ‐47%  Pueblo County SO 1 15 16 1500%  Pueblo PD 22 4 5 ‐77%  Rangely PD 4 3 17 325%  Red Rocks PD 11 0 3 ‐73%  Rio Blanco County SO 18 1 0 ‐100%  Rio Grande County SO 0 2 0  ‐‐  Routt County SO 10 0 1 ‐90%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 881 99  Appendix C, Table 2. Number of marijuana arrests, by agency, 2012–2014  Agency 2012 2013 2014   % change  2012‐2014  Saguache County SO 7 0 1 ‐86%  Salida PD 27 9 12 ‐56%  San Juan County SO 0 1 0  ‐‐  Sedgwick County SO 1 3 1 0%  Severance PD 2 0 1 ‐50%  Sheridan PD 35 22 32 ‐9%  Silt PD 1 0 0 ‐100%  Silverthorne PD 5 0 1 ‐80%  Springfield PD 0 0 1  ‐‐  Steamboat Springs PD 82 36 55 ‐33%  Sterling PD 4 1 16 300%  Summit County SO 42 5 0 ‐100%  Teller County SO 19 1 6 ‐68%  Thornton PD 433 169 157 ‐64%  Tinmath PD 0 0 1  ‐‐  Trinidad PD 7 5 1 ‐86%  University of Colorado‐Anschutz Campus 8 0 0 ‐100%  University of Colorado‐Boulder 380 282 162 ‐57%  University of Colorado‐Colorado Springs 38 22 31 ‐18%  University of Northern Colorado 0 16 16 ‐‐  Vail PD 110 64 35 ‐68%  Walsenburg PD 12 0 3 ‐75%  Washington County SO 20 2 1 ‐95%  Weld County SO 39 21 26 ‐33%  Westminster PD 501 173 159 ‐68%  Wheat Ridge PD 108 63 91 ‐16%  Windsor PD 29 19 4 ‐86%  Woodland Park PD 23 37 17 ‐26%  Yuma County SO 2 0 0 ‐100%  Yuma PD 0 4 0 ‐‐  a Denver’s reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest and citation systems.  Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest  data reported by Denver include a non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that  year. See Appendix K, Table 16 for internal data provided by the Denver Police Department's Data Analysis Unit.  Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident‐Based Crime Reporting System data.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 882 100  Appendix C, Table 3. Number and rate of juvenile (10–17 years old) marijuana arrests, by county,  2012–2014  Number of arrests Arrest rate  2012 2013 2014 % change 2012‐14 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012‐14  Total 3,235 3,125 3,400 +5% 598 571 611 +2%  Adams 624 526 509 ‐18% 1137 929 870 ‐23%  Alamosa 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Arapahoe 392 334 392 0% 594 499 576 ‐3%  Archuleta 7 3 3 ‐57% 643 280 287 ‐55%  Baca 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Bent 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Boulder 123 88 117 ‐5% 414 288 376 ‐9%  Broomfield 112 70 81 ‐28% 1642 994 1112 ‐32%  Chaffee 20 7 9 ‐55% 1500 525 661 ‐56%  Cheyenne 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Clear Creek 9 3 1 ‐89% 1329 449 146 ‐89%  Conejos 1 0 0 ‐100% 98 0 0 ‐100%  Costilla 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Crowley 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Custer 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Delta 4 7 6 50% 135 242 210 56%  Denvera  --  -- 364  --  --  -- 646  --  Dolores 0 1 0 ‐‐ 0 518 0 ‐‐  Douglas 200 181 114 ‐43% 480 418 254 ‐47%  Eagle 38 33 22 ‐42% 720 602 392 ‐46%  El Paso 269 286 267 ‐1% 362 381 352 ‐3%  Elbert 7 16 15 114% 238 556 531 124%  Fremont 6 6 1 ‐83% 158 163 28 ‐83%  Garfield 41 47 42 2% 626 706 619 ‐1%  Gilpin 5 0 0 ‐100% 1190 0 0 ‐100%  Grand 3 2 4 33% 232 154 298 28%  Gunnison 0 3 5  ‐‐ 0 227 365 ‐‐  Hinsdale 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Huerfano 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Jackson 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Jefferson 599 551 614 3% 1089 1003 1111 2%  Kiowa 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Kit Carson 4 1 3 ‐25% 525 135 418 ‐20%  La Plata 12 4 8 ‐33% 258 84 164 ‐36%  Lake 2 0 1 ‐50% 264 0 125 ‐53%  Larimer 182 224 208 14% 623 754 681 9%  Las Animas 5 1 0 ‐100% 371 80 0 ‐100%  Lincoln 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 883 101  Appendix C, Table 3. Number and rate of juvenile (10–17 years old) marijuana arrests, by county,  2012–2014  Number of arrests Arrest rate  2012 2013 2014 % change 2012‐14 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012‐14  Logan 4 2 15 275% 205 104 779 280%  Mesa 150 203 209 39% 1007 1366 1403 39%  Mineral 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Moffat 22 13 4 ‐82% 1397 815 251 ‐82%  Montezuma 18 1 8 ‐56% 675 37 296 ‐56%  Montrose 45 27 23 ‐49% 961 580 493 ‐49%  Morgan 23 13 27 17% 676 382 799 18%  Otero 3 1 0 ‐100% 151 50 0 ‐100%  Ouray 0 0 2 ‐‐ 0 0 482 ‐‐  Park 0 0 2  ‐‐ 0 0 145 ‐‐  Phillips 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Pitkin 2 0 4 100% 144 0 272 90%  Prowers 18 11 18 0% 1250 771 1261 1%  Pueblo 1 1 5 400% 6 6 28 400%  Rio Blanco 2 0 4 100% 273 0 567 108%  Rio Grande 11 0 1 ‐91% 853 0 76 ‐91%  Routt 18 9 19 6% 810 397 818 1%  Saguache 4 0 1 ‐75% 667 0 162 ‐76%  San Juan 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  San Miguel 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0  ‐‐  Sedgwick 0 3 0 ‐‐ 0 1485 0 ‐‐  Summit 9 2 1 ‐89% 451 96 46 ‐90%  Teller 11 27 11 0% 472 1201 500 6%  Washington 0 1 1  ‐‐ 0 203 199 ‐‐  Weld 143 187 214 50% 458 583 646 41%  Yuma 0 4 0  ‐‐ 0 368 0  ‐‐  aDenver’s reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest and citation systems.  Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest  data reported by Denver include a non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that  year. See Appendix K, Table 16 for internal data provided by the Denver Police Department's Data Analysis Unit. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident‐Based Crime Reporting System data.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 884 102       Appendix C, Table 4. Number and rate of marijuana arrests, by type of arrest, age,  race/ethnicity, and gender, 2012‐2014    Total marijuana arrests   Marijuana arrests per 100,000 population    2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014   2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  Possession                    Age group  10 to 17 2,859 2,731 3,127 9% 522 490 550 5%  18 to 20 3,009 2,008 1,963 ‐35% 1,339 879 856 ‐36%  21 or older 5,502 696 908 ‐83% 148 18 24 ‐84%  Race  White 8,252 3,726 3,872 ‐53% 229 102 105 ‐54%  Hispanic 2,123 1,174 1,370 ‐35% 195 106 121 ‐38%  African‐American 816 451 629 ‐23% 398 229 305 ‐23%  Other 179 84 127 ‐29% 61 26 39 ‐36%  Gender  Male 9,227 4,368 4,699 ‐49% 355 166 176 ‐51%  Female 2,143 1,067 1,299 ‐39% 83 41 49 ‐41%  Unspecified                    Age group  10 to 17 328 345 218 ‐34% 60 62 38 ‐36%  18 to 20 257 226 233 ‐9% 114 99 102 ‐11%  21 or older 453 155 149 ‐67% 12 4 4 ‐68%  Race  White 778 538 406 ‐48% 22 15 11 ‐49%  Hispanic 181 140 155 ‐14% 17 13 14 ‐18%  African‐American 60 39 30 ‐50% 29 20 15 ‐50%  Other 19 9 9 ‐53% 6 3 3 ‐58%  Gender  Male 820 599 463 ‐44% 32 23 17 ‐45%  Female 218 127 137 ‐37% 8 5 5 ‐39%  Sales                    Age group  10 to 17 41 44 52 27% 7 8 9 22%  18 to 20 69 36 39 ‐43% 31 16 17 ‐45%  21 or older 191 145 139 ‐27% 5 4 4 ‐30%  Race  White 170 139 146 ‐14% 5 4 4 ‐16%  Hispanic 64 42 43 ‐33% 6 4 4 ‐36%  African‐American 61 39 37 ‐39% 30 20 18 ‐40%  Other 6 5 4 ‐33% 2 2 1 ‐40%    April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 885 103  Appendix C, Table 4. Number and rate of marijuana arrests, by type of arrest, age,  race/ethnicity, and gender, 2012‐2014  Total marijuana arrests  Marijuana arrests per 100,000 population  2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014 2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  Gender  Male 270 205 204 ‐24% 10 8 8 ‐27%  Female 31 20 26 ‐16% 1 1 1 ‐19%  Production  Age group  10 to 17 5 4 3 ‐40% 1 1 1 ‐42%  18 to 20 10 6 9 ‐10% 4 3 4 ‐12%  21 or older 164 101 164 0% 4 3 4 ‐4%  Race  White 137 70 128 ‐7% 4 2 3 ‐9%  Hispanic 16 15 22 38% 1 1 2 32%  African‐American 21 13 20 ‐5% 10 7 10 ‐5%  Other 5 13 6 20% 2 4 2 8%  Gender  Male 151 92 151 0% 6 3 6 ‐3%  Female 28 19 25 ‐11% 1 1 1 ‐13%  Smuggling  Age group  10 to 17 2 1 0 ‐100% 0 0 0 ‐100%  18 to 20 2 1 0 ‐100% 1 0 0 ‐100%  21 or older 2 3 0 ‐100% 0 0 0 ‐100%  Race  White 6 3 0 ‐100% 0 0 0 ‐100%  Hispanic 0 1 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  African‐American 0 1 0  ‐‐ 0 1 0 ‐‐  Other 0 0 0  ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Gender  Male 6 5 0 ‐100% 0 0 0 ‐100%  Female 0 0 0 ‐‐ 0 0 0 ‐‐  Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation. National Incident‐Based Reporting System  data.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 886 104  Appendix C, Table 5. Number of marijuana arrests, by  race/ethnicity and judicial districta, 2012–2014  Race Judicial  District 2012 2013 2014 % change  2012‐2014  White  1 1,288 629 709 ‐45%  2b  --  -- 320  --  3 4 1 2 ‐50%  4 677 418 431 ‐36%  5 323 115 66 ‐80%  6 60 45 47 ‐22%  7 141 74 64 ‐55%  8 712 353 343 ‐52%  9 151 48 60 ‐60%  10 7 13 11 57%  11 91 25 26 ‐71%  12 38 6 11 ‐71%  13 91 24 43 ‐53%  14 192 51 77 ‐60%  15 67 37 27 ‐60%  16 14 2 1 ‐93%  17 1,562 622 571 ‐63%  18 1,260 649 589 ‐53%  19 369 281 271 ‐27%  20 591 372 283 ‐52%  21 531 337 330 ‐38%  22 43 4 11 ‐74%  Total 8,273 4,271 4,293 ‐48%  Hispanic  1 233 120 204 ‐12%  2 b  --  -- 281  --  3 16 4 2 ‐88%  4 84 48 72 ‐14%  5 77 30 42 ‐45%  6 5 4 7 40%  7 41 19 20 ‐51%  8 139 90 85 ‐39%  9 41 26 31 ‐24%  10 14 5 11 ‐21%  11 3 2 0 ‐100%  12 5 4 6 20%  13 38 21 25 ‐34%  14 15 7 7 ‐53%  15 36 4 11 ‐69%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 887 105  Appendix C, Table 5. Number of marijuana arrests, by  race/ethnicity and judicial districta, 2012–2014  Race Judicial  District 2012 2013 2014 % change  2012‐2014  16 8 1 1 ‐88%  17 894 434 360 ‐60%  18 286 180 202 ‐29%  19 120 49 46 ‐62%  20 85 40 48 ‐44%  21 70 65 84 20%  22 1 0 1 0%  Total 2,260 1,318 1,546 ‐32%  African‐American  1 59 34 30 ‐49%  2 b   --  -- 213  --  3 0 0 1 ‐‐  4 136 91 114 ‐16%  5 3 0 2 ‐33%  6 1 1 0 ‐100%  7 2 0 1 ‐50%  8 39 17 24 ‐38%  9 5 1 2 ‐60%  10 2 1 0 ‐100%  11 1 0 2 100%  12 0 2 0 ‐‐  13 7 1 0 ‐100%  14 0 1 0 ‐‐  15 5 1 1 ‐80%  16 0 0 4 ‐‐  17 100 43 33 ‐67%  18 431 194 235 ‐45%  19 10 8 10 0%  20 28 16 12 ‐57%  21 22 14 17 ‐23%  22 0 0 0 ‐‐  Total 906 534 701 ‐23%  Asian  1 17 10 6 ‐65%  2 b  -- -- 7 ‐‐  3 0 0 0 ‐‐  4 14 6 5 ‐64%  5 5 0 0 ‐100%  6 0 1 0 ‐‐  7 0 0 0 ‐‐  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 888 106  Appendix C, Table 5. Number of marijuana arrests, by  race/ethnicity and judicial districta, 2012–2014  Race Judicial  District 2012 2013 2014 % change  2012‐2014  8 4 3 1 ‐75%  9 0 0 0  ‐‐  10 0 0 0  ‐‐  11 0 0 0  ‐‐  12 0 0 0  ‐‐  13 0 0 0  ‐‐  14 0 0 0  ‐‐  15 2 0 0 ‐100%  16 0 0 0  ‐‐  17 19 11 4 ‐79%  18 21 20 16 ‐24%  19 1 0 2 100%  20 8 5 7 ‐13%  21 5 0 0 ‐100%  22 0 0 0 ‐‐  Total 96 61 48 ‐50%  Native American  1 8 2 1 ‐88%  2 b -- -- 8  --  3 0 0 0 ‐‐  4 2 3 1 ‐50%  5 0 0 0 ‐‐  6 5 6 34 580%  7 1 0 0 ‐100%  8 3 2 1 ‐67%  9 0 0 2 ‐‐  10 0 0 0 ‐‐  11 0 0 0 ‐‐  12 0 0 0 ‐‐  13 0 0 0 ‐‐  14 4 0 0 ‐100%  15 0 0 0 ‐‐  16 0 0 0 ‐‐  17 7 3 1 ‐86%  18 6 2 5 ‐17%  19 1 0 0 ‐100%  20 1 0 0 ‐100%  21 1 0 0 ‐100%  22 30 3 1 ‐97%  Total 70 22 54 ‐23%  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 889 107  Appendix C, Table 5. Number of marijuana arrests, by  race/ethnicity and judicial districta, 2012–2014  Race Judicial  District 2012 2013 2014 % change  2012‐2014  Pacific Islander  1 0 0 0 ‐‐  2 b -- -- 0 ‐‐  3 0 0 0 ‐‐  4 0 0 0 ‐‐  5 0 0 0 ‐‐  6 0 0 0 ‐‐  7 0 0 0 ‐‐  8 0 1 0 ‐‐  9 0 0 0 ‐‐  10 0 0 0 ‐‐  11 0 0 0 ‐‐  12 0 0 0 ‐‐  13 0 0 0 ‐‐  14 0 0 0 ‐‐  15 0 1 0 ‐‐  16 0 0 0 ‐‐  17 0 0 0 ‐‐  18 0 0 2 ‐‐  19 0 0 0 ‐‐  20 0 0 0 ‐‐  21 0 2 0 ‐‐  22 0 0 0 ‐‐  Total 0 4 2 ‐‐  Unknown  1 1 0 4 300%  2 b -- -- 7 ‐‐  3 0 0 0 ‐‐  4 0 0 3 ‐‐  5 0 0 0 ‐‐  6 1 0 0 ‐100%  7 0 1 4 ‐‐  8 2 2 2 0%  9 0 0 0 ‐‐  10 0 0 0 ‐‐  11 0 0 0 ‐‐  12 0 0 0 ‐‐  13 0 0 0 ‐‐  14 0 1 0 ‐‐  15 0 0 0 ‐‐  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 890 108  Appendix C, Table 5. Number of marijuana arrests, by  race/ethnicity and judicial districta, 2012–2014  Race Judicial  District 2012 2013 2014 % change  2012‐2014  16 0 1 0  ‐‐  17 12 7 10 ‐17%  18 9 3 4 ‐56%  19 2 2 1 ‐50%  20 1 0 3 200%  21 0 0 0 ‐‐  22 0 0 0 ‐‐  Total 28 20 38 36%  Total  1 1,606 795 954 ‐41%  2 b  --  -- 836  --  3 20 5 5 ‐75%  4 913 566 626 ‐31%  5 408 145 110 ‐73%  6 72 57 88 22%  7 185 94 89 ‐52%  8 899 468 456 ‐49%  9 197 75 95 ‐52%  10 23 19 22 ‐4%  11 95 27 28 ‐71%  12 43 12 17 ‐60%  13 136 46 68 ‐50%  14 211 60 84 ‐60%  15 110 43 39 ‐65%  16 22 4 6 ‐73%  17 2,594 1,120 979 ‐62%  18 2,013 1,048 1,053 ‐48%  19 503 340 330 ‐34%  20 714 433 353 ‐51%  21 629 418 431 ‐31%  22 74 7 13 ‐82%  Total 11,633 6,230 6,682 ‐43%  a There are some agencies that occupy more than one judicial district. In these cases, an attempt was made to   assign the arrests to the district with the majority of residents for that agency.  b The City and County of Denver represents the 2nd Judicial District in Colorado. Denver’s reported marijuana arrest data   for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to separate jail arrest and citation systems. Cite and release data were not reported   to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest data reported by Denver include a   non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that year. See Appendix K, Table 16 for internal data provided by the Denver Police Department's Data Analysis Unit.  Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident‐Based Reporting System data.  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 891 Appendix D Offenses by location April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 892 Appendix D, Table 6. Marijuana offenses, by specific location, 2012–2014 Location 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012-2014 Total 19,363 9,784 10,814 -44% Abandoned/Condemned Structure 7 3 3 -57% Air/Bus/Train Terminal 51 66 90 76% Amusement Park 10 5 1 -90% Arena/Stadium/Fairgrounds/Coliseum 22 14 8 -64% Auto Dealership New/Used 1 - - -100% Bank/Savings and Loan (includes other financial institutions) 12 4 1 -92% Bar/Night Club 114 30 22 -81% Camp/Campground 6 - 1 -83% Church/Synagogue/Temple (includes other religious buildings) 7 15 12 71% Commercial/Office Building 59 70 63 7% Community Center - 7 7 - Construction Site 8 - 2 -75% Convenience Store 74 47 50 -32% Daycare Facility - - 3 - Department/Discount Store 353 216 249 -29% Dock/Wharf/Freight/Modal Terminal 6 5 12 100% Drug Store/Doctor s Office/Hospital (includes medical supply building) 30 10 20 -33% Farm Facility - 8 - - Field/Woods 301 226 149 -50% Gambling Facility/Casino/Race Track 17 2 1 -94% Government/Public Building 101 59 49 -51% Grocery/Supermarket 122 54 61 -50% Highway/Road/Alley/Street 9,203 3,415 3,304 -64% Hotel/Motel (includes other temporary lodgings) 241 81 80 -67% Industrial Site 1 - 4 300% Jail/Prison/Penitentiary 70 34 32 -54% Lake/Waterway 14 4 8 -43% Liquor Store 15 1 - -100% Military Installation 2 - - -100% Other/Unknown 841 352 429 -49% Park/Playground 462 399 625 35% Parking Lot/Garage 1,636 744 860 -47% Rental Storage Facility (Mini-storage/Self-storage) 22 6 1 -95% Residence/Home/Apartment/Condominium/Nursing Home 2,601 1,057 1,374 -47% Rest Area 2 1 3 50% Restaurant/Cafeteria 84 28 41 -51% School/College/University 43 - - -100% April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 893 Appendix D, Table 6. Marijuana offenses, by specific location, 2012–2014 Location 2012 2013 2014 % change 2012-2014 School-College/University 887 748 762 -14% School-Elementary/Secondary 1,766 1,980 2,363 34% Service/Gas Station 18 12 16 -11% Shelter-Mission/Homeless 1 1 - -100% Shopping Mall 49 27 34 -31% Specialty Store (Fur, Jewelry, TV, Dress Store) 104 53 74 -29% Note: In 2012, elementary/secondary and college/university were combined in one school category. In 2013, elementary/secondary schools were separated from college/university as a school reporting place. Source: Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Crime Reporting System data. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 894 Appendix E Court filings by age, charge category, judicial district, and charge classification April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 895 Appendix E, Table 7. Marijuana court filings, by age and charge category, 2006–2015 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Age 10-17 Total 1,777 1,888 1,676 1,619 1,688 1,583 1,665 1,530 1,180 519 Possession 1,539 1,640 1,464 1,373 1,455 1,410 1,484 1,350 1,011 409 Possession with intent 85 99 93 88 71 42 42 48 40 37 Distribution 68 60 50 75 55 64 58 56 65 36 Manufacture 14 11 10 8 10 6 2 6 0 5 Public consumption 58 73 56 68 85 54 68 68 61 31 Conspiracy 7 5 2 6 9 7 11 2 3 1 Other 6 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Age 18-20 Total 2,702 2,911 2,875 2,859 2,648 2,695 2,599 1,561 1,324 560 Possession 2,387 2,597 2,562 2,521 2,376 2,443 2,403 1,373 1,171 435 Possession with intent 162 152 164 172 119 75 58 49 28 35 Distribution 81 75 68 85 70 53 55 42 42 36 Manufacture 37 49 38 36 19 23 21 8 5 4 Public consumption 14 23 31 36 41 86 56 84 75 41 Conspiracy 8 8 6 7 19 14 3 4 2 8 Other 13 7 6 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 Age 21 or over Total 7,410 7,551 6,883 6,603 6,151 5,983 6,057 988 757 868 Possession 6,347 6,486 5,956 5,694 5,165 5,118 5,226 432 214 223 Possession with intent 452 441 404 389 328 269 229 159 174 243 Distribution 242 241 225 199 225 177 190 185 119 158 Manufacture 272 316 236 239 337 317 291 80 77 93 Public consumption 30 33 19 40 50 73 79 104 149 133 Conspiracy 41 27 26 37 32 25 36 26 24 17 Other 26 7 17 5 14 4 6 2 0 1 Source: Data provided by the Colorado State Judicial Branch. Note: The City/County of Denver does not report misdemeanors or petty offenses to the Colorado State Judicial Branch and are not included in this report. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 896 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total JD 1 2006 7 36 27 56 1,162 14 4 1,306 2007 1 36 30 43 1,189 4 0 1,303 2008 4 33 29 70 1,192 3 0 1,331 2009 2 38 30 63 1,038 12 1 1,184 2010 5 30 51 66 1,073 13 0 1,238 2011 11 35 50 59 1,082 18 0 1,255 2012 13 19 34 28 988 9 0 1,091 2013 5 19 49 23 332 1 1 430 2014 3 5 35 23 291 11 1 369 2015 0 9 21 29 113 2 0 174 JD 2 2006 9 36 180 163 497 0 2 887 2007 14 37 108 138 188 0 0 485 2008 9 30 93 126 74 0 0 332 2009 8 18 80 107 47 0 1 261 2010 8 14 67 102 28 0 0 219 2011 2 17 35 68 21 0 0 143 2012 1 20 58 60 22 1 0 162 2013 9 6 44 49 7 1 0 116 2014 12 13 13 57 15 0 0 110 2015 3 6 51 54 6 0 0 120 JD 3 2006 0 0 1 4 84 0 0 89 2007 0 10 1 3 93 0 0 107 2008 0 3 0 4 73 0 1 81 2009 0 0 1 2 104 0 0 107 2010 0 6 2 0 109 0 0 117 2011 0 2 0 1 117 1 2 123 2012 0 14 0 1 86 6 7 114 2013 0 0 5 3 31 6 1 46 2014 0 1 0 3 13 0 0 17 2015 0 0 8 1 6 2 0 17 JD 4 2006 1 39 36 87 1,591 13 3 1,770 2007 1 53 43 97 1,709 14 2 1,919 2008 2 37 42 68 1,454 4 9 1,616 2009 4 35 41 54 1,205 6 1 1,346 2010 13 64 33 46 1,153 14 6 1,329 2011 3 73 22 36 954 19 1 1,108 2012 3 61 21 46 882 19 1 1,033 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 897 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total 2013 1 3 31 14 361 22 0 432 2014 1 8 18 13 276 107 0 423 2015 2 10 9 12 102 44 0 179 JD 5 2006 2 5 4 18 529 2 2 562 2007 2 17 17 20 552 2 2 612 2008 1 6 9 5 558 0 0 579 2009 1 4 18 15 453 2 0 493 2010 2 12 12 10 422 4 0 462 2011 1 4 12 12 382 11 0 422 2012 0 15 14 4 560 9 0 602 2013 2 1 13 15 125 19 0 175 2014 1 10 6 2 103 21 0 143 2015 2 7 9 6 51 14 0 89 JD 6 2006 0 3 8 6 150 0 0 167 2007 0 6 5 4 150 6 0 171 2008 1 3 3 8 114 1 0 130 2009 1 1 3 6 102 2 1 116 2010 1 4 3 3 104 1 1 117 2011 1 0 0 2 150 0 0 153 2012 0 1 8 5 83 2 0 99 2013 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 2014 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 11 2015 0 0 4 1 4 4 0 13 JD 7 2006 1 16 12 5 271 1 0 306 2007 1 10 1 6 321 1 1 341 2008 1 8 2 10 277 6 0 304 2009 5 10 6 4 248 8 0 281 2010 1 8 4 11 266 11 0 301 2011 0 5 2 3 265 8 0 283 2012 0 4 3 3 232 1 0 243 2013 1 3 4 0 85 10 0 103 2014 0 3 5 0 56 13 0 77 2015 0 5 2 3 23 5 0 38 JD 8 2006 0 36 10 24 804 19 1 894 2007 3 44 25 30 811 33 2 948 2008 0 32 17 33 809 25 5 921 2009 0 21 27 27 699 29 0 803 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 898 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total 2010 1 36 13 35 802 21 4 912 2011 2 26 20 23 907 19 0 997 2012 3 20 4 29 953 35 1 1,045 2013 6 11 17 11 348 60 0 453 2014 0 3 17 10 271 46 0 347 2015 2 7 11 21 109 36 0 186 JD 9 2006 2 3 2 19 296 5 0 327 2007 0 4 3 9 258 1 0 275 2008 0 6 2 11 244 0 0 263 2009 1 4 6 9 284 2 0 306 2010 4 1 10 8 226 0 1 250 2011 0 8 10 8 210 5 0 241 2012 0 2 10 6 257 10 0 285 2013 0 0 7 8 81 1 0 97 2014 0 0 9 1 68 10 0 88 2015 0 0 8 3 24 4 0 39 JD 10 2006 0 7 2 26 219 1 0 255 2007 0 5 4 26 236 2 0 273 2008 4 7 2 18 200 1 0 232 2009 0 4 2 26 249 1 0 282 2010 0 8 10 4 224 2 0 248 2011 1 8 7 1 185 1 0 203 2012 1 5 15 5 162 3 0 191 2013 0 7 3 4 52 2 1 69 2014 0 1 3 8 40 1 0 53 2015 1 1 14 21 43 4 0 84 JD 11 2006 0 8 3 5 278 6 0 300 2007 1 15 9 9 306 5 0 345 2008 2 10 3 7 305 0 1 328 2009 0 8 6 12 271 6 0 303 2010 0 3 3 3 172 1 0 182 2011 0 8 8 4 163 5 0 188 2012 1 5 4 2 192 6 0 210 2013 0 1 2 0 55 5 0 63 2014 1 0 3 4 56 4 0 68 2015 0 10 3 2 13 1 0 29 JD 12 2006 2 4 11 2 192 0 0 211 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 899 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total 2007 1 7 13 11 205 6 0 243 2008 1 1 19 2 193 3 0 219 2009 2 8 10 5 279 1 1 306 2010 0 0 2 1 176 1 0 180 2011 2 2 5 1 122 2 0 134 2012 1 1 1 2 104 0 0 109 2013 0 2 0 1 21 0 0 24 2014 0 0 2 6 26 0 0 34 2015 1 0 9 1 28 2 0 41 JD 13 2006 0 1 3 17 234 4 0 259 2007 0 3 10 24 304 5 1 347 2008 1 3 2 4 232 1 1 244 2009 3 1 3 18 255 1 0 281 2010 1 2 3 20 205 2 0 233 2011 1 2 2 22 175 6 0 208 2012 0 3 0 10 187 2 0 202 2013 0 0 2 15 60 0 0 77 2014 1 0 4 4 57 2 0 68 2015 0 3 7 8 46 1 0 65 JD 14 2006 7 3 2 4 343 0 0 359 2007 0 2 5 6 256 3 1 273 2008 1 5 8 6 247 7 0 274 2009 2 12 9 13 296 0 2 334 2010 0 3 6 5 281 2 0 297 2011 0 4 4 7 290 2 0 307 2012 0 5 5 3 299 2 0 314 2013 0 3 2 5 83 4 0 97 2014 1 0 4 3 33 1 0 42 2015 0 3 4 2 8 5 0 22 JD 15 2006 0 0 1 0 42 0 0 43 2007 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 49 2008 0 0 3 5 81 0 0 89 2009 0 2 1 7 95 0 0 105 2010 0 2 3 5 72 0 1 83 2011 0 3 0 7 53 0 0 63 2012 0 0 0 3 83 0 0 86 2013 2 0 6 8 17 0 0 33 2014 0 2 4 1 16 0 0 23 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 900 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total 2015 0 0 6 4 5 0 0 15 JD 16 2006 6 2 2 7 54 0 71 2007 0 4 4 2 65 1 0 76 2008 0 2 8 2 49 0 0 61 2009 0 1 0 4 67 1 0 73 2010 0 0 0 2 42 0 0 44 2011 0 1 1 1 55 0 0 58 2012 0 1 1 0 62 0 0 64 2013 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 13 2014 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 11 2015 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 7 JD 17 2006 1 31 24 79 718 3 0 856 2007 9 35 22 91 818 6 0 981 2008 0 24 14 65 843 6 1 953 2009 8 31 20 62 855 3 0 979 2010 10 87 26 71 912 0 0 1,106 2011 6 88 36 45 997 5 0 1,177 2012 7 99 32 39 1,081 2 0 1,260 2013 0 11 25 29 312 6 0 383 2014 3 11 23 18 211 13 0 279 2015 2 3 10 23 125 18 0 181 JD 18 2006 7 30 23 96 990 19 31 1,196 2007 1 30 32 100 1,149 8 4 1,324 2008 1 22 19 126 1,029 17 4 1,218 2009 8 45 42 98 1,016 23 1 1,233 2010 7 59 37 56 907 37 7 1,110 2011 6 33 25 29 958 46 2 1,099 2012 15 15 37 39 992 39 0 1,137 2013 3 11 35 26 474 17 0 566 2014 4 18 19 36 351 27 0 455 2015 9 19 23 52 157 13 0 273 JD 19 2006 3 9 6 23 415 6 0 462 2007 1 15 8 16 485 10 0 535 2008 5 6 23 15 479 10 1 539 2009 2 6 23 32 517 16 0 596 2010 3 9 18 26 500 14 0 570 2011 2 3 11 14 466 4 0 500 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 901 Appendix E, Table 8. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge category, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Conspiracy Manufac ture Distribu tion Possession with intent Possession Public consumption Other Total 2012 3 8 14 14 471 4 0 514 2013 0 7 9 18 302 6 0 342 2014 1 1 14 18 245 8 0 287 2015 0 5 7 32 101 8 0 153 JD 20 2006 6 40 31 33 647 3 2 762 2007 4 29 30 33 682 6 1 785 2008 1 41 35 41 792 6 1 917 2009 3 23 21 51 838 12 0 948 2010 4 9 35 17 760 17 0 842 2011 3 11 23 14 861 55 0 967 2012 2 8 19 12 859 49 0 949 2013 3 1 20 7 213 83 0 327 2014 1 0 33 8 80 11 0 133 2015 2 3 13 10 46 16 2 92 JD 21 2006 1 11 2 24 690 2 0 730 2007 0 12 3 22 832 16 0 885 2008 0 4 7 31 689 16 0 747 2009 0 11 6 32 642 18 0 709 2010 0 8 11 27 514 36 1 597 2011 5 13 20 30 485 6 0 559 2012 0 8 24 18 465 5 0 520 2013 0 7 12 20 153 11 0 203 2014 0 6 11 24 151 13 0 205 2015 2 11 15 26 47 27 0 128 JD 22 2006 1 3 1 4 78 4 0 91 2007 1 2 4 2 82 0 0 91 2008 0 2 4 4 72 0 0 82 2009 0 1 4 2 45 1 0 53 2010 0 1 1 1 62 0 0 65 2011 0 0 1 0 86 1 0 88 2012 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 110 2013 0 2 0 0 21 1 0 24 2014 0 0 1 3 21 0 0 25 2015 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 9 Source: Data provided by the Colorado State Judicial Branch. Note: The City/County of Denver does not report misdemeanors or petty offenses to the Colorado State Judicial Branch and are not included in this report. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 902 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total JD 1 2006 142 146 1018 1,306 2007 126 106 1071 1,303 2008 150 86 1095 1,331 2009 153 75 956 1,184 2010 168 47 1023 1,238 2011 158 47 1050 1,255 2012 101 95 932 1,091 2013 93 86 282 430 2014 49 80 261 369 2015 42 37 95 174 JD 2 2006 418 463 6 887 2007 314 156 15 485 2008 272 50 11 332 2009 220 39 2 261 2010 198 18 3 219 2011 125 15 3 143 2012 146 15 7 162 2013 135 6 5 116 2014 105 14 1 110 2015 110 8 2 120 JD 3 2006 8 1 80 89 2007 14 7 86 107 2008 8 4 69 81 2009 3 12 92 107 2010 10 7 100 117 2011 2 6 115 123 2012 16 12 87 114 2013 5 8 34 46 2014 3 3 11 17 2015 9 4 4 17 JD 4 2006 183 95 1490 1,770 2007 212 97 1608 1,919 2008 166 99 1351 1,616 2009 149 49 1146 1,346 2010 157 75 1095 1,329 2011 125 55 926 1,108 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 903 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2012 127 67 866 1,033 2013 57 73 362 432 2014 37 73 344 423 2015 28 39 112 179 JD 5 2006 34 58 470 562 2007 69 43 500 612 2008 28 47 504 579 2009 47 38 408 493 2010 47 36 379 462 2011 34 24 364 422 2012 34 56 520 602 2013 31 34 114 175 2014 14 60 77 143 2015 19 33 37 89 JD 6 2006 21 8 138 167 2007 18 7 146 171 2008 18 5 107 130 2009 13 7 96 116 2010 12 14 91 117 2011 3 12 138 153 2012 15 40 76 99 2013 2 16 14 16 2014 1 11 9 11 2015 4 1 8 13 JD 7 2006 43 8 256 306 2007 23 27 291 341 2008 26 6 272 304 2009 26 12 243 281 2010 30 12 259 301 2011 9 22 252 283 2012 8 29 213 243 2013 8 12 84 103 2014 7 10 62 77 2015 9 5 24 38 JD 8 2006 78 52 764 894 2007 114 74 761 948 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 904 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2008 90 77 754 921 2009 81 15 707 803 2010 91 37 784 912 2011 77 36 884 997 2012 59 71 952 1,045 2013 46 47 380 453 2014 13 57 291 347 2015 33 30 123 186 JD 9 2006 31 10 286 327 2007 19 19 237 275 2008 20 13 230 263 2009 25 15 266 306 2010 33 8 208 250 2011 23 17 201 241 2012 19 20 250 285 2013 13 7 79 97 2014 4 11 74 88 2015 9 8 22 39 JD 10 2006 47 56 152 255 2007 37 41 195 273 2008 32 37 163 232 2009 32 45 205 282 2010 22 58 168 248 2011 13 13 177 203 2012 26 15 153 191 2013 12 12 51 69 2014 10 11 35 53 2015 16 28 40 84 JD 11 2006 28 12 260 300 2007 42 14 288 345 2008 40 6 282 328 2009 31 10 260 303 2010 12 7 163 182 2011 20 9 159 188 2012 13 14 189 210 2013 2 3 58 63 2014 7 8 56 68 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 905 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2015 15 3 11 29 JD 12 2006 26 38 147 211 2007 32 49 161 243 2008 27 45 147 219 2009 28 42 235 306 2010 3 35 142 180 2011 8 21 105 134 2012 8 33 86 109 2013 0 22 12 24 2014 6 13 21 34 2015 8 8 25 41 JD 13 2006 27 38 194 259 2007 41 24 282 347 2008 18 24 202 244 2009 27 32 222 281 2010 30 40 163 233 2011 35 31 142 208 2012 32 40 151 202 2013 19 31 35 77 2014 8 23 38 68 2015 17 21 27 65 JD 14 2006 19 29 311 359 2007 15 19 239 273 2008 20 17 237 274 2009 43 11 280 334 2010 20 10 267 297 2011 12 24 271 307 2012 14 22 287 314 2013 9 24 69 97 2014 4 14 31 42 2015 7 2 13 22 JD 15 2006 2 1 40 43 2007 0 6 43 49 2008 11 5 73 89 2009 10 6 89 105 2010 10 5 68 83 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 906 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2011 7 3 53 63 2012 3 21 80 86 2013 17 8 13 33 2014 5 6 13 23 2015 9 1 5 15 JD 16 2006 17 9 45 71 2007 10 9 57 76 2008 12 3 46 61 2009 5 7 61 73 2010 3 2 39 44 2011 2 3 53 58 2012 2 9 61 64 2013 0 3 11 13 2014 1 0 10 11 2015 2 3 2 7 JD 17 2006 147 50 660 856 2007 167 77 737 981 2008 117 54 782 953 2009 135 60 784 979 2010 202 63 841 1,106 2011 165 99 913 1,177 2012 183 85 1020 1,260 2013 63 97 272 383 2014 33 71 184 279 2015 28 46 107 181 JD 18 2006 161 212 823 1,196 2007 184 205 934 1,324 2008 181 158 879 1,218 2009 199 136 897 1,233 2010 164 102 844 1,110 2011 95 70 934 1,099 2012 112 121 958 1,137 2013 80 98 432 566 2014 75 85 332 455 2015 94 48 131 273 JD 19 2006 46 28 388 462 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 907 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2007 42 25 468 535 2008 53 17 469 539 2009 68 18 510 596 2010 61 16 493 570 2011 33 17 450 500 2012 44 50 447 514 2013 41 38 280 342 2014 31 52 213 287 2015 42 22 89 153 JD 20 2006 119 46 597 762 2007 107 29 649 785 2008 134 20 763 917 2009 122 27 799 948 2010 74 30 738 842 2011 52 63 851 967 2012 41 73 839 949 2013 36 27 273 327 2014 22 45 72 133 2015 23 28 41 92 JD 21 2006 46 17 667 730 2007 45 35 805 885 2008 49 30 668 747 2009 59 12 638 709 2010 54 21 522 597 2011 65 26 468 559 2012 52 28 447 520 2013 40 13 154 203 2014 34 23 151 205 2015 42 28 58 128 JD 22 2006 10 7 74 91 2007 10 3 78 91 2008 10 1 71 82 2009 7 0 46 53 2010 3 3 59 65 2011 2 2 85 88 2012 0 10 107 110 2013 2 7 22 24 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 908 Appendix E, Table 9. Marijuana court filings, by judicial district and charge classification, 2006–2015 Judicial district Year Felony Misdemeanor Petty offense Total 2014 2 6 18 25 2015 0 6 3 9 Source: Data provided by the Colorado State Judicial Branch. Note: The City/County of Denver does not report misdemeanors or petty offenses to the Colorado State Judicial Branch and are not included in this report. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 909 Appendix F School discipline trends April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 910 Appendix F, Table 10. Disciplinary incidents for drugs in Colorado schools, 2004–2015 School year Pupil count Drug suspensions Drug expulsions Drug referrals to Law Enforcement Drug suspension rate Drug expulsion rate Drug referrals to LE rate 2004-2005 766,657 3,394 590 2,317 443 77 302 2005-2006 780,708 3,409 579 1,996 437 74 256 2006-2007 794,026 3,287 546 1,940 414 69 244 2007-2008 802,639 3,212 567 1,923 400 71 240 2008-2009 818,443 3,202 534 1,898 391 65 232 2009-2010 832,368 4,212 753 2,192 506 90 263 2010-2011 843,316 4,650 767 2,255 551 91 267 2011-2012 854,265 4,561 718 1,951 534 84 228 2012-2013 863,561 4,319 614 1,921 500 71 222 2013-2014 876,999 4,714 535 1,823 538 61 208 2014-2015 889,006 4,529 446 1,160 509 50 130 Note: These are disciplinary incidents for all drugs and are not limited to marijuana. Rates are calculated per 100,000 students and it is possible for one student to have multiple disciplinary incidents in one school year. There was an effort to reduce expulsions and suspensions in Colorado schools from 2011-12 onward and this should be kept in mind when interpreting these results. Source: Colorado Department of Education, Colorado Education Statistics, URL: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval, Retrieved 12/14/2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 911 Appendix F, Table 11. Disciplinary incident rates for drugs in Colorado, by school racial and poverty characteristics, 2004–2015 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- 2014 2014- 2015 Drug expulsion rate Percent minority 0-25% 52 53 66 45 70 74 51 41 45 43 51 26-50% 77 91 94 72 45 60 72 92 97 63 70 51-75% 69 34 72 78 81 64 63 105 89 91 52 76-100% 43 52 44 33 34 36 54 56 43 28 31 Percent receiving free/reduced lunch 0-25% 51 60 69 77 80 57 72 35 44 24 33 26-50% 78 59 60 73 48 64 97 90 59 83 54 51-75% 70 66 76 52 64 112 78 100 83 70 96 76-100% 36 56 21 32 32 40 28 41 39 35 28 Drug suspension rate Percent minority 0-25% 205 218 315 267 244 231 229 284 303 190 313 26-50% 403 286 397 381 278 232 268 386 474 382 460 51-75% 506 528 679 526 577 595 489 681 653 710 651 76-100% 667 445 715 559 520 526 426 609 680 801 658 Percent receiving free/reduced lunch 0-25% 263 248 296 315 326 362 362 419 266 180 302 26-50% 279 320 317 251 280 336 512 444 380 399 459 51-75% 653 431 439 485 371 632 571 588 513 692 713 76-100% 406 350 423 335 281 443 471 478 467 616 506 Note: These are disciplinary incidents for all drugs and is not limited to marijuana. Rates are calculated per 100,000 students and it is possible for one student to have multiple disciplinary incidents in one school year. There was an effort to reduce expulsions and suspensions in Colorado schools from 2011-12 onward and this should be kept in mind when interpreting these results. Source: Colorado Department of Education, Colorado Education Statistics, URL: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval, Retrieved 12/14/2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 912 Appendix G Recent marijuana use, by region, grade level, and adult status April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 913 Appendix G, Table 12. Past 30-day marijuana use, by school level or age, 2013/2014 Region Counties Middle school High school Adult Colorado All 5.1 19.7 13.6 Region 1 Logan, Morgan, Philips, Sedgwick, Washington, Yuma 5.8 11.4 7.9 Region 2 Larimer 4.1 16.9 13.7 Region 3 Douglas 1.3 13.2 10.0 Region 4 El Paso 2.5 14.8 12.0 Region 5 Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln 4.6 9.4 1.4 Region 6 Baca, Bent, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers 12.3 17.6 5.9 Region 7 Pueblo 22.8 32.1 12.7 Region 8 Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, Saguache 8.2 23.1 14.4 Region 9 Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma, San Juan 10.0 24.6 14.2 Region 10 Delta, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel 5.0 26.7 13.5 Region 11 Jackson, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt 2.1 14.3 11.0 Region 12 Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Summit 4.8 19.7 15.6 Region 13 Chaffee, Custer, Fremont, Lake 10.0 22.9 9.6 Region 14 Adams 6.4 22.8 11.2 Region 15 Arapahoe 7.1 20.6 14.9 Region 16 Boulder, Broomfield 4.0 20.3 18.9 Region 17 Clear Creek, Gilpin, Park, Teller 5.7 25.1 11.4 Region 18 Weld 4.0 18.6 12.1 Region 19 Mesa 5.5 17.2 5.4 Region 20 Denver 19.2 26.6 18.5 Region 21 Jefferson NA NA 14.8 Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor and Surveillance Survey; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2013 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 914 Appendix H Marijuana business licenses, by license type, city, and county April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 915 Appendix H, Table 13. Licensees, by type of license and city, December 2015 City Medical center Medical cultivation Medical product manufacturer Retail store Retail cultivation Retail product manufacturer Testing lab Total licenses Total 508 736 197 408 512 160 2521 Alamosa 2 2 Alma 1 1 1 1 4 Antonito 2 2 Aspen 4 1 2 7 4 18 Aurora 22 9 11 1 42 Avon 2 1 4 3 2 12 Avondale 6 6 Bailey 1 1 3 4 2 11 Basalt 1 1 1 2 5 Berthoud 2 1 3 Beulah 2 2 Black Hawk 3 2 5 Bond 1 1 Boone 8 8 Boulder 15 32 14 17 38 15 1 131 Breckenridge 1 1 4 2 1 9 Buena Vista 1 2 3 Canon City 2 2 Carbondale 1 2 2 5 8 3 1 21 Cascade 1 1 2 Center 1 1 2 Central City 2 4 6 Colorado City 2 1 3 Colorado Springs 117 149 35 301 Commerce City 1 1 2 4 Como 1 1 Cortez 3 3 1 5 2 14 Craig 1 1 Crested Butte 2 4 2 2 10 De Beque 3 2 5 Denver 208 383 95 157 211 48 10 1102 Dillon 3 3 Divide 1 1 2 Downieville 1 1 1 1 4 Dumont 1 1 2 1 2 2 9 Durango 5 5 1 8 6 1 2 26 Eagle 1 1 1 1 4 Edgewater 5 6 11 Edwards 2 1 1 1 5 Empire 1 2 1 1 5 Englewood 4 2 6 Evergreen 1 1 2 Fairplay 1 1 1 3 6 Federal Heights 1 1 Florence 6 6 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 916 Appendix H, Table 13. Licensees, by type of license and city, December 2015 City Medical center Medical cultivation Medical product manufacturer Retail store Retail cultivation Retail product manufacturer Testing lab Total licenses Florissant 2 2 Fort Collins 14 16 3 10 11 3 57 Fort Garland 1 1 2 4 Fort Morgan 1 1 Fraser 1 2 3 Frisco 1 3 1 1 6 Garden City 3 5 1 4 4 2 19 Georgetown 1 1 1 1 4 Glendale 3 5 8 Glenwood 4 3 6 3 1 17 Golden 1 1 Grand Lake 3 3 Gunnison 6 4 10 Gypsum 1 1 Hartsel 1 2 1 4 Henderson 1 1 2 Hesperus 1 1 2 Idaho Springs 1 1 1 3 6 1 13 Jefferson 1 1 Lafayette 1 5 1 2 5 1 15 Lake George 1 1 Lakewood 12 5 17 Leadville 3 5 8 Littleton 4 1 5 Log Lane 2 3 1 3 4 1 14 Longmont 3 3 6 Louisville 1 2 3 Lyons 2 2 1 5 Mancos 1 1 2 1 5 Manitou 2 2 Moffat 1 2 1 4 Montrose 2 2 3 7 Mountain View 1 1 2 Nederland 1 4 2 1 8 New Castle 1 1 Northglenn 5 2 5 2 14 Oak Creek 2 2 1 5 4 14 Ophir 1 1 2 Pagosa Springs 2 2 3 2 9 Palisade 1 1 2 Palmer Lake 1 1 1 3 Parachute 4 1 5 Penrose 2 11 1 14 Pueblo 13 20 6 10 45 13 107 Pueblo West 11 13 10 10 15 12 71 Ridgway 1 3 1 3 4 1 13 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 917 Appendix H, Table 13. Licensees, by type of license and city, December 2015 City Medical center Medical cultivation Medical product manufacturer Retail store Retail cultivation Retail product manufacturer Testing lab Total licenses Rifle 5 6 5 16 Rye 5 5 Saguache 1 2 3 Salida 1 1 3 5 1 11 San Acacio 1 1 San Luis 1 2 2 2 7 San Pablo 2 2 Sedgwick 1 1 1 1 4 Silt 2 2 Silver Plume 1 1 Silverthorne 1 1 1 1 4 Silverton 2 3 1 6 Snowmass 1 1 Steamboat 3 9 2 3 8 2 27 Tabernash 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 Telluride 3 4 2 4 5 2 20 Trinidad 4 4 2 11 7 4 32 Walsenburg 1 3 4 Watkins 1 1 Wheat Ridge 4 3 3 4 5 3 2 22 Woodland Park 1 1 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division. URL: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities. Retrieved 12/4/2015 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 918 Appendix H, Table 14. Licensees, by type of license and county, December 2015 County Medical center Medical cultivation Medical product manufacturer Retail store Retail cultivation Retail product manufacturer Testing lab Total licenses Adams 6 2 2 5 9 10 1 35 Alamosa 2 2 Arapahoe 11 3 7 5 23 49 Archuleta 2 2 2 3 9 Boulder 23 37 15 46 17 30 1 169 Chaffee 1 3 1 5 1 3 14 Clear Creek 5 5 4 10 4 8 36 Conejos 2 2 Costilla 2 3 5 4 14 Denver 208 383 95 211 48 157 10 1112 Eagle 5 3 7 2 6 23 El Paso 118 151 36 1 2 308 Fremont 4 17 1 22 Garfield 10 12 2 16 5 17 1 63 Gilpin 2 2 7 11 Grand 2 1 2 1 2 6 14 Gunnison 2 6 2 10 20 Huerfano 3 1 4 Jefferson 23 9 4 5 4 10 2 57 La Plata 5 5 1 7 2 8 2 30 Lake 5 3 8 Larimer 16 17 3 11 3 10 60 Las Animas 4 4 2 7 4 11 32 Mesa 1 1 2 3 7 Moffat 1 1 Montezuma 4 4 1 3 7 19 Montrose 2 2 3 7 Morgan 2 3 1 4 2 3 15 Ouray 1 3 1 4 1 3 13 Park 3 3 13 3 6 28 Pitkin 5 2 2 3 4 8 24 Pueblo 24 33 16 83 26 20 202 Routt 3 11 4 13 6 4 41 Saguache 1 5 2 1 9 San Juan 3 1 2 6 San Miguel 3 4 3 5 3 4 22 Sedgwick 1 1 1 1 4 Summit 3 2 4 2 11 22 Teller 1 4 5 Weld 3 5 1 4 2 4 19 Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division. URL: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/enforcement/med-licensed-facilities. Retrieved 12/4/2015 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 919 Appendix I Marijuana licensees in Denver April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 920 Appendix I, Figure 1. Marijuana retail stores and medical dispensaries in Denver, 2016 Source: Denver Post ; URL: http://extras.denverpost.com/maps/news/marijuana/licensed-facilities/ . Copyright © 2016 The Denver Post. Used with permission. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 921 Appendix I, Figure 2. Marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, and testing facilities in Denver, 2016 Source: Denver Post; URL: http://extras.denverpost.com/maps/news/marijuana/licensed-facilities/. Copyright © 2016 The Denver Post. Used with permission. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 922 Appendix J Medical marijuana registry cardholders, by county April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 923 Appendix J, Table 15. Medical marijuana cardholders, by county, November 2015 County # of Patients % of Patients County # of Patients % of Patients Adams 7,792 7.1% Kit Carson 54 <1% Alamosa 255 <1% La Plata 1,680 1.5% Arapahoe 10,630 9.7% Lake 177 <1% Archuleta 584 <1% Larimer 5,349 4.9% Baca 30 <1% Las Animas 338 <1% Bent 70 <1% Lincoln 53 <1% Boulder 8,092 7.4% Logan 219 <1% Broomfield 1,093 <1% Mesa 1,851 1.7% Chaffee 389 <1% Mineral 20 <1% Cheyenne 22 <1% Moffat 210 <1% Clear Creek 340 <1% Montezuma 691 <1% Conejos 77 <1% Montrose 641 <1% Costilla 173 <1% Morgan 219 <1% Crowley 88 <1% Otero 257 <1% Custer 111 <1% Ouray 153 <1% Delta 527 <1% Park 713 <1% Denver 16,604 15.1% Phillips 42 <1% Dolores 50 <1% Pitkin 443 <1% Douglas 3,390 3.1% Prowers 120 <1% Eagle 1,227 1.1% Pueblo 3,672 3.3% El Paso 18,944 17.2% Rio Blanco 60 <1% Elbert 290 <1% Rio Grande 177 <1% Fremont 1,159 1.1% Routt 868 <1% Garfield 1,104 1.0% Saguache 174 <1% Gilpin 273 <1% San Juan 13 <1% Grand 374 <1% San Miguel 267 <1% Gunnison 262 <1% Sedgwick 78 <1% Hinsdale 10 <1% Summit 1,003 <1% Huerfano 223 <1% Teller 908 <1% Jackson 22 <1% Washington 56 <1% Jefferson 11,895 10.8% Weld 3,224 2.9% Kiowa 10 <1% Yuma 79 <1% Source: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Medical marijuana statistics and data, URL: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/medical-marijuana- statistics-and-data. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 924 Appendix K Marijuana revenue collection and expenditure flowchart April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 925 How is Marijuana Revenue Collected and Spent in the State of Colorado? 10% Special Sales Tax on Retail Marijuana 2.9 % Sales Tax on Medical Marijuana 2.9 % Sales Tax on Retail Marijuana 15% Excise Tax on Retail Marijuana Marijuana Tax Cash Fund State Share (85%) of 10% Retail Sales Tax 2.9% Sales Tax on Retail Marijuana 2.9% Sales Tax on Medical Marijuana Regulation Enforcement Licensing Compliance Department of Revenue B.E.S.T. Public School Capital Construction Assistance Fund (12.5% of which is credited to the Charter School Facilities Assistance Subaccount) Regulatory Oversight Public Safety Substance Abuse Treatment Medical and Retail Marijuana Business Fees Local Share of 10% Special Sales Tax (15% of gross tax collected, proportionate to local sales) Department of Agriculture Department of Education Governor's Office Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Department of Human Services Judicial Department Attorney General's Office Department of Local Affairs Department of Public Health and Environment Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation Appropriated to Various State Agencies Marijuana Cash Fund General Fund (pass-through) Public School Fund (K-12 Education) The special sales tax will be reduced to 8% beginning July 1, 2017 Medical Marijuana Patient Fees Medical Marijuana Program Cash Fund Patient Registry & Oversight Department of Public Health and Environment Health Research Youth Prevention Source: Alice Wheet, Colorado Office of State Planning and BudgetingApril 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes926 144  Appendix L  Denver Police Department Marijuana Arrest Data   from Internal Analysis  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 927 145  Appendix L, Table 16. Marijuana arrests in Denver, 2012‐2014a  2012 2013 2014  % change  2012‐2014  Total 1,572 868 395 ‐75%  Age group  Juvenile 378 368 116 ‐69%  Adult 1,194 500 279 ‐77%  Race/ethnicity  White 816 387 179 ‐78%  Hispanic 263 252 107 ‐59%  African‐American 467 209 97 ‐79%  Other 26 19 12 ‐54%  a Denver’s officially reported marijuana arrest data for 2012 and 2013 was incomplete due to  separate jail arrest and citation systems. Cite and release data were not reported to the Colorado  Bureau of Investigation until July 2013. Additionally, the 2014 arrest data reported by Denver  include a non‐criminal civil citation, which lead to an over‐reporting of marijuana arrests for that  year. The Denver Police Department does not believe that the official data they reported to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is an accurate reflection of their internal data.The data in this  table come from an internal analysis conducted by the Denver Police Department’s Data Analysis  Unit.  These data do not reflect the official State data and any questions about the methodology for  gathering and presenting these data should be addressed to the Denver Police Department's  Data Analysis Unit.  Source: Denver Police Department (2016).  April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 928 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA THE MEDICAL CANNABIS BRIEFING BOOK 115 TH CONGRESS AmericansForSafeAccess.orgApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 929 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA THE MEDICAL CANNABIS BRIEFING BOOK 115 TH CONGRESS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 930 2 3 INTRODUCTION..................4 MEDICAL CANNABIS BY THE NUMBERS............6 CHAPTER 1: CANNABIS THERAPEUTICS: THE BASICS.........8 KEY POINTS...............9 TALKING POINTS................10 THE CANNABIS PLANT................................11 THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM................................12 CLINICAL OVERVIEW...................................13 MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS................................................15 THE MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS........................16 CHAPTER 2: LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY: OVERVIEW OF STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS...................18 KEY POINTS...................................19 TALKING POINTS.....................20 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS....................21 PARTICIPATING PATIENTS AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS..................................22 PRODUCT SAFETY AND THE MEDICAL CANNABIS SUPPLY CHAIN...............................................24 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS...................................25 THE ECONOMICS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS........................26 STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT..........28 CHAPTER 3: IMPACT OF THE STATE-FEDERAL CONFLICT: WHAT’S AT STAKE.........30 KEY POINTS...................................31 TALKING POINTS................................................................32 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ...................................33 THE COST OF WAR ...................................36 THE “CEASE-FIRE”: ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT AND COLE MEMO........................39 MEDICAL CANNABIS TIMELINE.......................40 CHAPTER 4: HARMONIZING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN..................42 KEY POINTS...................................43 TALKING POINTS...................................................44 ROLE OF CONGRESS: LEGISLATIVE NEEDS ........................45 LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS 114TH CONGRESS...................46 REGULATORY IMPACT OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION ........................49 AGENCY ROLES POST-COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION.......52 CHAPTER 5: A CALL TO THE 115TH CONGRESS AND 45TH POTUS............54 KEY POINTS: LAME DUCK CONGRESS, LAME DUCK POTUS, 115TH CONGRESS, 45TH POTUS...................................55 2016 LAME DUCK................57 115TH CONGRESS................57 45TH POTUS................60 DIVERSE SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL ACTION................62 THE GATEWAY THEORY DISPROVEN................64 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 931 5 MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS SERVE APPROXIMATELY TWO MILLION PATIENTS UNDER PHYSICIAN SUPERVISION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING BOOK IS TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND POTUS THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO MAKE WELL-INFORMED DECISIONS. INTRODUCTION Since 1996, forty-four states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam have passed laws that grant their residents the right to possess, cultivate, and/ or obtain cannabis (marijuana) or cannabis-based products under the care of their physician. These laws have been passed to address healthcare needs of residents who may benefit from cannabis-based treatments, often where conventional medications have failed. These patient populations include people living with or treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), epilepsy, severe childhood epilepsy disorders such as Dravet Syndrome, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, chronic pain, and a myriad of other conditions. Today, more than 300 million Americans live under these laws -- about 85% of the U.S. population. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) has estimated that these medical cannabis programs serve approximately two million patients under physician supervision. Physicians may now recommend cannabis-based treatments for over fifty medical conditions and symptoms approved through these programs. After 20 years of experimentation, medical cannabis programs now include robust regulations that address public health and safety issues such as diversion for non-medical use and product safety protocols. Studies on these programs have shown little to no negative impact, and in some areas, positive effects on public health outcomes. In 2014, an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, “States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate compared with states without medical cannabis laws.”1 Recently the National Bureau of Economic Research reported, “Our findings suggest that providing broader access to medical marijuana may have the potential benefit of reducing abuse of highly addictive painkillers.”22 Furthermore, states with medical cannabis programs have not experienced increased rates of teen use of cannabis. Surveys of medical cannabis patients have suggested that cannabis is often used to decrease the use of other drugs. A recent study from the University of Georgia found Medicare experienced a savings of $165.2 million on prescription drugs across 17 states and the District of Columbia with medical cannabis laws, and reported savings would have reached $468 million if all states had medical cannabis programs. However, all of these patients and programs are in violation of federal law. For the past three years, state sponsored medical cannabis programs have operated under the guidance of federal agency memos and Congressionally imposed spending restrictions, which have limited federal interference and created a “ceasefire” for states implementing medical cannabis programs. The relative détente between state programs and federal enforcement has spurred an increase in the number of states with medical cannabis laws, allowing these states to move forward with more robust licensing requirements and product safety protocols. Medical cannabis programs more than doubled under the Obama administration, going from 13 states with medical cannabis laws to 29 states, (plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam) and 15 additional states with more restrictive cannabidiol (CBD)/cannabis laws. The purpose of this briefing book is to provide members of Congress and the President of the United States (POTUS) with the information they need to make well-informed decisions on legislation, regulations and policies regarding medical cannabis. With millions of Americans living in states where medical cannabis is legal under state laws, the need for the federal government to show leadership and resolve the conflict with state laws is more important than ever. 1 Bachhuber, M.A. MD, Saloner, B. PhD, Cunningham, C. MD, MS; et al. Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the united states 1999-2010. October 2014; Journal of the American Medical Association. 174(10):1668-1673. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4005. 2 Powell, D., Pacula, R.L., Jacobson, M. Do medical marijuana laws reduce addiction and deaths related to pain killers? July 2015; NBER Working Paper No. 21345. doi: 10.3386/w21345. AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS THE MISSION OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS (ASA) IS TO ENSURE SAFE AND LEGAL ACCESS TO CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) FOR THERAPEUTIC USES AND RESEARCH. ASA WORKS WITH OUR GRASSROOTS BASE OF OVER 100,000 MEMBERS AND OUR PROFESSIONAL ADVISORY GROUPS TO EFFECT CHANGE THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION, SUPPORT SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, LITIGATION, AND DIRECT ADVOCACY AT THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LEVEL.  4 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 932 6 7 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA MEDICAL CANNABIS BY THE NUMBERS States with Medical Cannabis Laws 44 § Known Cannabinoids 66+ Federal Tax Dollars Spent on Federal Interference in Medical Cannabis States before Rohrabacher-Farr CJS Amendment $ 500+ MIL. $ Medical Cannabis Patients in the US 2 MIL.+ Clinical Trial Data Using Cannabis for Pain in Patient Years 9,000 Qualifying Medical Conditions in Medical Cannabis Programs 50+ Deaths Caused by Cannabis 0 Average Drop in Opiate Related Deaths in States with Medical Cannabis Laws 25% Studies Published on the Endocannabinoid System 30,000 Americans Supporting Medical Cannabis 89% Federal Prescription Drug Cost Savings in Medical Cannabis States in 2013 $ 165 MIL. Annual Deaths Caused by Prescription Drugs 128,000 Number of Americans Suffering from Chronic Pain 100 MIL. AmericansForSafeAccess.orgApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 933 8 9 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 4. EM ILITATIBUS EAQUE OCCUM Ecatempo riasse reptus min nos dem est lamet quid que porit libus. Riberna turion nat. Od ut quis dis velit et ad que voluptis reperat emporeperem ipsam est etur, quia nonsectaspid molorenda quatis sequissunt idi arionseque asit odias se nimporu pienis mollab ipsanihillab id magnis enducipsapis alit ipietur? Quiatio occus non perovid magnis am faccus magnis con coreptatem andem lam eumquis eossinc tiatur? Em et hita siminis velessunt, est es re nobit eost volesti onsendes digenducimo doluptati dolorum harcia nusandis dolessus sam rerovident hitia m quae et et experibus comnimusam alignatquiam int dolore nem volento blandicabor repudae sint verio optatem porumque parchillecae parum reped ut ipsa nihici aspiciati nitium liti aut et porit, ommos moluptatior autem velitatianis im et post illaut apedion comni arum dersperum dolupta musdam que quodio. Ut et odis ea nus. Derorepel est re, cum aut laut vel is autem cuptat et earibus, am, et quis ea conecul laboribus, offic tempor sed quo maxime prepuda essint ut eic tem hicatur, quat laccum audamusa cor aut est, corem gentureptur simpore corunt re core non non re prae resendero cus ate porro cor sunt, dam, eicto temperum faccusam idesseq uatures aceriaeperum faccus aut et ut officimus eiunt pa qui oditaque quidendus dolut minum qui vent eicit lab intus. Em ilitatibus eaque occum ut dolor rehent quamentem ad qui totatur recullu ptibus voluptae seque volore rectin pliquid quis mosam utes et arit, ommollores conse essitio nsequae aut ut ea que quam vollupt aerorep ediscipsant volupti nemquia adi quis doluptis esectuuae excera dollicatusam dit excero denture pernam, solestibus nostisciam facee pelest qui raectat ioresti omnihit preium il ipid modiore volupti asitat occum quatiissam, sam, officti as maximusam, a sim ad ut atenihilici doluptur? dolupta nonse a doluptiat. It eos enis di dipsum ipsam eum iur Aximin comniet 5 12 85 45 33 Tio blaborendi 12 4 3 2,5 0,8 Aximin comniet 5 12 85 45 33 Blaborendi 7 4 12 2,5 0,8 Atio blaborendi 12 6 3 0,5 7 Popiska k obrázkům, tabulkám a grafům aut lam nusam rature rem aut fugia cum simintis quodigentore mos assero ex es quam facerferum que eiumet ex etus, sitio to omniae restibus atatur, audam adi cuptas utemqui corro dolorehendae nos nustrum liquia aceatet, aut occae endi dis in conseque voluptat.Sapid quidebis et recae solor molupta quiamus si omnime peligendae pro eumque con cuptasp idundit, qui ipis et aut optaquiamus as archil excerem iliqui dentia vitem rem. RITAT ET MAXIMAG NIHITAE NE NIMET INCTEM SEQUI TEM REPELIG ENITIA DITIA VOLESEQUAM EOST LANDAM QUODIGENT VOLUTEMQUUNT FUGITATUM VOLOREPELIA QUAMUS AUT AUT RE PELIT AUT HARIO ESSITISINUM HARUM VIT 1 KEY POINTS TALKING POINTS 1. THE CANNABIS PLANT 2. THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM 3. CLINICAL OVERVIEW: CANNABINOIDS, TERPENES, AND THE ECS 4. MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS KEY POINTS CANNABIS WAS AVAILABLE IN PHARMACIES AND A PART OF THE U.S. PHARMACOPOEIA UNTIL 1942 WHEN IT WAS REMOVED ALONG WITH OVER 200 OTHER NATURAL COMPOUNDS LIKE ST. JOHN’S WORT AND ECHINACEA. THESE HERBAL MEDICINES DID NOT RETURN TO THE U.S. PHARMACOPOEIA UNTIL 2004. CANNABIS HAS BEEN USED MEDICINALLY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE DISCOVERY OF THE CB1 RECEPTOR IN 1988, THAT SCIENTISTS COULD EXPLAIN THE VAST INTERACTIONS IN THE HUMAN BODY. IN THE SAME WAY THAT OPIATES MIMIC ENDORPHINS THAT INTERACT WITH OPIATE RECEPTORS, COMPOUNDS CONTAINED IN CANNABIS (CANNABINOIDS) MIMIC ENDOCANNABINOIDS THAT INTERACT WITH ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM (ECS) RECEPTORS. THE ECS IS A SOPHISTICATED GROUP OF LIGANDS, THEIR RECEPTORS, AND SIGNALING PATHWAYS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN REGULATING A VARIETY OF PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES INCLUDING MOVEMENT, MOOD, MEMORY, APPETITE, AND PAIN. A LETHAL TOXIC OVERDOSE OF CANNABIS HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED, BECAUSE UNLIKE OPIATES, CANNABIS COMPOUNDS DO NOT DEPRESS RESPIRATION OR HEART FUNCTION. PATIENTS PREFERENCE TO WHOLE PLANT CANNABIS VS SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID-BASED DRUGS IS SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS OF THE “ENTOURAGE EFFECTS” BETWEEN THE CANNABINOIDS WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE VARIOUS THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS. THE THERAPEUTIC USE OF CANNABIS IS SUPPORTED BY OVER 30,000 PUBLISHED STUDIES ON THE ECS AND OVER 9,000 PATIENT YEARS OF CLINICAL TRIAL DATA DOCUMENTING SUCCESSFUL USE OF CANNABIS FOR TREATING PAIN. THE NEUROPROTECTIVE QUALITIES OF CANNABIS PRESENT ENORMOUS POTENTIAL IN PROTECTING THE BRAIN AND CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM FROM THE DAMAGE OF DISEASE OR INJURY CREATED BY VARIOUS DISORDERS. PATIENTS USE A VARIETY OF DELIVERY METHODS (I.E., EDIBLES, OILS, SPRAY) TO ACHIEVE DESIRED THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS FROM CANNABIS. CANNABIS THERAPEUTICS: THE BASICS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 934 10 11 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS 1. THE CANNABIS PLANT Cannabis is a flowering plant that has fibrous stalks used for paper, clothing, rope, and building materials. The leaves, flowers, and roots have been documented for medicinal purposes for millennia. Cannabis leaves and flowers are consumed in several forms: dried flower buds or various types of concentrated, loose, or pressed resin that is extracted through a variety of methods. Once mature, the plant’s leaves and flowers become covered with trichomes, tiny glands of resinous oil containing cannabinoids and terpenes, medicinal compounds found in the cannabis plant. There are at least 100 cannabinoids and nearly 500 known compounds in the cannabis plant. Cannabis varieties produce different types of terpenes and cannabinoid profiles. Cannabis was available in pharmacies and was part of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia until 1942, when it was removed along with over 200 other natural compounds like St. John’s wort and Echinacea. Medicinal herbal products such as St. John’s Wort and Echinacea, did not return to the U.S. Pharmacopoeia until 2004. In 2013, the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia published the first cannabis monograph: Cannabis Inflorescence: Standards of Identity, Analysis, and Quality Control to provide scientifically valid methods for cannabis and its preparations. TALKING POINTS CANNABIS HAS BEEN USED MEDICINALLY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODY’S NATURAL ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM (ECS) IN 1988 THAT SCIENTISTS UNDERSTOOD HOW CANNABIS AFFECTS PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES INCLUDING MOVEMENT, MOOD, MEMORY, APPETITE, AND PAIN. THE THERAPEUTIC USE OF CANNABIS IS SUPPORTED BY OVER 30,000 PUBLISHED STUDIES ON THE ECS AND OVER 9,000 PATIENT YEARS OF CLINICAL TRIAL DATA DOCUMENTING SUCCESSFUL USE OF CANNABIS FOR TREATING PAIN. A DIVERSE GROUP OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS. MEDICAL CANNABIS IS AN ESSENTIAL TOOL TO REDUCE OPIOID DEATHS IN AMERICA, AND IS NEEDED BY VETERANS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA MYTH: SMOKING CANNABIS CAUSES SEVERE LUNG DAMAGE. FACT: THERE HAVE BEEN VERY LARGE, CONTROLLED STUDIES THAT HAVE FAILED TO FIND ANY LONG-TERM PULMONARY EFFECTS IN PEOPLE WHO ARE SMOKING CANNABIS. THERE MAY BE A FEW CHANGES IN LUNG FUNCTION, BUT THERE AREN’T ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU SEE WITH CHRONIC CIGARETTE SMOKING. Citation: Ware, M. Cannabis and the Lung, No More Smoking Gun?. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. June 2013; Vol. 10, No. 3. American Herbal Pharmacopoeia ® Editors and Technical Advisors Roy Upton RH DAyu American Herbal Pharmacopoeia® Scotts Valley, CA Lyle Craker PhD University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA Mahmoud ElSohly PhD University of Mississippi University, MS Aviva Romm MD CPM American Herbal Pharmacopoeia® Lennox, MA Ethan Russo MD GW Pharmaceuticals Salisbury, UK Michelle Sexton ND BS Americans for Safe Access Washington, DC The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy Seattle, WA Research Associates Jahan Marcu PhD Green Standard Diagnostics Henderson, NV Diana Swisher MA American Herbal Pharmacopoeia® Scotts Valley, CA Cannabis Inflorescence Cannabis spp. Standards of Identit y, Analysis, and Quality Control April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 935 12 13 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 3. CLINICAL OVERVIEW The therapeutic benefits of cannabis are derived from the interactions of cannabinoids and the ECS. Of the 100 cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant, scientists have identified a handful of the most active cannabinoids. Researchers have also found that therapeutic effects are the result of “entourage effects”: cannabinoids and terpenes working together to enhance the effects of THC and CBD. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-intoxicating cannabis compound that counteracts the psychoactivity of THC. Research points to CBD’s potential in the treatment of inflammation, pain, anxiety, seizures, and spasms. Like all cannabinoids on the cannabis plant, CBD is a potent antioxidant and neuroprotectant. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): is found in small quantities of the cannabis plant. THC has psychoactive effects. Scientific and clinical research has pointed to its potential in the treatment of many conditions including chronic pain, PTSD, nausea and vomiting, asthma, glaucoma, and insomnia. Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA-A) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in raw and live cannabis. As cannabis dries, THCA-A slowly converts to THC. Heat converts THCA-A to THC via decarboxylation, which describes what happens when you smoke or vaporize cannabis flower. THCA-A interacts with many targets and has anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, neuroprotective and anticancer properties. Cannabigerol (CBG): can affect serotonin reuptake, relieve pain in skin conditions, and inhibit the growth of cancer cells. CBG has a lot of therapeutic potential as an antidepressant and in the treatment of psoriasis and other skin conditions. Cannabichromene (CBC): This compound is known to produce pain relief, have anti-inflammatory effects, and is reported to have strong antimicrobial properties while lacking toxicity. Cannabinol (CBN): This is the degradation product of THC and other cannabinoids. It lacks any psychoactivity, but can stimulate CB2 receptors and has mild anti-inflammatory properties. Terpenes: The essential oil of cannabis is a blend of active compounds called terpenes, synthesized in trichomes. These terpenes are not unique to cannabis, but are found on other plants such as lavender, hops, mangoes, citrus, pine, lemon, pepper, and green tea. Terpenes, not cannabinoids, are responsible for the smell of cannabis. All terpenes found on cannabis are FDA approved as generally regarded as safe (GRAS). Terpenes produce therapeutic effects when inhaled, even at ambient air levels, that can enhance the effects of cannabinoids. Terpenes can modulate the effects of cannabinoids through pain relieving, muscle relaxing, sedative, anti-anxiety, and antidepressant effects. 2. THE ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM Humans have used drugs derived from plants such as the opium poppy, for thousands of years to lessen pain and produce euphoria. In 1973, scientists discovered the brain receptors that interact with these opiates, which include opium, morphine, and heroin. In 1975, the first of the brain’s natural chemicals that stimulate these receptors were identified. The similarity of this chemical, enkephalin, to morphine suggested opiate drugs work primarily by mimicking natural opiate-like molecules. The discovery of this endorphin (a term meaning endogenous morphine) system helped explain the effects of opiate drugs and opened the door to the development of powerful new therapeutic drugs that revolutionized pain management. Similarly, humans have used the cannabis plant for thousands of years to reduce pain, control nausea, stimulate appetite, control anxiety, and produce feelings of euphoria. The first cannabinoid was isolated in 1899 but wasn’t until 1964 that THC was isolated. Since the discovery of THC, researchers have made new discoveries that help us better understand not just why and how cannabis works so well for so many people, but its full therapeutic potential. In 1988, the first cannabinoid receptor in the human body, CB1, was discovered. Four years later, a second receptor, CB2, was discovered. Scientists found that the body produces its own cannabinoids, such as the endocannabinoid anandamide. These endocannabinoids work by stimulating cannabinoid receptors. This system of sophisticated compounds, their receptors, and signaling pathways in now known as the Endocannabinoid System (ECS). The ECS is probably the most ubiquitous system in the human body, with the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 abundantly located throughout the brain and the periphery of the body.1 This system is involved in regulating a variety of physiological processes including movement, mood, memory, appetite, and pain. The ECS is the body’s own mechanism for preserving homeostasis, keeping all body functions running smoothly. Unlike opiate receptors, cannabinoid receptors do not lower respiratory rate or heart function. A lethal toxic overdose of cannabis has never been documented because cannabinoid receptors are not found in the areas of the brain that control breathing. However, CB1 receptors are found in the central nervous system, particularly in areas of the brain involved with mood, memory, appetite, and pain. CB1 receptors are found in other organs and tissues such as the eyes, lungs, kidneys, liver, and digestive tract. CB2 receptors are primarily located in tissues associated with immune function, such as the spleen, thymus, tonsils, bone marrow, and white blood cells. 1 Grotenhermen, F. The therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids. Dtsch Arztebl Int. Jul 2012; 109 (PMC3442177): 495–501. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2012.0495. In addition to the AHPA Recommendations for Regulators, states are also incorporating the laboratory testing standards set forth in the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia Cannabis Inflorescence Monograph. THE SHINY RESIN ON CANNABIS FLOWER BUDS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF MEDICINAL CANNABINOIDS ARE LOCATED. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 936 14 15 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 4. MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS The therapeutic threshold for cannabis is unique to each patient, so unlike most prescription medications, cannabis therapeutics do not come with a specific dose. Patients and their medical professionals choose preparations based on potency and delivery methods (routes of administration) and determine optimal treatment protocols through a process of guided experimentation and self-titration. Cannabis can be administered through inhalation, ingestion, topically, or buccal. The method used can depend on personal choice, the medical condition being treated, the age of the patient, the patient’s tolerance for the methods, etc. There are several types of products available for each of the delivery methods. Inhalation: Is absorption via the internal surface of the lungs. Cannabis can be efficiently and safely delivered through inhalation, by using vaporization. Absorption through the lungs, completely by-passes potential drug-drug interactions in the liver. The time to onset is quick with the effects lasting for over an hour. Ingestion: Is absorption via the internal surfaces of the stomach and intestines. Cannabis products can be swallowed and absorbed through the gut, similar to other vitamins and herbal supplements. This requires first pass metabolism in the liver before becoming active. The time to onset varies greatly (hours) and the duration of effects is longer. Topically: Is absorption via the external surface of the skin. Cannabis can be used topically, without reaching the bloodstream if specially formulated to do so. Topical applications of cannabis have a rapid onset, can be less than a minute, and can provide hours of relief. Buccal: Is the absorption of drug by the internal surfaces of the mouth. Cannabis sprays, such as those in ethanol, can be administered through the mouth, cheeks, or under the tongue (sublingually). This can have a rapid onset, within minutes to an hour, and avoids first pass liver metabolism. To date, more than 30,000 modern peer-reviewed scientific articles on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabis and cannabinoids have been published, and more than 1,500 articles investigating the endocannabinoid system are published every year. In recent years, more placebo-controlled human trials have also been conducted demonstrating the potential of cannabinoids to treat neurodegenerative, pain disorders, and improving outcomes in cancer treatments. Research has demonstrated that cannabinoids can act as potent anti- inflammatory, antioxidant, neuroprotective, and neuroregenerative agents. In the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, cannabinoids have demonstrated efficacy in treating the symptoms of both Multiple Sclerosis (i.e., pain, spasticity, sleep, urinary dysfunction, motoric symptoms) and Parkinson’s Disease. Cannabis also has a potential for treating symptoms of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Huntington’s Disease. In addition to slowing the progression of these diseases, cannabis has been shown to positively influence both quality of life indicators and the depression inherent to progressive and chronic disorders. Clinical trials also support the effectiveness of herbal, whole-plant cannabis – either alone, or as adjuvant to opioids – to treat chronic or neuropathic pain, such as pain resulting from spasticity or injuries. Basic medical science has extensively evaluated the pain relieving effects of the cannabinoids, as well as the mechanism responsible for their mediation. Summarily, the cannabinoids are described as producing a significant decrease in perceived pain when administered through nearly any route, with no definable risk of either death or overdose. Similarly, cannabinoids have been shown to attenuate pain induced by various trauma. At least 33 clinical studies have been completed in the United States and have shown significant and measurable benefits in subjects receiving cannabis products for pain. In addition to cannabis’ proven efficacy for cancer palliative care (i.e., pain), there exists clear preclinical evidence of an additive synergy amongst the chemotherapeutic effects of the cannabinoids with conventional radiation or chemotherapy. Whereas anecdotal reports of chemotherapy-related nausea and antiemetic efficacy of the cannabinoids go back to 1972, more than 40 clinical studies since 1975 have provided solid, compelling empirical evidence of palliative and antineoplastic value. The neuroprotective qualities of cannabis mean it has enormous potential in protecting the brain and central nervous system from the damage of disease or injury that creates various disorders. Researchers have found that cannabinoids fight the effects of strokes, brain trauma, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative diseases and may have a direct benefit in the treatment of cancer. MYTH: “MARIJUANA IS A GATEWAY DRUG,” - CHRIS CHRISTIE (GOVERNOR, NJ) FACT: THE GATEWAY THEORY HAS BEEN DISPROVEN. THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) IN ITS DENIAL OF PETITIONS TO RESCHEDULE STATED, “OVERALL, RESEARCH DOES NOT SUPPORT A DIRECT CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGULAR CANNABIS USE AND OTHER ILLICIT DRUG USE.” Citation: Drug Enforcement Administration. Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana. Federal Register. August 2016; 53687-53766. 81 FR 53687. TINCTURES ALLOW PATIENTS TO CONTROL THEIR DOSAGE THROUGH THE USE OF A DROPPER. SAMPLE MEDICAL CANNABIS LABEL Do not drive a motor vehicle or operate heavy machinery while using this product. This product is for medical use and not for resale or transfer to another person.ndc333333Date tested 10/22/2015 Microbiology: Pass Mycotoxin: Pass Pesticide: Pass Solvent Residue: Pass Qty 90.25 (g) Batch/Lot#: ndc3333333 Date Pkgd: 10/17/2015 Use by: 10/31/2015 Ingredients: Cannabis THCA < 1% CBD .12% CBDA .11% April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 937 THE MEDICAL USE OF CANNABIS 1716 128 000 + 0 CANNABINOIDS & TERPENOIDS INGESTION Product types: edible products, beverages, teas, capsules Expected onset: 30 to 90 minutes Duration: Up to 8 hours BUCCAL Product types: alcohol-based tinctures, lozenges Expected onset: 0-60 minutes Duration: 1-8 hours DELIVERY METHODS PATIENTS USE MANY METHODS TO TAKE CANNABIS. THE METHOD USED CAN DEPEND ON PERSONAL CHOICE, THE MEDICAL CONDITION BEING TREATED, THE AGE OF THE PATIENT, THE PATIENT’S TOLERANCE FOR THE METHODS, ETC. ECS: EAT, SLEEP, RELAX, FORGET, AND PROTECT The endocannabinoid system is the body’s mechanism for preserving homeostasis, keeping all body functions running smoothly. This system is composed of a sophisticated group of neuromodulators, their receptors, and signaling pathways, involved in regulating a variety of physiological processes including movement, mood, memory, appetite, and pain. The endocannabinoid system is probably the most ubiquitous system in the human body, with the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 located throughout the brain and the periphery of the body. INHALATION Types of products: whole plant, oils, waxes, and concentrates Expected onset: 0-10 minutes Duration: 1-4 hours   TRICHOMES Resin-filled glands that contain the majority of the THC in a cannabis plant. They are typically a cloudy white color. POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS Dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, dry eyes, sedation, euphoria, disorientation/short-term memory impairment AmericansForSafeAccess.org POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS Liver failure, loss of language, cognitive decline, respiratory depression, rage, suicide, paranoia, death POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS Sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression, death TOPICAL Product types: lotions, salves, oils Expected onset: a few minutes Duration: 1-4 hours 28 000 + YEARLY DEATHS 2014 (Source CDC 2014) PRESCRIPTION DRUGS OPIOIDS CANNABIS BENEFIT Muscle relaxant, anti- eurythmic, analgesic, digestive aid CBG BENEFIT Anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-anxiety, antidepressantCBC THCA-A BENEFIT Anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, neuroprotective and anti-cancer CBN BENEFIT Effective against MRSA, sedative, topical analgesic for burns, may stimulate bone growth CBD BENEFIT Non-psychotropic, anti- depressant, anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, antinausea, anti-anxiety, analgesic, sedative, sleep aid and muscle relaxant THC BENEFIT Psychotropic, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, muscle relaxant LIMONENE Potent immunostimulant via inhalation, anxiolytic, apoptosis of breast cancer cells and acne bacteria SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: CBD, CBG, THC α-PINENE Anti-inflammatory, bronchodilatory, acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (aiding memory) SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: CBD, THC β-MYRCENE Blocks inflammation, analgesic, sedative, muscle relaxant, hypnotic, blocks hepatic carcinogenesis by aflatoxin SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: CBD, CBG, THC LINALOOL Anti-anxiety, local anesthetic, analgesic, anticonvulsant/anti-glutamate SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: CBD, THC, THCV, CBDV β-CARYOPHYLLENE Gastric cytoprotective, anti-malarial, selective CB2 agonist, anti-inflammatory SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: THC NEROLIDOL Sedative SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: THC, CBN PHYTOL GABA via SSADH inhibition SYNERGISTIC CANNABINOIDS: CBGGREEN TEA ORANGE PEPPER LAVENDER HOPS PINE LEMON Inflorescence Cannabis (flower) Over half from prescribed opioids April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 938 18 19 2 LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY: OVERVIEW OF STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS KEY POINTS TALKING POINTS 1. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS 2. PARTICIPATING PATIENTS AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS 3. PRODUCT SAFETY AND THE MEDICAL CANNABIS SUPPLY CHAIN 4. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS 5. THE ECONOMICS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS KEY POINTS 44 STATES HAVE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS: 29 STATES HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS, (PLUS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUERTO RICO, AND GUAM) AND 15 ADDITIONAL STATES HAVE MORE RESTRICTIVE CBD/CANNABIS LAWS. FOLLOWING THE COLE MEMO, EVERY MEDICAL CANNABIS STATE THAT DID NOT ALREADY HAVE A CENTRALIZED STATE-RUN LICENSING PROGRAM HAS PASSED LEGISLATION TO CREATE ONE INCLUDING CA, HI, WA, MI AND MT. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE CURRENT NUMBER OF LEGAL CANNABIS PATIENTS IN THE U.S. IS 2 MILLION AND GROWING. 76% OF U.S. PHYSICIANS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS AND CAN ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARD’S “MODEL GUIDELINES FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF MARIJUANA IN PATIENT CARE.” STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS HAVE EVOLVED INTO HIGHLY REGULATED PROGRAMS THAT INCLUDE AN ARDUOUS APPLICATION PROCESS, PRODUCT SAFETY PROTOCOLS WITH EXTENSIVE LABORATORY TESTING, RULES FOR DOCTORS AND PATIENTS, AND STATE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS. ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE AMERICAN HERBAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION (AHPA) AND THE AMERICAN HERBAL PHARMACOPOEIA (AHP) ARE WORKING WITH THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENTS TO ENSURE PRODUCT SAFETY. STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED INCREASED RATES OF TEEN USE OF CANNABIS OR HIGHWAY FATALITIES. THEY HAVE, HOWEVER, EXPERIENCED A 24.8% LOWER MEAN ANNUAL OPIOID OVERDOSE MORTALITY RATE COMPARED WITH STATES WITHOUT MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS SAVED THE MEDICARE DRUG PROGRAM MORE THAN $165 MILLION IN 2013 DUE TO A DECREASE IN PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION. THAT SAVINGS COULD HAVE REACHED $468 MILLION IF MEDICAL CANNABIS WAS LEGAL ACROSS THE NATION. WORKPLACE ABSENCES DUE TO ILLNESS DROPPED 815% PERCENT AMONG VARIOUS SUBGROUPS IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 939 20 21 CHAPTER 2 LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY: OVERVIEW OF STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS PHYSICIANS ARE BETTER QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE IF MEDICAL CANNABIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR PATIENTS THEN POLITICIANS. 1. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam have all passed comprehensive medical cannabis laws. These states cover over 50 qualifying conditions, with some states leaving it to the discretion of physicians to decide when medical cannabis would be an appropriate therapy. Another fifteen states have more restrictive cannabidiol (CBD) oil only laws. These programs are overseen by local, state, and federal regulations. After a law is enacted, state agencies create a series of regulations that govern everyone participating in the program and all products produced. Current medical cannabis laws are a byproduct of a movement of doctors, scientists, patients, their families, and policymakers advocating to allow patients safe access. Over the last 20 years, medical cannabis laws have evolved from “criminal exemption laws” into highly regulated programs that include an arduous application process, product safety protocols with extensive monitoring and laboratory testing, rules for doctors and patients, and state compliance inspections. The first medical cannabis states such as California, Oregon, and Washington passed laws to protect qualified patients from arrest and prosecution and allowed them to cultivate limited amounts of cannabis. These laws anticipated that patients would need to obtain their medicine from a legal market but provided no framework to make that happen. By the late 2000s, production and distribution programs were included in every new law. In 2011, the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), the principal U.S. trade association and voice of the herbal products industry, created industry-wide product safety protocols for commercial cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and laboratory testing of medical cannabis products. In 2013, the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP) issued the Cannabis Inflorescence Monograph, a comprehensive description of the plant’s botany, constituent components, analysis, MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA TALKING POINTS 44 STATES HAVE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS: 29 STATES HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS, (PLUS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUERTO RICO, AND GUAM) AND 15 ADDITIONAL STATES HAVE MORE RESTRICTIVE CBD/CANNABIS LAWS. STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS ARE HIGHLY REGULATED AND INCLUDE PRODUCT SAFETY PROTOCOLS WITH EXTENSIVE LABORATORY TESTING, RULES FOR DOCTORS AND PATIENTS, AND STATE COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS. STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED INCREASED RATES OF TEEN USE OF CANNABIS OR HIGHWAY FATALITIES. THEY HAVE, HOWEVER, EXPERIENCED A 24.8% LOWER MEAN ANNUAL OPIOID OVERDOSE MORTALITY RATE COMPARED WITH STATES WITHOUT MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. 76% OF U.S. PHYSICIANS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS. MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS SAVED THE MEDICARE DRUG PROGRAM MORE THAN $165 MILLION IN 2013 DUE TO A DECREASE IN PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION. THAT SAVINGS COULD HAVE REACHED $468 MILLION IF MEDICAL CANNABIS WAS LEGAL ACROSS THE NATION. THE RAPID GROWTH OF THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY IS OFTEN REPORTED TO BE LIKE THE WILD WEST, BUT THE INCREASINGLY ROBUST REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS ADHERE TO STRICT SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. GONE ARE THE STEREOTYPES. TODAY OUR INDUSTRY’S SELF- REGULATION HAS THE SCIENTIFIC BACKING OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN HERBAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION AND DOCTORS AT HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 940 22 23 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA and quality control. This monograph, authored by the world’s leading experts on the plant, provides scientifically valid methods of testing the identity, purity, potency, and quality of cannabis products. Both the AHPA and AHP standards are rapidly being adopted by state regulators to ensure consumer safety. The number of states with medical cannabis more than doubled under the Obama Administration. All of these programs are in adherence with the Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines in the 2013 “Cole memo.” In fact, every medical cannabis state that did not already have a centralized state-run licensing program has passed legislation to create one including CA, HI, WA, MI and MT. 2. PARTICIPATING PATIENTS AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS Patients: It is estimated that the current number of legal cannabis patients in the U.S. is at 2 million and growing (an average of 1 % of the populations in each state). There are over 50 medical qualifying conditions covered by the various state medical cannabis programs. In addition to adults, all states now allow pediatric patients to utilize their medical cannabis programs although the qualifying conditions and specifications for approval differ, and some states require two physician recommendations as opposed to one for adults. Conditions Commonly Using Cannabis Treatment # of estimated cases in US Cancer 1,685,210 Crohn’s Disease 1,600,000 Multiple Sclerosis 4,000,000 Parkinson’s Disease 1,000,000 Seizure Disorders 3,000,000 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 24,400,000 Chronic Pain 100,000,000 Source: Center for Disease Control A 2014 study of 2012 data from the California Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system of 7,525 people, found that 5% of Californians reported using medical cannabis for a serious medical condition including chronic pain, arthritis, migraine, and cancer. Interestingly, there was not one demographic, age, or sex that stood out as more likely to use medical cannabis. According to the study’s authors, “Our study’s results lend support to the idea that medical marijuana is used equally by many groups of people and is not exclusively used by any one specific group.” There were similar usage rates among both men and women. Adults of all ages reported medical cannabis use, although young adults were the most likely to use it.1 1 Ryan-Ibarra S, Induni M, Ewing D. Prevalence of medical marijuana use in California. Drug Alcohol Epub. March 2014; 34(2):141-6. doi: 10.1111/dar.12207. In addition, the California study found that 92% of medical cannabis patients reported that cannabis was an effective treatment for their conditions. Similar results of a patient survey conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health found that 88% of patients and 69% of health care practitioners reported some benefit or greater.2 Medical Professionals For every current medical cannabis patient in America, there is a doctor who has recommended its use. In a 2013 New England Journal of Medicine poll, 76% of physicians were supportive of the use of medical cannabis in certain circumstances.3 Medical schools are teaching required coursework which includes the endocannabinoid system and the therapeutic applications of cannabis. The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), which sets and enforces standards in physician continuing medical education (CME) within the United States, has accredited some CME courses in medical cannabis. For example, TheAnswerPage.org is an ACCME accredited provider of 23 CME courses on the subject of medical cannabis. State medical boards in medical cannabis states across the country, have worked with regulatory agencies and legislators to provide guidance for doctors. In April 2016, the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) adopted “Model Guidelines for the Recommendation of Marijuana in Patient Care.” Protocols, like the one illustrated in the following example for neuropathic pain, are being established to help guide doctors in recommending cannabis for their patients. Figure courtesy of Center for Medical Cannabis Research 2 Minnesota Department of Health: Early Results of Office of Medical Cannabis Surveys. Minnesota Department of Health Office of Medical Cannabis Report. May 2016. http://www.health.state.mn.us/topics/cannabis/about/ surveyresults0516.pdf 3 Adler, J. M.D., and Colbert, J. M.D. Medicinal Use of Marijuana — Polling Results. May 2013; New England Journal of Medicine. 368:e30 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMclde1305159 MYTH: “MARIJUANA DOES KILL PEOPLE IN THE FORM OF CAR CRASHES.” - KEVIN SABET (CO-FOUNDER SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA) FACT: WHILE MORE DRIVERS ARE TESTING POSITIVE, THIS IS MOST LIKELY DUE TO INCREASED TESTING, AS OVERALL NUMBER HIGHWAY FATALITIES HAVE NOT SIMILARLY INCREASED. IN FACT, 2013 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDY FOUND A 9-11% REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC FATALITIES IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. REGULAR CANNABIS USE AND OTHER ILLICIT DRUG USE.” (Citation: Anderson, M.D., Hansen, B., Rees, D.I. Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. 2013; The Journal of Law and Economics. 56:2, 333-369.) CHAPTER 2 LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY: OVERVIEW OF STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS In addition to the AHPA Recommendations for Regulators, states are also incorporating the laboratory testing standards set forth in the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia Cannabis Inflorescence Monograph. Patient with persisting neuropathic pain Other evaluation and referral Had standard RX Get standard RX Willing to consider marijuana Determine risk e.g., substance abuse, mood disorders Risk/benefit favourable, coordinated with care Risk/benefit unfavourable, not a candidate Discuss mode of cannabis administration Begin cannabis RX: patient education RE risks, benefits, non-diversion Monitor for efficacy, side effects, diversion Coordinate with appropriate substance abuse or psychiatric resource Good response to standard RX Continue standard RX YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO Prefers oral Prefers smoke Prefers vaporizer April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 941 24 25 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA However, many physicians are still reluctant to recommend, or even discuss medical cannabis with their patients due to its Schedule I status. Additionally, hospitals, community health centers, nursing homes and health plans that participate with Medicare or Medicaid are required to comply strictly with all federal laws. Many of those medical facilities prohibit their physicians from recommending medical cannabis with their patients for fear of losing federal funding. 3. PRODUCT SAFETY AND THE MEDICAL CANNABIS SUPPLY CHAIN (see STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT Graphic on pages 28 and 29) State agencies or groups of several agencies (such as the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, etc.) are tasked with creating and monitoring regulations through all phases of production, issuing licenses for businesses, and coordinating patient enrollment. These agencies also conduct inspections or work with third-party accreditors to ensure compliance and monitor adverse event reporting and implement product recalls if necessary. Regulations begin at the application process where criteria are set for who can own, operate, and work in medical cannabis businesses and end with purchasing criteria at the retail point. From seed to consumption, regulations include track and trace functions, security requirements, product safety protocols, staff training, and adverse event reporting and recall procedures. States are now adopting the rigorous best practice regulations and standards set forth by the AHPA Recommendations for Regulators and incorporating laboratory testing based on standards set forth by the AHP Cannabis Inflorescence monograph. State licensed laboratory testing means that patients in state medical cannabis programs are able to obtain safe, reliable, consistent products to treat their medical needs. When state governments are free from issues related to federal conflicts of laws, it becomes easier for states to implement sophisticated product safety regulations.3. Lab Testing State government regulations are increasingly requiring laboratory testing to verify product safety and help patients understand the potency of the products’ active compounds. As more state states adopt the AHPA guidelines, they will develop laboratory testing regulations that ensure that the analytical records of cannabis and derived products are made available at all levels of the supply chain (processing, packaging, and labeling). State licensed laboratory testing means that patients in state medical cannabis programs are able to obtain safe, reliable, consistent product to treat their medical needs. When state governments are free from dealing with issues of federal conflict of laws, it becomes easier for states to implement sophisticated product safety regulations. 4. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS Public health data, collected over the past 20 years, have shown that fears expressed by opponents of medical cannabis – such as increased morbidity and mortality, birth defects, or heightened likelihood of traffic accidents – are non-evidence based concerns. In fact, quite to the contrary, health data provides compelling evidence of a variety of notable benefits to public health: There has never been a death directly associated with cannabis use. A 2014 Study published in the journal of the American Medical Association found that states that implemented medical cannabis laws appeared to have a 25% lower annual opioid overdose death rate (both from prescription painkillers and illicit drugs such as heroin) compared to states without medical cannabis programs.4 There has been no evidence of birth defects caused by woman using medical cannabis while pregnant. In fact, a 1992 study by researchers from the University of Massachusetts, compared neonatal assessments of babies of 24 Jamaican women who had used cannabis during pregnancy with babies of 20 women who had not. At three days, there was no difference between the two groups, and at one month, the children of the cannabis users actually had better scores.5 A 2016 study examining the impact of medical cannabis laws on crime found, “There is no evidence of negative spillover effects from medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on violent or property crime. Instead, we find significant drops in rates of violent crime associated with state medical marijuana laws.”6 A 2013 University of Chicago study found that there is a drop in traffic fatalities in states with medical cannabis laws.7 A 2005 study from the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes found that, “patients who use cannabis therapeutically are 3.3 times more likely to adhere to their antiretroviral therapy regimens than non-cannabis users.”8 4 Bachhuber, M.A. MD, Saloner, B. PhD, Cunningham, C. MD, MS; et al. Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the united states 1999-2010. October 2014; Journal of the American Medical Association. 174(10):1668-1673. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4005. 5 Dreher, M.C. PhD, Nugent, K. PhD, Hudgins, R. MA. Prenatal marijuana exposure and neonatal outcomes in jamaica: an ethnographic study. Jun 1993; American Academy of Pediatrics. Volume 93, Number 2, pp. 254-260. 6 Shepard, E. M., Blackley, P. R., Medical marijuana and crime further evidence from the western states. April 2016; Journal of Drug Issues. vol. 46 no. 2 122-134. 7 Anderson, M.D., Hansen, B., Rees, D.I. Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. 2013; The Journal of Law and Economics. 56:2, 333-369. 8 De Jong, B.C. MD et al. Marijuana use and its association with adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected persons with moderate to severe nausea. 2005. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 38: 43-46. CHAPTER 2 LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY: OVERVIEW OF STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS A 2016 study examining the impact of medical cannabis laws on crime found, “There is no evidence of negative spillover effects from medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on violent or property crime. Instead, we find significant drops in rates of violent crime associated with state medical marijuana laws. MYTH: “MARIJUANA DOES KILL PEOPLE IN THE FORM OF CAR CRASHES.” - KEVIN SABET (CO-FOUNDER SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA) FACT: WHILE MORE DRIVERS ARE TESTING POSITIVE, THIS IS MOST LIKELY DUE TO INCREASED TESTING, AS OVERALL NUMBER HIGHWAY FATALITIES HAVE NOT SIMILARLY INCREASED. IN FACT, 2013 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO STUDY FOUND A 9-11% REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC FATALITIES IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. REGULAR CANNABIS USE AND OTHER ILLICIT DRUG USE.” (Citation: Anderson, M.D., Hansen, B., Rees, D.I. Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. 2013; The Journal of Law and Economics. 56:2, 333-369.) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 942 26 27 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 5. THE ECONOMICS OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS According to a study by the University of Georgia, medical cannabis saved the Medicare drug program more than $165 million in 2013 due to a decrease in prescription medication. According to the university’s estimates, if medical cannabis had been legal across the nation, the savings would have been approximately $468 million.9 The fact is, fewer pills are prescribed in states with medical cannabis laws. The cost saving of medical cannabis may also be realized by employers as recent research is showing that states that have legalized medical cannabis access have seen statistically significant declines in employee sick days. A July 2016 study found that workplace absences due to illness dropped between 8 and 15 percent among various subgroups in states with medical cannabis laws.10 9 Bradford A.C, Bradford B.W. Medical marijuana laws reduce prescription medication use in medicare part d. July 2016. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 1;35(7):1230-6. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1661. 10 Ullman, D.F. The effects of medical marijuana on sickness absence. July 2016. Health Economics. 1099-1050. Doi: 10.1002/hec.3390 Annual # of Daily Doses of Pharmaceuticals Prescribed by Physicians in States 300 000 250 000 200 000 150 000 100 000 50 000 Anxiety Depression Glacoma Nausea Pain Psychosis Seizures Sleep disorders Spasticity April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 943 28 29 REGULATIONS BEGIN AT THE APPLICATION PROCESS WHERE CRITERIA IS SET FOR WHO CAN OWN, OPERATE, AND WORK IN MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES AND END WITH PURCHASING CRITERIA AT THE RETAIL POINT. FROM SEED TO CONSUMPTION, REGULATIONS INCLUDE TRACK AND TRACE FUNCTIONS, SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, PRODUCT SAFETY PROTOCOLS, STAFF TRAINING, AND ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING AND RECALL PROCEDURES. MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTIONS. REGULATORS NOW HAVE RESOURCES SUCH AS THE AMERICAN HERBAL PHARMACOPOEIA CANNABIS MONOGRAPH AND THE AMERICAN HERBAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATORS IN CREATING ROBUST PRODUCT SAFETY PROTOCOLS. ALL COMPANIES MUST DEMONSTRATE ABILITY TO TRACK ADVERSE EVENTS AND INITIATE A RECALL. SUPPLY CHAIN REGULATORS DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS FOR PATIENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS BASED ON AUTHORIZING STATUTE, INCLUDING GUIDELINES AND FORMS, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, AND RULES FOR TRANSPORTATION AND USE. QUALIFICATION TODAY OVER 300 MILLION AMERICANS LIVE IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. THESE PROGRAMS ARE OVERSEEN BY LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. AFTER A LAW IS ENACTED, STATE AGENCIES CREATE A SERIES OF REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN EVERYONE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM AND ALL PRODUCTS PRODUCED. REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE$ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Regulations extend to transportation of cannabis products throughout the supply chain. Regulations require drivers to be registered with the state and require paperwork at pickup and drop off locations that include weighing product. Regulations also include special instructions for dealing with waste. TRANSPORTATION Medical cannabis businesses must pass inspections to maintain licenses to operate. These inspections may be conducted by the state medical cannabis regulatory agency, third party accredited agencies, law enforcement, OSHA, municipal safety inspectors, etc. INSPECTIONS Regulators create guidelines for medical professionals to enroll their patients into the program including forms and number of visits required. Some require medical professionals to take training and have built-in audits. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS Products are labeled in accordance with state guidelines to display cannabinoid profile and other useful information, including expiration date if the item is perishable. MEDICAL CANNABIS PRODUCTS Regulators create enrollment and renewal procedures for patients that include the issuance of an ID. Rules for patients also include how much medicine a patient can posses, places where patients can legally use their medicine, and rules for transportation. PATIENTS AND THEIR CAREGIVERS Regulations include legal conduct for owners and staff and often require unique IDs issued by the state. All staff and management are required to have legal compliance and product safety protocol adherence training. OWNERS AND STAFF Each batch of raw plant material and cannabis derived product must be quality assurance tested in order to ensure the integrity, purity, and proper labeling of medical cannabis products. PRODUCT SAFETY When a product containing contaminants, molds, mildew, or an improperly labeled product enters the supply chain, regulatory agencies trigger a product recall to prevent patient consumption. This includes alerting the manufactures, retail outlets, and the public. Recalled products are destroyed. RECALL ! !!!!!!! STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT State agencies or group of several agencies (such as the Departments of Health, Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, etc.) are tasked with creating and monitoring regulations through all phases of the production line, issuing licenses for businesses, and coordinating patient enrollment. These agencies also conduct inspections or work with third-party accreditors to ensure compliance and monitor adverse event reporting and implement product recalls if necessary. MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGULATORY AGENCY All staff have proper training. Companies must adhere to Good Laboratory Practices and be accredited by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) signatory, for ISO 17025 accreditation and related certifications. Testing laboratory must offer potency testing for a variety of cannabinoids, pesticide detections, and contaminates. Specification for these tests are set by the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia Cannabis Monograph. Ideally, laboratories are allowed to retain samples in order to assist in product recalls and public health inquires. TESTING LAB FACILITY All staff have required legal compliance and product safety protocol adherence training. Companies must adhere to Good Agricultural Practices. Facilities may only use certain tolerance-exempt pesticides. CULTIVATION FACILITY Packages and labels dried flowers for retail sale or converts the dried flowers and leaf of the plant into infused products (edibles, oils, tinctures, lotions, etc.). All staff have required legal compliance and product safety protocol adherence training. Companies must adhere to Good Manufacturing Practices. Products are packaged to prevent accidental ingestion by children. MANUFACTURING FACILITY Staff are trained to provide guidance to patients in making the medicine purchase decisions. Regulations require the retail store to maintain certain hours and limit the scope of advertising to fit within community standards. Security cameras and increased foot traffic help deter crime. Under state laws dispensaries can only serve verified patients and caregivers. DISPENSING/RETAIL FACILITY 2928 AmericansForSafeAccess.org !! !! April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 944 30 31 3 IMPACT OF THE STATE-FEDERAL CONFLICT: WHAT’S AT STAKE KEY POINTS TALKING POINTS 1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES 2. THE COST OF WAR 3. THE CEASEFIRE: ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT AND COLE MEMO KEY POINTS PATIENT ADVOCATES TURNED TO PASSING LOCAL AND STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS AFTER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLOSED DOWN ITS CANNABIS INVESTIGATION NEW DRUG PROGRAM IN THE EARLY 90’S (A PROGRAM THAT THEN-CONGRESSMAN NEWT GINGRICH TRIED TO EXPAND IN 1981). SINCE THE FIRST STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS WERE ENACTED IN 1996, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS APPLIED DIVERSE TACTICS OF INTERFERENCE AND INTIMIDATION WITH A PRICE TAG OF OVER $600 MILLION DOLLARS; APPROXIMATELY $250 MILLION DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND $350 MILLION DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. FEDERAL INTERVENTION HAS INCLUDED OVER 500 YEARS OF JAIL TIME FOR INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWING STATE LAW, THREATENING STATE OFFICIALS IN OVER A DOZEN STATES, ASSET FORFEITURE THREATS AND ACTIONS TO HUNDREDS OF LANDLORDS SERVING LEGAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES AND OVER 500 DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA) PARAMILITARY STYLE RAIDS. ON MANY OCCASIONS, PATIENTS HAVE BEEN IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF FEDERAL AGENTS USING “DYNAMIC ENTRY” (SWAT-STYLE) TACTICS DURING RAIDS. IN THE AFTERMATH OF EVERY RAID, THOUSANDS OF PATIENTS WERE LEFT DEALING WITH A DISRUPTION IN THEIR SUPPLY OF MEDICINE, WHICH AT THE VERY LEAST DIMINISHED THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND OFTEN CAUSED THEIR CONDITIONS TO WORSEN. SINCE 2013, STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS HAVE OPERATED UNDER A “CEASEFIRE” FROM FEDERAL INTERFERENCE RESULTING FROM FEDERAL AGENCY GUIDANCE MEMOS (COLE MEMO) AND EXPANDED IN 2014 TO CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED SPENDING RESTRICTIONS (ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT). THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE MEMO (COLE MEMO) IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNDER A NEW ADMINISTRATION, AND THE 115TH CONGRESS WILL LIKELY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCLUDING THE ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT TO THE 2017 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE AND RELATED AGENCIES (CJS) APPROPRIATIONS BILL. STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS ALMOST DOUBLED UNDER THE “CEASEFIRE,” AND DUE TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE UNDER THE COLE MEMO, ALL MEDICAL CANNABIS STATES INCLUDE CENTRALIZED STATE LICENSING. CHANGES IN THESE POLICIES WOULD MEAN OVER 2 MILLION PATIENTS LEFT WITH ONLY THE ILLICIT MARKET TO FIND THEIR MEDICINE, INCREASES IN MEDICAID COSTS, INCREASES IN OPIATE RELATED DEATHS, AND LOSS IN WORKPLACE PRODUCTIVITY. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 945 32 33 CHAPTER 3 THE FEDERAL CONFLICT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTS PARA MILITARY-STYLE RAIDS ON LICENSED MEDICAL DISPENSARIES CAN PLACE PATIENTS IN CROSS HAIRS OF DEA. 1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES In 1970, cannabis was placed in Schedule I under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) as a placeholder, pending evaluation by a government-appointed commission that was later ignored. Today, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the CSA, which defines cannabis as having no accepted medical use. Various efforts to reschedule cannabis in the U.S. – based on peer- reviewed medical and scientific information – have been stymied by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Most recently, the DEA’s “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana” focused on the fact that cannabis does not fit with current federal regulations for an FDA approved drug. In other words, the medical value assigned to cannabis simply does not meet the DEA’s definition of “medicine,” not that cannabis has no medical value. In 1975, DC resident Robert Randall was arrested for cultivating cannabis in his home. Citing clinical evidence, Mr. Randall successfully used the Common Law Doctrine of Necessity to fight the charges. Mr. Randall then petitioned the federal government to provide him with access to medical cannabis in accordance with his medical necessity and shortly thereafter became the first American to receive a government-supplied source of cannabis. As a result, the FDA established the Investigational New Drug (IND) Compassionate Access Program to supply individuals who suffered from severe or chronic illness with a monthly supply of cannabis, up to nine pounds annually (a program that Newt Gingrich tried to expand in 1981 through legislation). In 1992, in response to an overwhelming number of applications from people suffering the effects of AIDS, President H. W. Bush closed the program to all new applicants, citing concerns that the program undermined the “war on drugs.” Today, a handful of surviving IND-participants continue to receive medical cannabis from the U.S. government, paid for by federal tax dollars. MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA TALKING POINTS SINCE THE FIRST STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS WERE ENACTED IN 1996, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS APPLIED DIVERSE TACTICS OF INTERFERENCE AND INTIMIDATION WITH A PRICE TAG OF OVER $600 MILLION DOLLARS. FEDERAL INTERVENTION HAS INCLUDED OVER 500 YEARS OF JAIL TIME FOR INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWING STATE LAW. PATIENTS HAVE BEEN IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF FEDERAL AGENTS USING PARAMILITARY STYLE “DYNAMIC ENTRY” TACTICS DURING MORE THAN 500 DEA RAIDS. FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS HAVE OPERATED UNDER A “CEASEFIRE” FROM FEDERAL INTERFERENCE RESULTING FROM FEDERAL AGENCY GUIDANCE MEMOS (COLE MEMO) AND CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED SPENDING RESTRICTIONS (ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT). THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE MEMO (COLE MEMO) IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNDER A NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE 115TH CONGRESS WILL LIKELY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCLUDING THE ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT TO THE 2017 CJS APPROPRIATIONS BILL. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 946 34 35 CHAPTER 3 THE FEDERAL CONFLICT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTSMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA These federal roadblocks led frustrated patient advocates to turn to their local and state governments for protection. In 1996, patient advocates successfully brought their case to the voters in California and Arizona, passing medical cannabis laws in defiance of federal law. From the start, the federal government met new medical cannabis laws with tactics of interference and intimidation. Following the passage of the first state medical cannabis laws, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the DOJ would end the career of any doctors who recommended medical cannabis by revoking their license to prescribe medication. In response, a group of physicians led by AIDS specialist Dr. Marcus Conant challenged the policy in federal court as a Constitutional violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ruled in Conant v. Walters that physicians have a First Amendment right to make recommendations, but may not aid or abet patients in actually obtaining cannabis. From 1997-1999 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences, on directive from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), conducted a review of the scientific evidence on the potential health benefits and risks of cannabis. The report concluded that cannabis appears to be a beneficial treatment option for some debilitating conditions and called on the federal government to conduct more research on patients with specific conditions. Its recommendations were ignored. As the legal battle over physicians’ right to discuss treatment options with their patients was unfolding, the federal government began a campaign in 1997 to stop California from implementing its state law. That campaign included civil legal actions, armed raids on medical cannabis facilities, and prosecutions of medical cannabis patients and their providers. Between 1996 and 2002, there were 14 Federal raids on cannabis facilities. The criminal cases brought by the government were consistently lopsided, as federal trial rules prevented (and still prevent) defendants from telling a jury that their cannabis use was for medical treatment in accordance with state law. Patients were essentially left with no defense, effectively ensuring convictions and giving federal prosecutors extraordinary leverage for obtaining plea deals. Raids continued for the next 13 years, and between 2005 and the end of George W. Bush’s Administration, the DOJ conducted another 212 raids and prosecuted 55 individuals. These raids often included dozens of DEA agents in riot gear using “dynamic entry” tactics, such as kicking in the door without warning or using a battering ram to “surprise” patients and dispensary staff. The agents would then make the staff and patients lay on the ground while they took all the medicine and cash -- often without making an arrest. These have come to be known as “smash and grab” raids, in part because the cash seized is kept by the local DEA offices for their own use. On October 19, 2009, the DOJ issued a memo authored by Deputy U.S. Attorney David Ogden to provide guidance to U.S. Attorneys for determining when to prosecute medical cannabis cases. The memo clearly stated that it was not the Administration’s policy to prosecute anyone “in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of cannabis.” Despite this, many of the U.S. attorneys in medical cannabis states ignored the memo and continued to authorize federal raids and prosecute medical cannabis patients and providers. In the spring of 2011, U.S. attorneys adopted a new tactic of threatening elected officials. Between February and May, federal prosecutors sent letters to elected state officials in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—either implicitly or explicitly threatening criminal prosecution of elected officials and state employees if they implemented laws regulating the distribution of medical cannabis. Some letters also threatened to seize the buildings housing state administrative offices that process license applications for medical cannabis providers. The courts may have concluded that there is no direct conflict between federal and state laws, but the Justice Department seems intent on creating one. Prior to this, elected officials had never been threatened with prosecution for implementing state law. Letters were not the only attempts to pressure elected officials. Raids on 26 cannabis businesses in Montana in March 2011 were staged while state lawmakers were considering changing the law. The raids resulted in 31 plea deals and two trials that resulted MYTH: ”IN COLORADO, SINCE THE LOOSENING OF STATE MARIJUANA LAWS, WE’VE SEEN INCREASES IN YOUTH MARIJUANA USE.” - SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) FACT: AN EXHAUSTIVE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER STUDY USING OVER 24 YEARS OF DATA FROM OVER A MILLION TEENAGERS IN 48 STATES FOUND NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA USE IN THE 21 STATES WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS. IN ADDITION, A 2016 SURVEY IN COLORADO FOUND THAT CANNABIS USE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE LEGALIZATION. (Citation: Drug Enforcement Administration. Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana. Federal Register. August 2016; 53687-53766. 81 FR 53687.) The DOJ has spent an estimated $600 million to date in arrests, investigations, enforcement raids, pretrial services, incarcerations, and probations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 947 36 37 CHAPTER 3 THE FEDERAL CONFLICT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTSMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA in convictions. Jurors did not have knowledge that the defendants were operating under the state’s medical cannabis program because the fact was deemed as inadmissible evidence. In July of 2011, the DOJ issued a new policy, drafted by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, claiming to “clarify” the policy set forth in the Ogden memo. In reality, the Cole memo rescinded the guidelines set forth in the Ogden memo. In September of that year, U.S. attorneys began sending letters to landlords who rented to medical cannabis facilities, threatening to seize their property. Over the next two years, U.S. attorneys would send more than 500 of these letters and begin asset forfeiture proceedings on approximately 30 properties. On August 29, 2013 the DOJ issued a guidance memo to prosecutors concerning cannabis enforcement under the CSA making it clear that prosecuting state legal medical cannabis cases is not a priority. The memo included eight guidelines for prosecutors to use to determine current federal enforcement priorities. Fortunately, most medical cannabis programs require the same guidelines ensuring that any business with a license is also meeting these requirements. 2. THE COST OF WAR Price Tag: In an escalating war on medical cannabis patients that has spanned the terms of three Presidents, the DOJ has spent an estimated $600 million to date in arrests, investigations, enforcement raids, pretrial services, incarcerations, and probations. The Obama Administration, in just his first term, spent more than $289 million – outspending the Bush Administration by $100 million. In 2012 alone, the DEA used 4% of its budget on medical cannabis cases. Human Cost: The conflict between state and federal law has not only cost millions of dollars, but it has had a devastating cost to many patients and their families. Patients are often the innocent victims of the continuing war on medical cannabis patients. Federal intervention has included over 500 years of jail time for individuals following state law. The costs of this war are not just borne by taxpayers. For every raid the DEA carried out, thousands of patients were left searching for alternatives for safe and dignified access. In California, this could mean driving four to five hours to another city. In other areas of the country, it can mean going to the illicit market, or even worse, going without medication and suffering needlessly. In many cases, patients were left dealing with a disruption in their supply of medicine, which, at the very least, diminished their quality of life and often caused their condition to worsen. Patient Stories: Jerry Duval, a registered Michigan medical cannabis patient, and his son Jeremy, a registered caregiver, were raided by the DEA in 2011, despite strictly adhering to Michigan law. The father and son were tried together in federal court and convicted of conspiracy to manufacture cannabis, intent to distribute, and maintaining a drug premises. Jeremy Duval served a five-year prison sentence in a federal prison in West Virginia. Jerry, is currently serving a 10-year sentence in a prison at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, MA due to his specialized medical needs. It is estimated his incarceration will cost 1.2 million dollars over the course of his sentence. Jerry’s mother suffers from anxiety and PTSD after law enforcement armed with automatic weapons used a tank to raid her son’s house next door and stormed her home. Jerry’s wife, Tracey, was forced to leave the family home find a new job while waiting for her husband’s release. Discrimination is a serious issue faced by thousands of medical cannabis patients on a daily basis across the nation. One of the more egregious and heartbreaking forms of discrimination is by health care centers that deny organ transplants to otherwise qualified candidates simply because the patient uses medical cannabis on the advice of their physician. A number of transplant clinics across the country, which are not governed by a single policy, routinely refuse to list medical cannabis patients for organ transplants based, in part, on the the federal government’s outdated policy. One such victim of this kind of discrimination was 64-year-old Norman Smith. Norman had inoperable liver cancer and was recommended cannabis by his oncologist at the world- renowned Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. In 2010, Norman became eligible for a liver transplant, but after testing positive for cannabis in February 2012, he was removed from the transplant list. The medical center’s requirement that Norman undergo six months of random toxicology tests and weekly substance abuse counseling prevented him from ever getting back on the list, since he died six months later, in July 2012. Scott Day of Montana, was a legal medical cannabis patient indicted on federal drug trafficking charges in 2007 for growing 96 plants at his home, which he used to treat his rare, terminal illness. In order to help him deal with the extreme pressure of the raid and subsequent prosecution, Scott’s doctor prescribed an anti-anxiety medication. Unfortunately, he had a fatal reaction to the drug and died of asphyxiation. Scott’s last months were filled with terror of the thought of perishing in prison. JERRY DUVAL WITH HIS WIFE The agents would then make the staff and patients lay on the ground while they took all the medicine and cash – often without making an arrest. These have come to be known as “smash and grab” raids, in part because the cash seized is kept by the local DEA offices for their own use. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 948 38 39 CHAPTER 3 THE FEDERAL CONFLICT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTSMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA Jason Washington, formerly a starting quarterback at the University of Montana, is known for his generous spirit and kind-hearted nature. He often participated in charity fundraisers and worked with terminally ill children. Jason’s company, Big Sky Health, was among the dozens of licensed Montana cannabis businesses raided by federal agents in March 2011. Jason and six of his employees were indicted, including one of his accountants. Several of the prosecution’s star witnesses included former associates who received immunity in exchange for their testimony. Jason was convicted of two drug trafficking charges and acquitted of a third. On May 1, 2013, he became the last of Montana’s medical cannabis defendants to be sentenced, receiving two years in prison. Because of the federal conflict, cannabis patients and their families, in addition to the burdens of an ongoing illness, must worry about: Traveling with their medicine Losing their Federal employment Losing their Veterans benefits Having conversations about their use with their doctors Being able to use their medicine if hospitalized Getting turned away from their pain treatment centers Another burden medical cannabis patients must face is cost. Because of its Schedule I status, insurance companies do not cover medical cannabis treatments. With the cost varying greatly state to state, this can cause an undue burden on patients, many of whom are already faced with large medical costs. 3. THE “CEASEFIRE”: ROHRABACHER- FARR AMENDMENT AND COLE MEMO In 2014 and 2015, Congress passed the landmark Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Act, which prevents the DOJ from using any funds to interfere in state medical cannabis programs and bars ongoing federal cases. After this “ceasefire,” state medical cannabis programs have almost doubled, and due to the Cole memo, all medical cannabis states include centralized state licensing. In August 2016, a federal appeals court upheld the Rohrabacher- Farr amendment in United States v. McIntosh and ruled in favor of the 10 cases that had been grouped together upholding the prohibition of the DOJ to use funds on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in states with medical cannabis reform laws. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is the best protection that medical cannabis patients and providers have ever enjoyed, but it must be renewed annually. While many presume momentum is on the side of medical cannabis patients, shifting political will in Congress could result in this significant victory being reversed. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is also subject to review by federal courts, which over time may lead to varying interpretations from different federal jurisdictions regarding its scope and applicability. The Cole Memo is subject to change under the new administration, and the 115th Congress will likely be responsible for including the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to the 2017 CJS Appropriations bill. A permanent solution to the federal and state conflict is desperately needed for both economic and humanitarian reasons. If state rights are not protected, over 2 million patients could be left with only the illicit market to find their medicine. In addition, based on research thus far, there would undoubtedly be an increase in Medicaid costs and opioid deaths and loss in workplace productivity. Passing legislation such as the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S.683, H.R. 1583; 114th Congress) is the only way to ensure this does not occur. JASON WASHINGTON Federal intervention has included over 500 years of jail time for individuals following state law. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 949 40 41 CHAPTER 3 THE FEDERAL CONFLICT AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR PATIENTSMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 4140 MEDICAL CANNABIS TIMELINE TOTAL STATES 8 California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Colorado, and Nevada 2012 – AHP issues Cannabis Monograph and AHPA issues recommendations for regulators 1998 – The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issues, “Marijuana & Medicine: Accessing the Science Base” calling on the federal government to do formal studies on cannabis. TOTAL STATES 20 PLUS DC New Jersey, Arizona, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Illinois Colorado passed first commercial licensing medical marijuana program Medical cannabis program laws and regulations include product safety protocols FEDERAL RAIDS 14 DOJ threatens licenses of any doctor recommending cannabis following passage of first medical cannabis law. DOJ and DEA carry out parliamentary raids Congress blocks DC law 1996-2002 PATIENTS 50,000 2002-2008 PATIENTS 471,438 2009-2013 PATIENTS 1,073,596 2014-2016 PATIENTS 2,000,000 FEDERAL RAIDS 262 2009: US Attorney General Announces That DOJ Will Not Prioritize Prosecution of Legal Medical Marijuana Patients 2011: DOJ threatens elected officials in 11 states implementing cultivation and distribution programs. 2013 DOJ issues a guidance memo to prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). FEDERAL RAIDS 2 Rohrabacher-Farr CJS amendment passes and prohibits the Department of Justice from spending money to prevent states from implementing medical marijuana programs (2014 & 2015). The CARERS Act - first medical cannabis bill in US Senate history introduced Courts uphold Rohrabacher-Farr protections U.S. vs Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana and U.S. vs McIntosh 2016 DEA announces it will not move cannabis out of its schedule 1 status FEDERAL RAIDS 241 Federal Court rules in Conant v. Walters that government cannot revoke physicians’ licenses for recommending medical cannabis. DEA administrative law judge recommends allowing new source of cannabis for research. TOTAL STATES 44 PLUS DC, PUERTO RICO AND GUAM Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, North Dakota, Guam, and Puerto Rico CBD only laws: 1. Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin TOTAL STATES 13 Montana, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Michigan California adds distribution guidelines to state program, Vermont, Rhode Island and New Mexico follow. AmericansForSafeAccess.orgApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 950 42 43 4 ENDING THE FEDERAL CONFLICT: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN KEY POINTS TALKING POINTS 1. ROLE OF CONGRESS: LEGISLATIVE NEEDS 2. LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 114TH CONGRESS: CJS AMENDMENT AND THE CARERS ACT 3. REGULATORY IMPACT OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION KEY POINTS CONGRESS MUST PASS LEGISLATION TO HARMONIZE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. A DIVERSE GROUP OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS AND CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW. MANY MYTHOLOGICAL BELIEFS – LIKE “CANNABIS CAUSES CANCER” OR THE “GATEWAY THEORY” – THOUGH DISPROVEN, HAVE PREVENTED FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM PASSING MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION. THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ANY VIABLE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE OPTION IS EXEMPTING THE 44 STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS (AS OF DEC. 2016) FROM THE CSA. THE CURRENT “CEASEFIRE” BETWEEN STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE RESULT OF AN AMENDMENT TO CJS APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET THAT MUST BE REAUTHORIZED EVERY YEAR. THE CARERS ACT GARNERED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN BOTH HOUSES AND WIDE-SPREAD SUPPORT NATIONALLY FROM PATIENT ORGANIZATIONS. MOVING CANNABIS TO SCHEDULE II, WOULD SHOW THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS FINALLY ACCEPTED THE MEDICAL USES FOR CANNABIS. VETERANS WHO RELY ON THE V.A. FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE CANNOT PARTAKE IN MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS UNLESS THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMIN- ISTRATION CHANGES ITS POLICY TO ALLOW PHYSICIANS TO WRITE MEDICAL CANNABIS RECOMMENDATIONS IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENTS ARE STRIPPED OF THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNTIL THERE IS A CHANGE IN FEDERAL LAW OR A FORMAL POLICY CHANGE FROM THE ATF. COMMON-SENSE LEGISLATION WOULD ALLOW FEDERAL AGENCIES – LIKE THE DEA, FDA, AND EPA – TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENGAGE WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 951 44 45 CHAPTER 4 ENDING THE FEDERAL CONFLICT: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN 1. ROLE OF CONGRESS: LEGISLATIVE NEEDS It is necessary for Congress to take action in order to fully harmonize state and federal medical cannabis laws. The POTUS cannot change federal law through an executive order and therefore cannot unilaterally act to exempt state medical cannabis programs from the Controlled Substances Act. While the POTUS can take steps to ease research restrictions or to limit federal interference with state law, only an act of Congress can bring state medical cannabis programs into compliance with federal law. Medical cannabis patients are depending on the members of Congress to pass legislation that ends the federal criminalization of the medicine on which they rely. Americans for Safe Access has four Congressional legislative goals to harmonize state and federal medical cannabis laws and promote the advancement of medical cannabis research: 1. Continue the “ceasefire” that has stopped federal raids, intimidation, and interference with state law. 2. Establish federal legal protections for individuals acting in compliance with their state and local medical cannabis laws. 3. Allow federal agencies the ability to work with state agencies and individuals (such as patients, doctors, and producers) following medical cannabis programs. 4. Promote and facilitate research exploring the medical benefits of cannabis. The passage of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has accomplished the first goal, but it must be reauthorized every year. The best way to achieve the remaining goals is through the passage of comprehensive medical cannabis MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA TALKING POINTS CONGRESS MUST PASS LEGISLATION TO ENSURE FEDERAL LAW RESPECTS STATE LAWS. IF CONGRESS STEPS UP TO REGULATE MEDICAL CANNABIS, IT WILL GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER THIS SUBSTANCE, NOT LESS. A DIVERSE GROUP OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT THE USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS AND CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW. MANY OF THE MYTHS SUCH AS THE “GATEWAY THEORY” OR THAT CANNABIS CAUSES CANCER HAVE BEEN DISPROVEN BUT HAVE STILL PREVENTED FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM PASSING LEGISLATION. THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ANY VIABLE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE OPTION IS EXEMPTING THE 44 STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS FROM THE CSA. THE CARERS ACT GARNERED BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND ENJOYED WIDE-SPREAD SUPPORT NATIONALLY FROM PATIENT ORGANIZATIONS. VETERANS CANNOT PARTAKE IN MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED AUTHORITY THAT VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION PHYSICIANS ARE ABLE TO WRITE MEDICAL CANNABIS RECOMMENDATIONS IN STATES WITH MEDICAL CANNABIS LAWS. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CONSENSUS CONCERNING THE VALUE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS OUTSIDE OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING PATIENT ADVOCACY GROUPS, LAWS IN 44 STATES, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. The CARERS Act also has overwhelming support among the 2 million legal cannabis patients and the condition-based organizations that represent them. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 952 46 47 CHAPTER 4 ENDING THE FEDERAL CONFLICT: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA The 114th Congress version of the CARERS Act would harmonize federal and state medical cannabis laws, with far-reaching impacts, including: Allowing state medical cannabis programs to continue without federal interference and intimidation. Moving cannabis out of the Schedule I list in the CSA – finally eliminating the “no accepted medical use” policy under federal law. Removing cannabidiol (CBD) from the CSA altogether. Creating access to banking services for legal cannabis businesses and organizations. Establishing a more robust federal supply of cannabis available for FDA- approved research by requiring the DEA to license additional cultivators for clinical research. Allowing Veterans Administration (VA) doctors to issue recommendations to veterans patients with qualifying conditions in states that have a medical cannabis program. Section 2 (which protects the states against federal interference) is the cornerstone of the CARERS Act and any future Congressional bill that attempts to harmonize state and federal medical cannabis laws must include a substantively similar paragraph. The passage of the CARERS Act, would also trigger a host of state- federal agency cooperation that would likely include state and federal health departments, food and agricultural agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, and law enforcement taskforces. Such cooperation could result in the federal licensing for state sanctioned cannabis operations such as DEA licensing of cultivation, and cannabis pesticide research and guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency. Diverse Support for CARERS Both in the states and federally, medical cannabis has proven to be a bipartisan issue. Not only are the CARERS Act’s originals sponsors - Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) - from both sides of the political aisle, but Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate have signed on as co-sponsors. As of November 2016, there were 42 cosponsors (28D, 14R) in the House and 19 (15D, 3R, 1I) in the Senate. This bipartisan support comes from Congressional leaders from across the U.S. and from those who do not normally agree on issues. John Hudak of the Brookings Institute highlighted this point in his article, Why the CARERS Act is so significant for marijuana policy reform, “To put it into perspective, two of the cosponsors Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) voted together only 20.3 percent of the time in the current Congress. Many of these members don’t agree on much, but they agree CARERS is a reform they can embrace.”1 1 Hudak, J. Why the CARERS Act is so significant for marijuana policy reform. April 2016; The Brookings Press. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/04/13/why-the-carers-act-is-so-significant-for-marijuana-policy-reform/ legislation such as the CARERS Act. The “ceasefire” and protection for state programs are the top priorities because patients who are finding relief from their debilitating conditions through medical cannabis should not have to worry that this relief will be taken away from them. Expanding the scientific knowledge of medical cannabis is an important objective; however, the benefits of research initiated today will not benefit patients for several years or decades to come. 2. LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS 114 TH CONGRESS Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment to CJS Appropriations The most effective legal provision to date in protecting state medical cannabis programs from federal interference is the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Act. The provision was upheld several times in federal court in 2015 and 2016, most prominently in the 9th Circuit case of U.S. vs. McIntosh, holding that federal prosecutions can only take place after federal prosecutors establish that there was a violation of the state’s medical cannabis law. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was first passed by Congress in December 2014 at the end of the 113th Congress to the FY2015 “CRomnibus” bill. That year, it was approved in the House by a floor vote of 211-189, improving to 242-186 in 2015 with even stronger bipartisan support with 67 Republicans voting to allow states to set their own policies. In the Senate Appropriations Committee, the amendment has been approved by votes of 21-9 and 21-8 in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Despite the strong passage the past two years on the House Floor, it is not expected that the House will vote directly on the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment during the 2016 lame duck session. Therefore, it could reappear within a CRomnibus type of bill, or could be temporarily reauthorized with the passage of a continuing resolution. In the event of a CR, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment would remain in effect, which would mean the 115th Congress would have to reauthorize the amendment prior to the expiration of the continuing resolution. The CARERS ACT The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S.683, H.R. 1583; 114th Congress) was introduced into both chambers in 2015 and is the most comprehensive piece of federal medical cannabis legislation ever introduced. The intent of this bill is “to extend the principle of federalism to state drug policy, provide access to medical cannabis, and enable research into the medicinal properties of cannabis.” WHEN DEA ADMINISTRATOR CHUCK ROSENBURG CALLED MEDICAL CANNABIS “A JOKE,” PATIENTS RESPONDED BY PRESENTING THE DEA WITH 100,000 SIGNATURES SEEKING HIS REMOVAL. MYTH: “THERE REALLY IS NO SUCH THING AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MARIJUANA’S MEDICAL PROPERTIES.” - DR. STUART GITLOW (PSYCHIATRIST, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ADDICTION MEDICINE) FACT: MORE THAN 100 ARTICLES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ON HOW CANNABINOIDS ACT AS NEUROPROTECTIVE AGENTS THAT SLOW THE PROGRESSION OF HUN- TINGTON’S, ALZHEIMER’S, AND PARTICULARLY PAR- KINSON’S, A CONDITION THAT AFFECTS MORE THAN 52% OF PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 85. (Citation: Giacoppo, S., Mandolino, G., et.al. Cannabinoids: New Promising Agents in the Treatment Neurological Diseases. 2014; Molecules. 19, 18781-18816; doi:10.3390/ molecules191118781) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 953 48 49 CHAPTER 4 ENDING THE FEDERAL CONFLICT: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA 2. REGULATORY IMPACT OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION Without the fear of federal interference, medical cannabis states are likely to adopt more civil protections for patients, follow robust product safety protocols, and empower physicians to have a greater say as to which medical conditions can be treated with medical cannabis in these programs. Comprehensive legislation would not prevent the federal government from enforcing the CSA in other matters and would allow federal agencies to engage with the state medical cannabis programs. The following is a summary of how some of the federal agencies will be affected by the passage of the CARERS Act or a successor bill that protects state legal medical cannabis activity from federal interference. Department of Justice Issue new guidelines to U.S. Attorneys about cannabis enforcement. Create a taskforce with Attorneys General to determine protocols for tackling “interstate commerce” issues as they relate to diversion. Drug Enforcement Administration Create new protocols for activity in states with medical cannabis laws. Create new goals for the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. Create new protocols for joint task forces across the country. Issue at least 3 more research licenses under Section 303 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 823) to manufacture (cultivate) cannabis and cannabis-derivatives for research approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Clarify regulations on manufacturing equipment, such as capsule equipment. Allow DEA-licensed laboratory facilities the ability to test cannabis and cannabis-derived products. Food and Drug Administration Work directly with medical cannabis programs which would likely include issuing labeling requirements, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), and Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). Allow the United States Pharmacopoeia to issue an official cannabis monograph establishing internationally recognized protocols for the standardization of cannabis as an herbal medicine. Upon the descheduling of CBD, CBD-rich products become subject to the regulations of the DSHEA. The result of regulating CBD through DSHEA would likely mean that CBD would be treated as a nutraceutical and include product safety protocols as well as key labeling requirements including disease claims. The CARERS Act also has overwhelming support among the 2 million legal cannabis patients and the condition-based organizations that represent them. Op-ed and other articles supporting the CARERS Act have appeared all over the country, including in conservative states like Utah, Iowa, and North Carolina. In July 2016, Americans for Safe Access joined twelve other patient organizations to deliver a letter to Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Joe Pitts asking them to give the CARERS Act a vote. These organizations included National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Women’s Health Network, Epilepsy Foundation, Realm of Caring, Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE), Danny Did Foundation, Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (FACES), Hope4Harper, Hope for Hypothalamic Hamartomas, and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) Foundation. MYTH: MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ARE MAGNETS FOR CRIME. FACT: DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF SECURITY CAMERAS, SECURITY GUARDS, AND INCREASED FOOT TRAFFIC, DISPENSARIES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE A NEUTRAL- TO-SLIGHT DAMPENING EFFECT ON CRIME IN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE DISPENSARY. A MULTI- STATE, PEER-REVIEWED STUDY FROM 2014 FOUND THAT “...ROBBERY AND BURGLARY RATES WERE UNAFFECTED BY MEDICINAL MARIJUANA LEGISLATION, WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE CLAIM THAT DISPENSARIES AND GROW HOUSES LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN VICTIMIZATION DUE TO THE OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES LINKED TO THE AMOUNT OF DRUGS AND CASH THAT ARE PRESENT.” (Citation: Morris RG, TenEyck M, Barnes JC, Kovandzic TV (2014) The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990-2006. PLoS ONE 9(3): e92816. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092816) The “ceasefire” and protection for state programs are the top priorities because patients who are finding relief from their debilitating conditions through medical cannabis, should not have to worry that this relief will be taken away from them. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 954 50 51 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA Internal Revenue Service The exemption of all state-legal medical cannabis conduct from the CSA would change the application of 280e tax code in regards to medical cannabis businesses. 26 U.S. Code § 280E Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs: “No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of Schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” United States Department of Agriculture Expand organic standards to cannabis grown for human consumption. Environmental Protection Agency Begin pesticide tolerance testing to establish standards for use on the cultivation of medical cannabis and hemp grown for human consumption. Department of the Treasury Remove medical cannabis from the “suspicious activity” category of the Banking Secrecy Act, giving banks the clear and unequivocal legal protection they need in order to offer robust banking services to medical cannabis businesses. Housing and Urban Development Remove the threat to medical cannabis patients who possess medicine within their federal subsidized (i.e., “Section 8”) housing unit from being automatically evicted. Department of Veteran Affairs V.A. physicians would be able to write medical cannabis recommendations under state law. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Restore medical patients 2nd Amendment rights, as medical cannabis patients are currently denied the right to legally purchase firearms.Without the fear of federal interference, medical cannabis states are likely to adopt more civil protections for patients, follow robust product safety protocols, and empower physicians to have a greater say as to which medical conditions can be treated with medical cannabis in these programs. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 955 52 53 CHAPTER 4 ENDING THE FEDERAL CONFLICT: A FUNCTIONAL PLAN MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA AGENCY ROLES POST-COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOJ would continue to monitor activity outside of state laws. Would no longer be prosecuting and incarcerating people for state-legal medical cannabis conduct, would have more resources for crime- fighting efforts. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION DEA would develop new protocols for interacting with state programs, research and lab licensing. The DEA would oversee licensing for cannabis cultivation for research. With funds saved from ending investigations, raids, and arrests for conduct that is legal under state medical cannabis laws, the DEA could include environmental clean-up to federal land cannabis eradication programs. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES ATF would restore medical patients 2nd Amendment rights by removing warning from Form 4473, “The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION The FDA would monitor adverse event reporting and provide input on Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Agricultural Practices and Good Laboratory Practices. Additionally, FDA could provide standardization of product safety protocols, labeling requirements and product recalls. Opportunity would arise to redefine standards of acceptance for botanical medicine. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Agency would issue guidance for new businesses while continuing to collect taxes from licensed medical cannabis businesses across the country.  Medical cannabis businesses acting in accordance with state law could take deductions they are currently being denied by Section 280(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, which should result in lower out of pocket expenses for patients. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agency could work directly with state medical cannabis programs to provide guidance on the production of crops for human consumption. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The EPA would conduct tolerance studies for the use of pesticides on cannabis, which could increase the levels of safety and production of state programs ultimately drive down costs to patients. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY As state-licensed medical cannabis business activity would also be legal under federal law, banks would no longer have to file Suspicious Activities Reports under 31 CFR 1020.320 and the Bank Secrecy Act. Treasury would issue new guidance for dual-licensed medical/adult-use business. Banks would be free to do business with state- licensed medical cannabis businesses and  the finances of medical cannabis businesses become easier to monitor and regulate than the current cash-only situations many bussinesses are forced to work under. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT This agency would update protocols regarding the use of medical cannabis by patients in Section 8 housing. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS The VA would implement a policy that allows for physicians to complete state medical cannabis recommendation forms and could provide training on medical cannabis and the endocannabinoid system to V.A. physicians. AmericansForSafeAccess.org April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 956 54 55 CHAPTER 5 CALL TO CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION5 A CALL TO THE 115 TH CONGRESS AND 45TH POTUS KEY POINTS 1. 2016 LAME DUCK 2. 115TH CONGRESS 3. 45TH POTUS 4. DIVERSE SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL ACTION 5. THE GATEWAY THEORY DISPROVEN KEY POINTS LAME DUCK CONGRESS KEY POINTS PASS THE CARERS ACT. LAME DUCK POTUS KEY POINTS RELEASE THE REMAINING MEDICAL CANNABIS POWS AND DROP THE HANDFUL OF REMAINING PROSECUTIONS. INSTRUCT DEA TO UPDATE THEIR WEBSITE AND PUBLICATIONS TO REFLECT THEIR MOST CURRENT THINKING. ORDER HHS AND DEA TO TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM FDA ACTING COMMISSIONER STEPHEN OSTROFF TO EXAMINE AND POSSIBLY OVERHAUL THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE PREVENTING MEDICAL RESEARCH AND RESCHEDULING OF CANNABIS. ENGAGE WITH UN SECRETARY GENERAL ON THE SCHEDULING OF CANNABIS IN THE UN SINGLE CONVENTION OF DRUGS (WHICH IS BASED ON A REPORT FROM 1935). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 957 56 57 CHAPTER 5 CALL TO CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATIONMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA KEY POINTS 115TH CONGRESS KEY POINTS PASS LEGISLATION THAT ESTABLISHES BINDING PROTECTION FOR STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS AND THE PATIENTS WHO RELY ON THEM. CONTINUE TO PASS AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS APPROPRIATIONS BILLS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AND INCREASE PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. USE THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS TO ENSURE THAT POTUS APPOINTMENTS RESPECT STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS. HOLD FEDERAL AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HEARINGS IF THE AGENCIES ARE INTERFERING WITH STATE PROGRAMS, FAILING TO PROMOTE RESEARCH, OR ARE OTHERWISE HARMING PATIENTS THROUGH ACTION OR INACTION. ENSURE THAT THE ROHRABACHER-FARR AMENDMENT TO THE CJS APPROPRIATIONS ACT CONTINUES TO BE REAUTHORIZED 45TH POTUS KEY POINTS POTUS SHOULD CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS MEDICAL CANNABIS LEGISLATION. DOJ SHOULD UPHOLD AUGUST 2013 DOJ GUIDANCE MEMO (AKA “THE COLE MEMO”) FOR PRIORITIZING THE PROSECUTION OF STATE-COMPLIANT MEDICAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES, BUT SHOULD ALSO ADD REPORTING METRICS TO ENSURE THE GUIDANCE IS FOLLOWED. POTUS AND DEPARTMENT LEADERS CAN SET AN ARRAY OF POLICIES IN VARIOUS AGENCIES WITHOUT AN ACT OF CONGRESS. 1. 2016 LAME DUCK Congress During the “lame duck” session in December 2016, Congress should still move forward on the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S.683, H.R. 1583; 114th Congress). While the CARERS Act has not yet been given a markup in either the House of Senate, making passage in the lame duck a difficult endeavor. POTUS Harmonizing state and federal law may also require a new definition of medicines or the creation of a new pathway for herbal medicines to earn FDA approval. In fact, a May 2015 HHS internal memo from Acting Director of Food and Drugs Stephen M. Ostroff pointed out that the existing federal laws and regulations are preventing researchers from examining the therapeutic uses of cannabis and its compounds.1 The memo continues by suggesting an overhaul of the existing legal and regulatory framework may be in order. Additionally, the DOJ and the President ought to look at commuting sentences of those currently in federal prison for state-legal medical cannabis activity. In doing so, they should seriously examine whether those with gun convictions were in fact of a violent nature, or if the gun was more incidental. The mere presence of a self-defense or even a hunting weapon has triggered certain mandatory minimum sentences in a number of medical cannabis prosecutions in states with high gun-ownership rates. It is too late in the Obama Administration to reschedule cannabis out of Schedule I of the CSA. While Congressional action such as the CARERS Act would enable swifter change from the Executive Branch agencies, there are several steps the current or future administration could take in order to reduce the conflict between state and federal medical cannabis policies. 2. 115TH CONGRESS Legislation In the next session of Congress, the focus should remain on (1) passing legislation that establishes binding protection for state medical cannabis programs and the patients who rely on them; and (2) maintaining and increasing ground through the appropriations channels. Reauthorizing and expanding aforementioned appropriations amendments is necessary for the second objective. The primary objective will be passing legislation that explicitly protects state medical cannabis, such as Section 2 of the CARERS 1 Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs to Acting Assistant Sec. for Health, May 20, 2015, Recommendation to Maintain Marijuana in Schedule I of the Contolled Substances Act, Department of Health and Human Services, available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/325957054/FDA-Acting-Commission-On-Marijuana- Rescheduling#from_embed. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 958 58 59 CHAPTER 5 CALL TO CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATIONMEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA Banking Amendment (Merkley-Murray amendment) The Banking amendment would prohibit the federal government from penalizing financial institutions (such as banks) who do business with state- legal cannabis businesses. The federal government currently prevents banks from doing business with dispensaries, cultivators, processors, etc. This amendment would allow these types of business to have access to all typical banking services such as credit cards, payroll, and loans. Like all appropriations amendments, the protection would last one year and would have to be renewed the end of each fiscal year. Without banking, medical cannabis business people are forced to deal with cash only, putting them at great risk of become victims of robbery. Health and Human Services Amendment (Murray amendment) The Murray amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill would prevent the agency from punishing doctors who receive HHS funding when they issue medical cannabis recommendations in accordance with state law. This means that doctors in medical cannabis states who work at community health clinics and other HHS-funded health centers would be able to recommend medical cannabis without fear of punishment. Like all appropriations amendments, the protection would last one year and would have to be renewed the end of each fiscal year. Veterans Equal Access Amendment (Daines-Merkley) The Veterans Equal Access amendment would lift the “gag order” that currently prevents V.A. doctors from discussing the benefits of medical cannabis therapy with their veteran patients. It would prevent the V.A. from punishing its doctors who write medical cannabis recommendations in accordance with state law. By prohibiting the punishment of V.A. doctors, the amendment would allow veterans living in medical cannabis states to obtain medical cannabis recommendations from their doctors. While the amendment passed both the House and Senate, it was removed from the bill with no public explanation and will not be in effect in FY2017. It is unlikely that this amendment could have been included in the Dec. 2016 CRomnibus bill because the FY2017 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Act were passed independently. However, Congress may be able to consider ways to add the provision. Confirmations Ensure that all executive appointments are properly vetted to ensure that they will respect state medical cannabis laws, particularly for positions in the DOJ Make certain the appointments to positions in HHS, DOJ, and other agencies work to promote more robust medical cannabis research Oversight Hold agency officials accountable if the agency has interfered with state medical cannabis programs Require DOJ and other agencies to report on enforcement actions against parties claiming to be in compliance with state medical cannabis laws Act. While the CARERS Act contains many provisions, Section 2 protections are the core of the bill and must be carried over into any succeeding piece of legislation. Additionally, the CARERS act would enable the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to incorporate medical cannabis in its strategy to counteract the opioid epidemic. The ONDCP is prohibited by law from “any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in Schedule I.”2 Congress will have the opportunity to  adopt several medical cannabis amendments to the negotiated “CRomnibus” that will likely contain the majority of appropriations bills for FY2017. The most important, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, has been discussed previously in this report; however, there were several other amendments that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved in 2016. CJS Appropriations (Rohrabacher-Farr amendment) The aforementioned Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is the most vital current protection for state medical cannabis programs and the patients who rely on them. Without the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, DOJ could resume prosecuting individuals who are in compliance with the state medical cannabis law. This could trigger a host of adverse events, as it would increase the demand for illicit cannabis from patients who would still need it to treat their condition, or it would force patients to go without the treatment option that works best for them. If patients are forced to obtain their medical cannabis through illicit means, it would empower criminal drug cartels and harm the environment by causing an unintended increase in the amount of cannabis grown on public lands. 2 21 USC §1703(b)(12). The most viable step that Congress could take to end the conflict between state and federal laws regarding medical cannabis is passing the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act (S.683, H.R. 1583; 114th Congress). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 959 60 61 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA Environmental Protection Agency Authorize the EPA to conduct pesticide tolerance testing to establish standards for use on the cultivation of medical cannabis and hemp grown for human consumption. Veterans Administration Issue a new policy memo that allows its physicians to use their medical judgement in determining whether or not to give a patient a recommendation for medical cannabis. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Clarify each of its gun application and ownership transfer forms to make clear that state-legal medical cannabis use is not consider “unlawful use.” Centers for Disease Control Collect and publish data on medical cannabis use. Findings from this data could be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is influential in shaping the public policy of state health departments. State Department Request that the UN begin rescheduling process under the guidance of the UN Single Treaty. Coordinate with the other 19 countries with medical cannabis laws to participate in UNGASS 2019. 3. 45TH POTUS Change starts at the top, and perhaps the most import thing the president could do is make full use of the bully pulpit to push for an end to the state and federal conflict on medical cannabis. When both President Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made statements as presidential candidates in support of medical cannabis, it did not negatively affect their popularity. In fact, the statements barely seemed controversial. This shows that there is plenty of room for a sitting president to take bolder action in support of medical cannabis reform. One way the 45th POTUS could do this is by appointing individuals to the cabinet and other positions who are willing to guide their respective agency towards harmonizing state and federal medical cannabis policy. While the biggest changes with agencies might need to be enabled through Congressional legislation, there are many steps that several agencies could take towards the goal of harmonization. The following are policy recommendations for the 45th POTUS that can be taken even without passage of a bill such as the CARERS Act: Department of Justice Uphold the August 2013 guidance memo for prioritizing the prosecution of state-compliant medical cannabis business. Outline clear reporting metrics for cases being investigated and making their way towards prosecution. Drug Enforcement Administration Begin issuance of additional research cultivation licenses. Update the website and publications. Health and Human Services Create taskforce to identify and eliminate obstructive regulations. Amend policies to clarify that hospitals, community health clinics and their medical professionals who wish to utilize their state’s medical cannabis program will not be in jeopardy of losing HHS funding and accreditation for research. National Institutes of Health Place a greater emphasis on cannabis-based research. Work with state programs to facilitate research. Food and Drug Administration Coordinate with state departments of health on adverse event reporting. Internal Revenue Service Issue Prosecution Recommendation guidance to its special agents on deprioritizing the prosecution of Internal Revenue Code 280e cases if the businesses are in compliance with state law. THE BIPARTISAN INTRODUCTION OF THE CARERS ACT TO THE SENATE IN MARCH 2015 DEMONSTRATED HOW MAINSTREAM THIS ISSUE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS HAS COME IN THE PAST TWO DECADES. MYTH: IF STATES LEGALIZE MEDICAL CANNABIS, THERE WOULD BE NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF ANY SORT OVER STATE MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAMS. THERE WOULD BE PROB- LEMS SUCH AS “QUALITY” DUE TO THERE BEING “50 DIFFERENT LAWS IN 50 DIF- FERENT STATES.” QUOTED CONCERNS OF SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY AT A FEB. 16, 2016 TOWN HALL MEET- ING, AS REPORTED IN THE TAMA NEWS-HERALD, FEB. 23, 2016. FACT: THE PASSAGE OF THE CARERS ACT WOULD ALSO TRIGGER A HOST OF STATE-FEDERAL AGEN- CY COOPERATION THAT WOULD LIKELY INCLUDE STATE AND FEDERAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, FOOD AND AGRICUL- TURAL AGENCIES, THE FOOD AND DRUG AD- MINISTRATION, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK- FORCES. SUCH COOPER- ATION COULD RESULT IN THE FEDERAL LICENSING FOR STATE SANCTIONED CANNABIS OPERATIONS SUCH AS DEA LICENSING OF CULTIVATION, AND CANNABIS PESTICIDE RE- SEARCH AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ENVIRONMEN- TAL PROTECTION AGENCY. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 960 62 63 CHAPTER 1 MEDICAL CANNABIS BASICS MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA “Based on much evidence, from patients and doctors alike, on the superior effectiveness and safety of whole Cannabis (marijuana) compared to other medicines for many patients — suffering from the nausea associated with chemotherapy, the wasting syndrome of AIDS, and the symptoms of other illnesses … we hereby petition the Executive Branch and the Congress to facilitate and expedite the research necessary to determine whether this substance should be licensed for medical use by seriously ill persons.” American Academy of Family Physicians The American Medical Association “urges that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.” The American College of Physicians “urges an evidence-based review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule.” The American Public Health Association “adopted a resolution [...] which urged federal and state drugs laws to exclude Marijuana as a narcotic drug,” and “conclude[d] that Cannabis was wrongfully placed in Schedule I of Controlled Substances, depriving patients of its therapeutic potential.” “Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government.” American Preventive Medical Association “The Texas Medical Association supports (1) the physician’s right to discuss with his/ her patients any and all possible treatment options related to the patients’ health and clinical care, including the use of marijuana, without the threat to the physician or patient of regulatory, disciplinary, or criminal sanctions; and (2) further well-controlled studies of the use of marijuana with seriously ill patients who may benefit from such alternative treatment.” Texas Medical Association The Rhode Island Medical Society has stated that “There is sufficient evidence for us to support any physician-patient relationship that believes the use of marijuana will be beneficial to the patient.” “The definitive review of scientific studies ... found medical benefits related to pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation ... While there are a variety of ways of supplying marijuana for medical use, serious consideration should be given to the 1997 recommendation ... that the FDA reclassify marijuana from Schedule I and provide a consistent, safe supply.” New York County Medical Society “The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government … to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate (Investigational New Drug) program for medical marijuana, and … 4. DIVERSE SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL ACTION Support for medical cannabis is strong across many different demographics. A May 2016 poll by Quinnipiac University surveying 1,561 registered voters nationwide found support of medical cannabis at 89%. This poll closely mirrors the results of a 2014 CNN/ORC national poll, which showed the support level at 88%. The support was strong across all ages and party affiliations. While Republicans and older Americans have traditionally been the least likely to support legal access to medical cannabis therapy, their support levels were 81% and 89%, respectively. Again, these results nearly replicate the 2014 CNN/ ORC poll, in which 84% of Republicans and 84% of voters over age 65 stated their support. Support is also strong among physicians, with 76% of physicians supportive of the use of medical cannabis in certain circumstances in a 2013 New England Journal of Medicine poll. American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, American Preventive Medical Association, Texas Medical Association, The Rhode Island Medical Society, New York County Medical Society, American Medical Student Association, National Nurses Society on Addictions, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Epilepsy Foundation, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and the American Cancer Society have all come forward with supportive statements regarding medical cannabis. Statements from Qualified Experts and Medical Organizations “The Society supports the rights of people with MS to work with their MS health care providers to access marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with legal regulations in those states where such use has been approved. In addition, the Society supports advancing research to better understand the benefits and potential risks of marijuana and its derivatives as a treatment for MS.” National Multiple Sclerosis Society “The Epilepsy Foundation supports the rights of patients and families living with seizures and epilepsy to access physician directed care, including medical marijuana. Nothing should stand in the way of patients gaining access to potentially life-saving treatment. If a patient and their healthcare professionals feel that the potential benefits of medical marijuana for uncontrolled epilepsy outweigh the risks, then families need to have that legal option now — not in five years or ten years. For people living with severe uncontrolled epilepsy, time is not on their side. This is a very important, difficult, and personal decision that should be made by a patient and family working with their healthcare team.” Epilepsy Foundation “(T)he Leukemia & Lymphoma Society supports legislation to remove criminal and civil sanctions for the doctor-advised, medical use of marijuana by patients with serious physical medical conditions.” Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Researchers at Columbia University conducted a longitudinal study of 708 adolescents concluded that early onset cannabis use did not lead to problematic drug use. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 961 64 65 MEDICAL CANNABIS IN AMERICA reschedule marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and … end the medical prohibition against marijuana.” American Medical Student Association “The National Nurses Society on Addictions urges the federal government to remove marijuana from the Schedule I category immediately, and make it available for physicians to prescribe. NNSA urges the American Nurses’ Association and other health care professional organizations to support patient access to this medicine.” National Nurses Society on Addictions “The American Cancer Society supports the need for more scientific research on cannabinoids for cancer patients, and recognizes the need for better and more effective therapies that can overcome the often debilitating side effects of cancer and its treatment. The Society also believes that the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance by the US Drug Enforcement Administration imposes numerous conditions on researchers and deters scientific study of cannabinoids. Federal officials should examine options consistent with federal law for enabling more scientific study on marijuana.” American Cancer Society Action from Congress and the Administration is necessary to harmonize current conflict between state and federal medical cannabis laws and regulations. While both the Administration and Congress have taken small steps towards addressing the conflict over the past several years, including the DOJ and Treasury guidance memos and the adoption of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, there is still more to be done. 5. THE GATEWAY THEORY DISPROVEN The “gateway drug” theory is often used as a reason to block medical cannabis efforts. This argument is not relevant to medical cannabis because it is a direct conflation of medical versus recreational use. When we speak of medical cannabis, we are talking about a medicine. As such, we are not advocating for teen or adult recreational use, but rather, a decision between a doctor and a patient to treat a condition using a cannabis-based therapy. Therefore, recreational abuse should not enter into the argument at all. However, since it has, it should be noted that recent research has disproven the validity of this theory. In fact, the DEA in its denial of petitions to reschedule cannabis stated, “Overall, research does not support a direct causal relationship between regular cannabis use and other illicit drug use. Although many individuals with a drug abuse disorder may have used cannabis as one of their first illicit drugs, this fact does not correctly lead to the reverse inference that most individuals who used cannabis will inherently go on to try or become regular users of other illicit drugs.”2 One example of the research studies which lend support to this statement by the DEA was from researchers at Columbia University in NY, who conducted a longitudinal study of 708 adolescents that concluded that early onset cannabis use did not lead to problematic drug use.3 3 Kandel, D., Chen, K. Types of marijuana users by longitudinal course. Journal of studies on alcohol. June 2000; 61(3):367-78. DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2000.61.367. 2 Drug Enforcement Administration. Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana. Federal Register. August 2016; 53687-53766. 81 FR 53687. ACTION. EDUCATION. POLICY. CONSUMERS SAFETY. RESEARCH. The mission of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is to ensure safe and legal access to cannabis (marijuana) for therapeutic use research. ASA was founded in 2002 by medical cannabis patient Steph Sherer, as a vehicle for patients to advocate for the acceptance of cannabis as medicine. With over 100,000 active members in all 50 states, ASA in the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research, ASA works to overcome political, social and legal barriers by creating policies that improve access to medical cannabis for patients and researchers through legislation, education, litigation, research, grassroots empowerment, advocacy and services for patients, governments, medical professionals, and medical cannabis providers. ASA and our members have moved public policy forward by light years by incorporating strategies across many disciplines. ASA has brought together policy experts, public health experts, attorneys, lobbyists, scientists, industry associations and medical professionals to create the campaigns, projects and programs that have broken down political, social, academic, and legal barriers across the US. Ensuring safe and legal access to cannabis means: International, federal and state laws and regulations recognized cannabis as a legal medicine. Medical professionals recommend medical cannabis options as a frontline treatment option or an adjunct therapy. Patients and their caregivers have the information they need to make educated choices about medical cannabis therapies. Patients and medical professionals can incorporate a diverse group of products and delivery methods to create required personalized treatment regimen. Patients can trust labels on products and that medicines are free of pesticides and contaminants. Medical cannabis treatments are covered by insurance. UNTIL THERE IS SAFE ACCESS WE ARE AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS ASA Become a part of History! Join us today @ AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Join A May 2016 poll by Quinnipiac University surveying 1,561 registered voters nationwide found support of medical cannabis at 89%. This poll closely mirrors the results of a 2014 CNN/ORC national poll, which showed the support level at 88%. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 962 Americans for Safe Access 1624 U Street, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Tel: 202.857.4272 AmericansForSafeAccess.orgApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 963 1 June McHuen From:Ryan The Lion <ryand589@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:22 AM To:Clerk of the Board Subject:The Medical Cannabis Briefing Guide PDF File Greetings, My name is Ryan Doronila, I'm the Horticulture Student from DVC. I spoke about the subject of consideration for the funding and approval for academic cannabis programs. DVC has approved a club this semester regarding Cannabis by naming it the "NORML/SSDP Club". The club consists of two well known organizations that specializes in Cannabis with NORML (National Organization for Reforming Marijuana Laws) and drug education and harm reduction with SSDP (Students for Sensible Drug Policy). The vision and goal of the club is to open up the subject for discussion. The plan would be to educate and empower students for new job opportunities in this new industry that will effect all sectors: Agriculture, Science, Medecine, Finance, Political Science, etc. My Horticulture professors and I would like to propose an indoor cultivation course to be offered in DVC with course credits. Alternatively we're open to a trial run class, maybe during the next summer or fall semester as a fee based "lecture only" course. The purpose of the indoor cannabis cultivation course would be to educate students about the plant and its benefits, the proper basic organic grow techniques as well as proper maintenance, watering, nutrient feeding. Electrical and fire safety hazard training will also be included in the course. If the state allows 6 plants per household, let's make sure our residents who choose to cultivate, know how to do it the right way. Federal funding will help solidify a credible program for the future by setting up Greenhouses and Science labs for Medical research and testing done by students. Please contact me for any questions regarding this industry from a cultivating and academic perspective. Thank you, Ryan Doronila 925.391.6600 DVC - Horticulture Student (Retail Nursery) Medical Cannabis Briefing Guide PDF file link: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 964 2 american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/briefingbook115/ASA_report_29_online.pdf http://american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/briefingbook115/ASA_report_29_online.pdf April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 965 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 966 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 967 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 968 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 969 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 970 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 971 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 972 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 973 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 974 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 975 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 976 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 977 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 978 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 979 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 980 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 981 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 982 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 983 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 984 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 985 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/120 approving the Maintenance Agreement between the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association and the County of Contra Costa, to maintain the improvements that are in the public right-of-way, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Walnut Creek area. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Avalon Walnut Creek is a mixed-use commercial and residential development located on a portion of the BART Station Property at the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Center BART Station. The development site has been leased to the owner/developer-PHVP I, a Delaware limited partnership (an affiliate of AvalonBay Communities)-by the Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority is comprised of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ("BART") and the County. The development site contains five development blocks, which are the subject of County land use approvals (SUB 8950, DP 04-3099, and DP 15-3001). Three of the blocks have been improved, and one is undergoing development in 2017-18. The development, referred APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925. 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Maintenance Agreement between Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association and the County of Contra Costa, Walnut Creek area. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 986 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to as Avalon Walnut Creek, is comprised of 622 residential rental units and approximately 35,000 square feet of commercial retail space. The unbuilt fifth block is permitted for an office use of up to 270,000 square feet. Avalon Walnut Creek contains public and private streets with sidewalks, as well as additional nonstandard street amenities such as street lights, street furniture, decorative crosswalks, and wayfinding signs. The Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association was formed, among other things, to maintain these improvements. Because some of these improvements are in the public right-of-way the County must grant the Association with a license to enter for maintenance purposes. The recommended Maintenance Agreement grants the license, sets forth the maintenance obligations, obligates the Association to fund said maintenance, sets forth insurance requirements, and indemnifies the County. The term of the Maintenance Agreement is coterminous with the Apartment Sublease, which is scheduled to terminate on May 14, 2105. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Agreement will not be approved and the nonstandard street amenities in the public right-of-way such as street lights, street furniture, decorative crosswalks, and wayfinding signs will not be maintained and the County will not be indemnified. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/120 Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association Maintenance Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/120 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 987 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/120 IN THE MATTER OF the Maintenance Agreement between the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association and the County of Contra Costa, Walnut Creek area. (District IV) WHEREAS the Public Works Director has recommended that she be authorized to execute the Maintenance Agreement between the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Association and the County of Contra Costa. This agreement would ensure the maintenance of the nonstandard street amenities such as street lights, street furniture, decorative crosswalks, and wayfinding signs which is located at Avalon Walnut Creek in the Walnut Creek area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925. 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 988 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 989 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 990 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 991 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 992 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 993 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 994 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 995 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 996 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 997 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 998 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 999 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1000 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1001 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1002 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1003 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1004 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/141 approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Management Agreement for minor subdivision MS15-00005, for a project being developed by Ken Gardner. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement is required by Condition of Approval No. 26. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The agreement will not be recorded and Contra Costa County may not be in full compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Stormwater Management Discharge Control Ordinance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925.313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Brian Balbas, Public Works C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for minor subdivision MS15-00005, Byron area. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1005 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/141 O+M Agreement MS15-00005_4-25-17 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/141 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1006 Recorded at the request of:Jocelyn LaRocque, 925. 313-2315 Return To:Naila Thrower, 925.313-2170 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorDiane Burgis, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/141 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement for minor subdivision MS15-00005 (APN 002-040-064), Byron area. (District III) WHEREAS the Public Works Director has recommended that she be authorized to execute the Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Management Agreement with Ken Gardner, as required by the Conditions of Approval for minor subdivision MS15-00005. This agreement would ensure the operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities in accordance with the approved Stormwater Control Plan and approved Operation and Maintenance Plan for minor subdivision MS15-00005, which is located at 3600 Byer Road in the Byron area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925.313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Brian Balbas, Public Works April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1007 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1008 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1009 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1010 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1011 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1012 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1013 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1014 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1015 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1016 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1017 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1018 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1019 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1020 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/118 approving the fourth extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD03-08791, for a project being developed by ADP Freedom 7, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, El Sobrante area. (District I) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement needs to be extended. The developer has not completed the required improvements and has requested more time (Approximately 75% of the work has been completed to date.) By granting an extension, the County will give the developer more time to complete the improvements and keep the bond current. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement will not be extended and the developer will be in default of the agreement, requiring the County to take legal action against the developer and surety to get the improvements installed, or revert the development to acreage. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, ADP Freedom 7, LLC c/o The True Life Comm., Platte River Ins. Company C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Approving the fourth extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD03-08791, El Sobrante area. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1021 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/118 SD03-08791 Subdivision Agreement Extension MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/118 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1022 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/18/2017 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/118 IN THE MATTER OF approving the fourth extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD03-08791, for a project being developed by ADP Freedom 7, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, El Sobrante area. ( District I) WHEREAS the Public Works Director, having recommended that she be authorized to execute the fourth agreement extension which extends the Subdivision Agreement between ADP Freedom 7, LLC and the County for construction of certain improvements in SD03-08791, through August 10, 2017, El Sobrante area. Approximate Percentage of Work Complete: 75% Anticipated Date of Completion: March 2018 Bond No: 41202046 Date: July 16, 2010 Extension Reason: Work delayed due to poor market conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, 925 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 18, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Jocelyn LaRocque, Engineering Services, Sherri Reed, Design and Construction, ADP Freedom 7, LLC c/o The True Life Comm., Platte River Ins. Company April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1023 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1024 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1025 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1026 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1027 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1028 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1029 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Board of Supervisors, as the Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: APPROVE the Right of Way Contract and ACCEPT the Grant of Easement dated March 16, 2017, from the West County Wastewater District for property rights located on and covering a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 408-130-028 and 408-190-031 in Richmond, pursuant to Section 31 of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act. (Project No. 7527-6F8740) AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute the Right of Way Contract on behalf of the District. DIRECT the Real Estate Division to have the above referenced Grant of Easement recorded in the Office of the County Clerk-Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Olivia D. Reynolds-Freeman (925) 313-2306 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Wiley Osborn, Information Technology, Ed Turner, Flood Control C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks Levee Remediation Project, Richmond area. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1030 BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2015, this Board approved the proposed project and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration pertaining to the Project. SCH #2015052028. These property rights are required for the San Pablo and Wildcat Creek Levee Remediation Project in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The project will not have sufficient land rights to allow construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. ATTACHMENTS Grant of Easement - San Pablo & Wildcat Creek Levee Remediation Project Right of Way Contract April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1031 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1032 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1033 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1034 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1035 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1036 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1037 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1038 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1039 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/131 approving the vacation of a Grant Deed of Development Rights covering four parcels of property located on Golf Course Road in Antioch, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (WL72RP Project – FS1500149). FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact. BACKGROUND: A Grant Deed of Development Rights, recorded September 3, 1998, as Instrument No. 98-0212648-00 – a negative easement – encumbers Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 072-510-001, -002, -003 and -004 (Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively), as well as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 072-510-005, -006, -007, and -008 (Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively), which are APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Olivia D. Reynolds-Freeman, (925) 313-2306 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Vacation of a Grant Deed of Development Rights Covering Four Parcels Located on Golf Course Road, Antioch April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1040 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) located on Golf Course Road, in Antioch. The Grant Deed of Development Rights was recorded to secure the future payment of Drainage Area 55 fees, which are paid when property is developed. On February 4, 2010, the Drainage Area 55 fee obligation in the amount of $64,608.00 was paid for Parcels 1 & 2, and on August 12, 2015, the Drainage Area fee obligation of $32,402.00 was paid for Parcels 3 & 4. Therefore, the condition required to vacate the Grant Deed of Development Rights as to Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 has been satisfied, and the encumbrance, as it pertains to these parcels, is no longer required for public use. For this reason, District staff recommend that the Board approve the vacation of the Grant Deed of Development Rights only as to Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Grant Deed of Development Rights will continue to encumber each of Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 until the Drainage Area 55 fee obligation is satisfied for each parcel. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown on Parcel Map MS 357-301-09 (Book 205 Parcel Map page 4 & 5) would retain the encumbrance of the Grant Deed of Development Rights even though the condition for vacating that encumbrance has been satisfied. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/131 Golf Course Rd., Antioch Attach to Resolution MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2017/131 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1041 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/131 ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/131 approving the vacation of a Grant Deed of Development Rights covering Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown on Parcel Map MS 357-301-09 (Book 205 Parcel Map pages 4 & 5), located off of Golf Course Road. Antioch Area. District III. Project No. WL72RP – FS1500149 The Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RESOLVES THAT: A Grant Deed of Development Rights, recorded September 3, 1998, as Instrument No. 98-0212648-00 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder, encumbers Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 072-510-001, -002, -003 and -004 (Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively), as well as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 072-510-005, -006, -007, and -008. This Board determines that the Grant Deed of Development Rights covering parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 (together, the “Vacation Area”) area depicted in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is no longer required for public use (Government Code Section 25367). This Board declares that the Grant Deed of Development Rights covering the Vacation Area is HEREBY ORDERED VACATED. From and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the Vacation Area is no longer subject to the Grant Deed of Development Rights. Contact: Olivia D. Reynolds-Freeman, (925) 313-2306 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1042 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1043 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1044 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Jeffrey Bustamante, Timothy Feradoures, Marty Gray, Lupita Guadian, Gloria Magee, and Tisa Tatum; DENY amended claim filed by Gloria Magee; DENY late file claim filed by Queen Bayless-Jackson & Robert Jackson. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Jeffrey Bustamante: Property claim for stolen wallet in the amount of $20.00 Timothy Feradoures: Property claim for damage to vehicle in the amount of $252.11 Marty Gray: Personal injury claim for slip and fall in the amount of $650,000.00 Lupita Guadian: Property claim for lost or stolen cell phone in the amount of $549.00 Gloria Magee: Personal injury for trip and fall in the amount of $200,000.00 Tisa Tatum: Personal injury claim for HIPAA violation in the amount of $10,000.00 Gloria Magee: Request that Board of Supervisors accept an amended claim Queen Bayless-Jackson & Robert Jackson: Request that Board of Supervisors accept a late claim APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott Selby 925.335.1900 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1045 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.335.1906 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board Members meeting reports for March 2017 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1046 ATTACHMENTS District I March 2017 Report District II March 2017 Report District IV March 2017 Report District III March 2017 Report April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1047 Supervisor John Gioia March – 2017 Monthly Meeting Statement Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc.). *Meeting Date: March 21, 2017 *Meeting: Senate Public Safety Committee *Location: Sacramento, CA Supervisor sought reimbursement from the County for one meeting that he attended in his capacity as a County Supervisor during the month of March, 2017. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1048 Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report March 2017 Date Meeting Location 1 Orinda Community Event Orinda 1 Mental Health Commission San Pablo 3 Earn & Learn kick off Concord 3 Joint Conf Committee Martinez 5-7 CCCERA Monterey 7 Board of Supervisors Martinez 8 CCCERA Concord 8 LAFCO Martinez 8 TRAFFIX Danville 9 EHSD Assessment Danville 9 Street Smarts San Ramon 9 East Bay Innovation Awards Oakland 11 Sentinels of Freedom event Danville 13 Public Works Danville 13 Internal Operations Martinez 14 Board of Supervisors Martinez 15 TriValley Cities Meet Livermore 16 CCCTA Concord 16 StreetSmarts Danville 16 ABAG Oakland 18 Young Childrens Forum Pleasant Hill 21 Board of Supervisors Martinez 21 Traffix Danville 22 CCCERA Concord 23 Recycle Smart Bd Meeting Walnut Creek 24 EBRCS Alameda 24 Lafayette Citizen Yr Lafayette 25 Danville Town Hall Danville 28 Board of Supervisors Martinez 29 Animal Shelter Tour Martinez 29 Moraga State of the Town Moraga 30 Danville State of Town Danville 30 Redefining Mobility San Ramon April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1049 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff March 2017 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 3/1/2017 BAAQMD Board Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/1/2017 CCTA Planning Committee Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 3/3/2017 Earn and Learn Event Concord Community Outreach 3/3/2017 CCHP JCC Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 3/6/2017 DCC In Person Meeting w/Legislators Sacramento Water Advocacy 3/7/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 3/8/2017 Airport Committee Meeting Concord Decisions on agenda items 3/9/2017 CSAC Regional Meeting Bakersfield Decisions on agenda items 3/10/2017 DCC In Person Meeting Sacramento Water Advocacy 3/13/2017 Legislation Committee Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 3/14/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 3/15/2017 BAAQMD Board Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/15/2017 CCTA Board Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 3/16/2017 ABAG Executive Committee San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/17/2017 Family Justice Board Meeting Concord Decisions on agenda items 3/22/2017 BAAQMD Budget and Finance Committee San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/23/2017 BAAQMD Mobile Source Committee Mtg San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/23/2017 CCCSWA Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 3/24/2017 ABAG Administrative Meeting San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/26/2017 Contra Costa MEDS Coalition Event Walnut Creek Community Outreach 03/27/17 Finance Committee Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 03/27/17 CCCSWA Personnel Committee Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 03/28/17 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 03/30/17 BAAQMD Legislative Committee San FranciscoDecisions on agenda items 3/31/2017 DCC In Person Meeting Sacramento Water Advocacy April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1050 Date Meeting Name Location 1-Mar NACO Legislative Conference Washington D.C. 2-Mar Town Hall Meeting with Morgan Territory Residents Clayton 6-Mar Meeting with Patricia Tanquary, Contra Costa Health Plan Brentwood 6-Mar Meeting with Supervisor Mitchoff and Lobbyiest Cathy Christian Sacramento 6-Mar Meeting with Senator Steve Glazer Staff Sacramento 6-Mar Meeting with Assemblyman Tim Grayson Sacramento 7-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 8-Mar Airport Committee Meeting Concord 8-Mar LAFCO Meeting Martinez 9-Mar Meeting with Bethel Island MAC Member, Pam Allen Brentwood 9-Mar Meeting with Ralph Strauss, SDG Architects Brentwood 9-Mar Morgan Territory Site Tour Clayton 9-Mar East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority Meeting Antioch 9-Mar State Route 4 Bypass Authority Meeting Antioch 9-Mar Transplan Meeting Antioch 10-Mar Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Brentwood 10-Mar Phone Meeting with County Water Agency, Ryan Hernandez Brentwood 10-Mar Meeting with Joy Motts, Rivertown Townsquare Brentwood 10-Mar Antioch Chamber of Commerce Inaugural Gala Antioch 10-Mar Brentwood Chamber of Commerce Inaugural Gala Brentwood 11-Mar Morgan Territory Site Tour Clayton 11-Mar Town Hall Meeting with Morgan Territory Residents Clayton 11-Mar Meeting with Leon Road Residents Clayton 13-Mar Legislative Committee Meeting Martinez 13-Mar Internal Operations Committee Meeting Martinez 13-Mar Phone Meeting with Erik Vink, Delta Protection Commission Brentwood 13-Mar Discovery Bay Delta Tunnels Town Hall Discovery Bay 14-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 14-Mar Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Martinez 14-Mar Housing Authority Meeting Martinez Super vi sor Di ane Bur gi s - Mar ch 2017 AB1234 Repor t ( Gover nment Code Sect i on 53232. 3( d) r equi r es t hat member s l egi sl at i ve bodi es r epor t on meet i ngs at t ended f or whi ch t her e has been expense r ei mbur sement ( mi l eage, meal s, l odgi ng, et c) . April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1051 15-Mar Meeting with Lavonna Martin, Housing and Homeless Services Brentwood 15-Mar Meeting with Joel Devancourt, Greenbelt Alliance Brentwood 15-Mar Meeting with Nathan Johnson, Veterans Services Brentwood 15-Mar Meeting with Tom Hansen, IBEW 302 Brentwood 16-Mar Phone Meeting with John Kopchik, Department of Conservation and Development Brentwood 16-Mar 2017 CCC CSAC Institute Martinez 16-Mar Delta Protection Commission Meeting Rio Vista 17-Mar Morgan Territory Site Tour Clayton 20-Mar Fire & Medical Services Ad Hoc Meeting Brentwood 21-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 22-Mar Meeting with Dan Geiger, Human Services Alliance Martinez 22-Mar Meeting with the Deputy District Attorneys' Association Martinez 22-Mar Meeting with Nick Draper, Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association Concord 22-Mar Tri Delta Transit Meeting Antioch 23-Mar Delta Stewardship Council Meeting Brentwood 23-Mar Meeting with John Kopchik and Staff, Department of Conservation and Development Brentwood 23-Mar Meeting with Patrice Guillroy, Contra Costa Reentry Network Brentwood 23-Mar Meeting with Susan Junfish, Parents for a Safer Environment Brentwood 23-Mar Meeting with Jim Mattison, The Discovery Bay Community Foundation Brentwood 23-Mar Meeting with Public Works Staff Brentwood 23-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood 24-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood 25-Mar Contra Costa Farm Bureau Annual Dinner Event Antioch 27-Mar Meeting with Steve Ohmstede, Chair of the Knightsen CSD Brentwood 27-Mar Meeting with Rev. Will McGarvey, Interfaith Council of Contra Costa Brentwood 27-Mar Meeting with Linda Best, East Bay Conservation Project Brentwood 27-Mar Meeting with Kewal Krishan, APCA Brentwood 27-Mar Constituent Meeting Brentwood 27-Mar Meeting with Randy Sawyer, Environmental Health Department Brentwood 27-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood 28-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez 28-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1052 29-Mar Meeting with Brandon Banks, Public Defenders' Association Martinez 29-Mar Constituent Meeting Martinez 29-Mar Library Commission Interview for District 3 seat Martinez 29-Mar Meeting with David Twa, County Administrator Martinez 29-Mar Meeting with Lara Delaney, County Administrator's Office Martinez 29-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Martinez 30-Mar Meals on Wheels Site Tour Oakley 30-Mar Coffee with the Veterans - Commanders Meeting Brentwood 30-Mar Meeting with Scott Rafferty, Meals on Wheels Brentwood 30-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood 31-Mar Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Brentwood 31-Mar Morgan Territory Conference Call with Public Works Brentwood * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1053 Purpose Business Meeting Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Community Outreach Community Outreach Business Meeting Community Outreach Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Super vi sor Di ane Bur gi s - Mar ch 2017 AB1234 Repor t ( Gover nment Code Sect i on 53232. 3( d) r equi r es t hat member s l egi sl at i ve bodi es r epor t on meet i ngs at t ended f or whi ch t her e has been expense r ei mbur sement ( mi l eage, meal s, l odgi ng, et c) . April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1054 Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1055 Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Community Outreach Community Outreach Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting Business Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1056 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Fatima Matal Sol, 335-3307 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:April 2017 as Alcohol Awareness Month April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1057 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/144 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_144 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1058 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/144 Recognizing April as Alcohol Awareness Month WHEREAS, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in 2010; and WHEREAS, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States and more than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinking; and WHEREAS, according to the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, in Contra Costa in 2014 there were 345 non-fatal emergency department visits by youth under the age of 20, the reason for their visit was classified as “alcohol only” and 6 cases of non-fatal hospitalizations among youth classified as “alcohol only;” and WHEREAS, The results of the 2013-2015 California Healthy Kids Survey statewide data reported that approximately 29.1% of 11th grade students drank alcohol within the past 30 days and approximately 17.6% reported binge drinking in the past 30 days; and WHEREAS, it takes a comprehensive school and community prevention approach to effectively educate youth on the dangers of underage drinking; and WHEREAS, Project SUCCESS is an Evidence Based Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) prevention program to help educate youth about the harms associated with substance use. Project Success is currently implemented at nine middle schools throughout Contra Costa as well as at Juvenile Hall. During the 2015-2016 school year, Project SUCCESS staff conducted 756 AOD screenings and 270 referrals to other programs including youth substance use disorders treatment; and WHEREAS, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a nonprofit working to protect families from drunk driving, drugged driving and underage drinking. MADD also supports drunk and drugged driving victims and survivors at no charge; and WHEREAS, Alcohol and Other Drugs Services (AODS) has strengthened their collaboration with MADD, the Office of Education, Community Based Providers and the AOD Advisory Board to reduce youth access to alcohol and change community norms that support underage drinking; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors declares April 2017 as Alcohol Awareness Month in Contra Costa County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors call upon all citizens, parents, youth, governmental agencies, public and private institutions, businesses and workplaces, hospitals, and schools in the County to support efforts to reduce and prevent underage drinking. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1059 PR.4, C.11 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1060 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/145 to take the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Idle Free Pledge and encourage Contra Costa County employees and residents to also take the Idle Free Pledge. FISCAL IMPACT: Reducing the amount of time a car idles can reduce gasoline costs. For individuals who take the Idle Free Pledge, this could lead to a reduction in personal funds spent on gasoline. Because the Idle Free Pledge will also reduce the amount of ozone emitted by vehicles, health care costs associated with the negative health impacts of gasoline emissions could also decrease. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan identifies on-road transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Contra Costa County, constituting 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 and 47 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. The Climate Action Plan calls for a 28 percent reduction in emissions from the on-road transportation sector by 2035. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified car exhaust as the number one source of poor air quality in the summertime, with negative impacts on public health including aggravated asthma, coughing or difficult breathing, decreased lung function, cardiovascular problems, and chronic bronchitis. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jody London, 925-674-7871 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Bay Area Air Quality Management District Idle Free Pledge April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1061 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) estimates that idling in personal vehicles wastes about three billion gallons of fuel and generates about 15 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. U.S. DOE states that eliminating the unnecessary idling of personal vehicles would be the same as taking five million vehicles off the roads. The Contra Costa County Spare the Air Resource Team, a project of the BAAQMD, has instituted an Idle Free Pledge. Individuals who take the Idle Free Pledge agree that they will turn off their vehicle’s engine when it is parked or not in use, for example when waiting to pick someone up from school, sports practice or the library, or checking email and voicemail. The BAAQMD finds that individual drivers can save fuel and reduce their carbon footprints if they go “idle free.” CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the members of the Board of Supervisors do not take the Idle Free Pledge, the Board will forego an opportunity to publicize and achieve the Climate Action Plan goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Reducing greenhouse emissions from the transportation sector can provide cleaner air for Contra Costa County children, and reduce the occurrence of asthma and other health impacts. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/145 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_145 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1062 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/145 Promoting an Idle Free Bay Area WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan identifies on-road transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Contra Costa County, constituting 45 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 and 47 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2013; and WHEREAS, the Climate Action Plan calls for a 28 percent reduction in emissions from the on-road transportation sector by 2035; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified ozone from on-road transportation as a significant contributor to poor air quality in the summertime, with negative impacts on our health including aggravated asthma, coughing or difficult breathing, decreased lung function, cardiovascular problems, and chronic bronchitis; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that idling in personal vehicles wastes about three billion gallons of fuel and generates about 15 million tons of carbon dioxide annually; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy states that eliminating the unnecessary idling of personal vehicles would be the same as taking five million vehicles off the roads; and WHEREAS, the BAAQMD finds that individual drivers can save fuel and reduce their carbon footprints by up to 1,500 pounds of greenhouse gases per year if they go “idle free”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will take the BAAQMD Idle Free Pledge, and encourages Contra Costa County employees and residents to also take the Idle Free Pledge. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1063 PR.1, C.9 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1064 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/135 proclaiming May 11, 2017 as "Bike to Work Day" in Contra Costa County;1. AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to sign a memorandum requesting County Department Heads participate in outreach efforts to their employees for Bike to Work Day. 2. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Outreach materials are provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and "511 SF Bay." Materials will be distributed through existing County procedures. BACKGROUND: The objective of Bike to Work Day is to encourage County commuters to try bicycling to work on this occasion by offering a variety of incentives such as a raffle for prizes, and by providing energizer stations throughout the County with refreshments and educational materials for bicycle commuters. Once individuals try bicycling to work it is hoped that they will continue to commute by bicycle one or more days a week. Bicycling is excellent exercise, non-polluting and an energy efficient form of transportation. National Bike Month and California Bike Commute Week are both in May. All nine Bay Area counties are participating in Bike to Work Day on May 11th at some level. Bike to Work Day in the San Francisco Bay Area APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jamar Stamps (925) 674-7832 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Bike to Work Day 2017 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1065 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) is primarily funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission with the help of financial donations from event sponsors and volunteers. There will be over 200 energizer stations throughout the Bay Area where cyclists can stop by for refreshments and promotional materials. Thirty-seven energizer stations will be sponsored in Contra Costa County, including one at the Martinez Amtrak Train Station and one at the foot of the Benicia/Martinez Bridge (Mococo Road). 511 Contra Costa has requested volunteers for the two aforementioned energizer stations. DCD staff contact information will be provided in the outreach memorandum for County employees interested in volunteering. Energizer station shifts typically last two hours during peak commute periods (6:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). 511 Contra Costa provides the necessary materials to hand out to Bike to Work Day participants. The attachment includes a poster for Bike to Work Day and information about the May 11th event, as well as a transmittal memo from the County Administrator to County Department Heads requesting each department encourage their employees to participate in the Bike to Work Day event. Additional information, including the location of energizer stations within the County and throughout the Bay Area, is available on the website at http://www.youcanbikethere.com/. With the Board's approval, posters and other outreach materials will be distributed to County departments for their use in outreach to County employees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the resolution is not approved, the County will not encourage its employees to participate in "Bike to Work Day." AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/135 BtWD Memo - CAO BtWD Poster - English BtWD Poster - Spanish MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_135 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1066 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/135 IN THE MATTER OF PROCLAIMING MAY 11, 2017 AS "BIKE TO WORK DAY" WHEREAS, breathing clean air is vital to healthy lungs and life; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa encourages its employees and citizens to bicycle in order to improve air quality and promote the health benefits of bicycling; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa acknowledges that bicycling to work is viable commute mode to improve the "livability" of communities by reducing traffic noise and congestion; and WHEREAS, Bike to Work Days have proven effective in converting drivers into bicyclists and educating citizens about the public health benefits of bicycling to work regularly ; and WHEREAS, National Bike Month and California Bike Commute Week are in May; and WHEREAS, all nine Bay Area counties are participating in Bike to Work Day on May 11, 2017 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors proclaims May 11, 2017, as "Bike to Work Day" in Contra Costa County. Contact: Jamar Stamps (925) 674-7832 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1067 C.8 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1068 County of Contra Costa Office of the County Administrator MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2017 TO: All Departments FROM: David Twa, County Administrator SUBJECT: BIKE TO WORK DAY May 11, 2017 is Bike to Work Day and County Departments are being encouraged to participate in outreach efforts to promote the event. The objective of Bike to Work Day is to encourage County commuters to try bicycling to work on this occasion by offering a variety of events such as a raffle for prizes and energizer stations throughout the County. National Bike Month and California Bike Commute Week are both in May. All nine Bay Area counties are participating in Bike to Work Day on May 11 at some level. Energizer stations providing refreshments and educational materials to Bike to Work Day participants will be located at the Martinez Capitol Corridor Train Station, the foot of the Benicia/Martinez Bridge (Mococo Road) as well as at a variety of sites throughout the County. More information on the event and locations of energizer stations throughout the County can be found at this website: http://youcanbikethere.com/energizer/ If County employees are interested in volunteering for one or more shifts at either of the two Martinez energizer stations (Martinez Capitol Corridor Train Station or Benicia/Martinez Bridge (Mococo Road)), please use the contact information provided below to sign-up. Energizer station shifts typically last two hours during peak commute periods (6:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). 511 Contra Costa provides the necessary materials to hand out Bike to Work Day participants. Please display the poster(s) attached to this memo within your department. If you have any questions, please contact Jamar Stamps, Conservation and Development Department at 925-674- 7832 or jamar.stamps@dcd.cccounty.us April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1069 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1070 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1071 RECOMMENDATION(S): Recognize April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Child Abuse Prevention Month April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1072 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/143 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_143 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1073 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2017/143 Child Abuse Prevention Month. WHEREAS: as a community, we have a responsibility to nurture and protect our children and help ensure healthy and productive adults; and WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect affect children of all ages, races, and income, and are 100 percent preventable; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County, Child Protective Services (CPS), a program of Children & Family Services, within the Employment and Human Services Department, protects children through response, intervention, investigation, and preventive services; and WHEREAS, in 2016, CPS in Contra Costa County received and investigated more than 7,700 referrals of children potentially in harm's way; and WHEREAS, in 2016, there were 1,150 verified cases of child abuse in Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, the life time economic burden per victim of $307,545, and the total annual economic burden of child abuse in Contra Costa is $359.3 million, underscoring the financial importance to Contra Costa of preventing a single child from becoming a victim; and WHEREAS, CPS in Contra Costa County provides services including family maintenance, reunification and permanent placements with resource families; and WHEREAS, all members of the community have a role to play in strengthening families by offering parents the education, support and skills they need to provide healthy safe and nurturing homes for their children; and WHEREAS, scientific studies confirm a direct link between child abuse and a significantly greater risk later in life for alcohol and substance abuse, depression, eating disorders, obesity, sexual promiscuity, smoking, suicide, continued family violence and criminal behavior; and WHEREAS, during periods of economic downturns, families are much more vulnerable and the evidence of abuse increases across all segments of our society; and WHEREAS, a child is reported abused in California every minute of every day; and WHEREAS, in Contra Costa County there are numerous committed agencies, parents, relatives, community volunteers, public policymakers and professionals who collaborate to eliminate child abuse and give children hope, security and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors joins in proclaiming April 2017 to be "Child Abuse Prevention Month", recognizes the efforts made by Children & Family Services of the Employment and Human Services Department and the Child Abuse Prevention Council, and acknowledges both agencies for their dedication to preventing child abuse in Contra Costa County. ___________________ FEDERAL D. GLOVER Chair, District V Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II Supervisor ______________________________________ DIANE BURGIS KAREN MITCHOFF District III Supervisor District IV Supervisor I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1074 By: ____________________________________, Deputy April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1075 PR.3, C.10 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1076 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lauri Byers, (925) 957-8860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing Jeff Eorio San Ramon Valley Unified School District Education Endowment 2017 Honoree April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1077 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/152 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_152 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1078 C.12 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1079 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2017-04 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with this action. BACKGROUND: This action adopts Ordinance No. 2017-04 as introduced on March 28, 2017. The Ordinance will ultimately add the position of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt to the listing of positions exempt from the merit system in County Ordinance Code section 33-5.311. Once adopted the ordinance takes 30 days to go into effect. Once that period has passed, a separate action will come forward to the Board to authorize the transfer of the incumbent of the current Sheriff's Chief of Management Services classification to the new, exempt classification and abolish the old classification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Tanya Williams, 925-335-1714 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robyn Hanson C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Dianne Dinsmore, Human Resources Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance No. 2017-04 to Exempt the classification of Sheriff's Chief of Management Services-Exempt from the merit system April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1080 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The ordinance exempting this classification from the merit system will not be adopted by the Board. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No Impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2017-04 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2017-04 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1081 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-04 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-04 (Exclude from the Merit System the new classification of Sheriff’s Chief of Management Services-Exempt) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I: Section 33-5.311 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Sheriff’s Chief of Management Services- Exempt: 33-5.311 – District attorney and sheriff. (a) Investigators, detectives, and others, paid from the special funds furnished to the district attorney and sheriff under Government Code Sections 29400 ff. and 29430 ff., are excluded. (b) In the district attorney's office, the district attorney program assistant- exempt class, senior deputy district attorneys-exempt, district attorney chief of inspectors-exempt, special counsel, special detectives, chief assistant district attorney-exempt, and assistant district attorney-exempt, are excluded and are appointed by the district attorney. (c) In the sheriff's department, the undersheriff and three commanders are excluded and are appointed by the sheriff-coroner. (d) The secretary to the undersheriff is excluded and is appointed by the sheriff-coroner. (e) The sheriff's executive assistant is excluded and is appointed by the sheriff-coroner. (f) In the sheriff's department, the class of chief of police-contract agency- exempt is excluded and is appointed by the sheriff-coroner. (g) In the sheriff’s department, the class of sheriff’s chief of management services-exempt in excluded and is appointed by the sheriff-coroner. (Ord. Nos. 2017-04, § 1, 3-28-17; 2010-07, § 1, 5-18-10; Ords. 2004-6 § 1, 99- 19, 96-3 § 1, 95-34 § 1, 87-16, 85-55 § 2, 85-29 § 2, 81-70 § 2, 81-32 § I[4], 81- 29, 80-70, 74-72 § 2, 73-9 § 9: former §§ 32-2.610, .602 (5, 6): prior code § 2413 (e, t): Ords. 7047, 1032, 939, 325 § 4) SECTION II: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1082 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-04 supervisors voting for and against it in the ___________________, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON ____________________________________ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By:_________________________ _____________________________ Deputy Board Chair [SEAL] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1083 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1084 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Tom Bloomfield from the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Board of Directors, DECLARE the seat vacant, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (RCD) director recruitment is conducted by the Internal Operations Committee, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to a 1998 RCD resolution ordering that all future directors shall be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election (Public Resources Code Section 9314). The mission of the RCD is to carry out natural resources conservation projects through voluntary and cooperative efforts. The RCD is a non-regulatory agency that works with individuals, growers, ranchers, public agencies, non-profit organizations and corporations to accomplish its mission. The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service provides technical support for the RCD's programs. On April 7, 2017, RCD Director Tom Bloomfield resigned from the RCD Board (see attached). Therefore, it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to declare and post notice of vacancy and recruit for a replacement director. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:DECLARE VACANCY ON CONTRA COSTA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1085 ATTACHMENTS Letter of Resignation from Tom Bloomfield, RCD Director April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1086 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1087 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Geoffrey E. Meredith, DECLARE a vacancy in the At-Large Seat #2 on the Arts & Culture Commission of Contra Costa County, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Arts and Culture Commission advises the Board of Supervisors in matters and issues relevant to Arts and Culture, to advance the arts in a way that promotes communication, education, appreciation and collaboration throughout Contra Costa County; to preserve, celebrate, and share the arts and culture of the many diverse ethnic groups who live in Contra Costa County; to create partnerships with business and government; to increase communications and understanding between all citizens through art. Most importantly, the Commission will promote arts and culture as a vital element in the quality of life for all of the citizens of Contra Costa County. Mr. Meredith's letter of resignation was received on March 29, 2017. He served 6 years on the Commission. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: At-Large Seat #2 will not be noticed as vacant and the seat will appear to remain filled without the benefit of the appointee in attendance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:RESIGNATION FROM THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1088 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No.5069 to increase revenue from license fees and concession revenues in the amount of $48,000 for fiscal year 2016/17 and appropriate for Airport operating expenditures. FISCAL IMPACT: Funded 100% by the Airport Enterprise Fund. BACKGROUND: In April 2016, JetsuiteX started operating out of Buchanan Field Airport. When the fiscal year 2016/17 budget was established in February, revenue from this new business venture was unanticipated. The appropriation adjustment adds this unanticipated revenue from the license fees and subsequent fuel flowage fees to the Airports’ budget. As a result of this increase in revenue, expenditures will also be increased CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Airport Enterprise Fund budget will reflect understated revenues. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee, (925) 681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT FOR BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1089 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TC 24/27 5069 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Adjustment No. 5069 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1090 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes1091 April 25, 2017Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes1092 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1093 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1094 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT an advocacy position on the following seven bills, as recommended by the Contra Costa County Legislation Committee (Chair Burgis, Vice Chair Mitchoff) at their April 10, 2017 meeting: 1. AB 557 (Rubio): CalWORKs: Victim of Abuse: SUPPORT 2. AB 1164 (Thurmond): Foster Care Placement: Funding: SUPPORT 3. AB 1332 (Bloom): Juveniles: Dependents: Removal: SUPPORT 4. AB 1406 (Gloria): Homeless Youth Advocacy and Housing Program: SUPPORT 5. SB 213 (Mitchell): Placement of Children: Criminal Records Check: SUPPORT 6. SB 282 (Wiener): CalFresh and CalWORKs: SUPPORT 7. AB 1479 (Bonta): Public Records: Supervisor of Records: OPPOSE FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the County from supporting these bills. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Advocacy Positions on State Legislation of Interest to Contra Costa County April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1095 BACKGROUND: At its April 10, 2017 meeting, the Legislation Committee voted unanimously to recommend positions to the Board of Supervisors on the following seven state bills as follows: Bill & Link Author Title Summary Position 1 AB 557 Rubio CalWORKs: Victim of Abuse Expands and modifies the circumstances for waiving the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program requirements for victims of abuse. Support 2 AB 1164 Thurmond Foster Care Placement: Funding Establishes the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children to facilitate access to child care for foster youth and the families with whom they are placed through the provision of child care vouchers and/or payments, navigator services, and trauma-informed training and coaching for child care providers Support 3 AB 1332 Bloom Juveniles: Dependents: Removal Establishes a specific standard for removal of a dependent child from the physical custody of a noncustodial parent. Support 4 AB 1406 Gloria Homeless Youth Advocacy and Housing Program Establishes the Homeless Youth Advocacy and Housing Program to award grants to up to 10 local continuums of care that demonstrate the ability to contract with service provider capable of providing housing assistance and supportive services to homeless youth with the goal of transitioning youth towards self-sufficiency. Support 5 SB 213 Mitchell Placement of Children: Criminal Records Check Alters the background check process for prospective foster and adoptive parents by establishing a list of non-exemptible crimes, a list of crimes for which an exemption may be granted and a list of presumptively exemptible crimes. Support 6 SB 282 Wiener CalFresh and CalWORKs Would authorize a county to provide employment services to a noncustodial parent of a child receiving benefits under the CalWORKs Program,establish the CalFresh Restaurant Meal Program, and require the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to seek a federal waiver to allow counties participating in the CalFresh Employment and Training to offer subsidized employment to able bodied adults without dependents. Support 7 AB 1479 Bonta Public Records: Supervisor of Records: Fines Amends the Public Records Act. Requires public agencies to identify a supervisor of records who shall review a determination by the agency that a request for records is denied. Oppose April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1096 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22063 to add one permanent full-time Housing Services Coordinator (VQHL) at salary level ZA5-1699 ($6,225 - $7,566) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $148,209, which includes an estimated pension cost of $32,234. The cost will be offset 100% with budgeted Third Party funding. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add a Housing Services Coordinator for its Health, Housing & Homeless Services Division. A full time Housing Services Coordinator is needed to oversee Contra Costa County’s new homeless Coordinated Entry (CE) system of care. Coordinated Entry (CE) program is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This program will stream line access to housing and services while addressing barriers enabling the right resources to get to the right people at the right time. 100% of the funding for this APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one permanent full-time Housing Services Coordinator in the Health Services Department April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1097 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) position comes from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Coordinated Entry Program Grant. The Department has determined a full time Housing Services Coordinator would be the most appropriate classification to fulfill the needs of this program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health, Housing & Homeless Services Division of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. In addition Health, Housing & Homeless Services Division will be out of compliance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22063 HSD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1098 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22063 DATE 4/3/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0463 Org No. 5731 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one full time Housing Services Coordinator (VQHL) position in the Health Services - Health, Housing & Homeless Division. Proposed Effective Date: 4/26/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $148,209.18 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $37,052.29 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Third Party Funding Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/18/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/18/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1099 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/18/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1100 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22062 to add one permanent full-time Substance Abuse Program Manager (VHGE) at salary level ZA5-1750 ($6,547 - $7,958) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $154,542, which includes an estimated pension cost of $33,903. The cost will be entirely offset 100% with budgeted Third Party funding. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add a Substance Abuse Program Manager for its Youth Services Alcohol and Other Drugs Program. A full time Substance Abuse Program Manager is needed to provide administrative and clinical oversight to ensure the services being provided are in compliance to both Federal and State regulations for all youth Substance Use Disorder (SUD) services in Contra Costa County. The primary responsibility includes program evaluations, need assessments, establish relationships with strategic partners, data collection, analysis and report generation as well as assist community based APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one permanent full-time Substance Abuse Program Manager in the Health Services Department April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1101 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) organizations under contract with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program. 100% of the funding for this position comes from Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block – Set Aside Block Grant. The Department has determined a full time Substance Abuse Program Manager would be the most appropriate classification to fulfill the needs of this program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Program of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22062 HSD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1102 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22062 DATE 4/3/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 466 Org No. 5920 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one full-time Substance Abuse Program Manager (VHGE) position in the Health Services - Behavioral Health DIvision. Proposed Effective Date: 4/26/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $154,542.29 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $38,635.57 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Third Party Funding Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/18/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/18/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1103 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/18/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1104 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22046 to add one Senior Business Systems Analyst (LTVJ) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZB5 1787 ($6,791.81 - $9,101.67) and one Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III (LPTB) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZA5 1694 ($6,194.33 - $7,529.25) in the County Administrator's Office (Law & Justice Systems Division). FISCAL IMPACT: Annual cost of $351,500; annual retirement cost of $68,500. 100% County General Fund, Budgeted: Org. 1095, for the law and justice case management systems implementation and support, increasing the authorized and funded position count for the program from three to five. BACKGROUND: The County Administrator's Office manages and coordinates the integrated case management systems used by the District Attorney, Probation, and Public Defender departments, as well as county-wide justice systems such as the Justice Automated Warrant System and the All County Criminal Justice Information Network. Two staff are currently assigned to coordinate the current mainframe systems and to implement, with support from the Department of Information Technology, justice department staff, and outside vendors, migration from the mainframe to new web-based systems, including the associated interfaces between those systems and the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Julie Enea C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ADD ONE SENIOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST AND ONE INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER ANALYST III POSITION IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1105 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Superior Court and local law enforcement agencies. The mainframe system and migration to modern justice case management systems are complex projects that involve coordination among not only the County's justice partners but also with the Superior Court and the 20+ local law enforcement agencies that file cases with the District Attorney's office and rely on the County's automated warrant system and justice data network. Each project is multifaceted, labor-intensive, and spans many months and, sometimes, years. For example, the typical tasks required to implement a complex data system include defining the requirements; soliciting and evaluating proposals; selecting a new system; negotiating a contract cost, scope of service, and implementation timeline; securing department subject matter experts and orientating them to the project; performing gap analysis, data conversion, and system configuration; defining business rules and work flow; testing, refining, and re-testing programming; training staff; and rolling out the new system and troubleshooting post-implementation issues. As the duration of these projects lengthens, the continued availability of key department subject matter experts diminishes, as only so much of their time can be devoted to automation projects and they, at some point, will get diverted onto primary mission duties. Likewise, if an automation project is allowed to languish, the County also risks losing vendor support, as vendors are generally paid only as progress is made. For these reasons, it is prudent to accomplish automation projects as rapidly as possible and avoid delays and loss of momentum. A programmer/analyst position was added to the County Administrator's Office in 2013 with partial funding from the AB 109 program. However, recruitment for a permanent employee was unsuccessful and, pending the results of a second recruitment, which is in progress, the unit has been relying on temporary agency help. Lacking sufficient human resources to complete the work necessary to implement and troubleshoot the new justice case management systems, the duration of the current projects -- the new District Attorney and Probation Case Management Systems -- has become protracted and the projects risk losing momentum. Staff have been unable to advance the projects rapidly due to a lack of personnel. Due to the critical need to implement these and other new justice systems, we urge the Board to approve the addition of a Senior Business Systems Analyst position and a second Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III position to the Law & Justice Systems Unit of the County Administrator's Office. The positions will supplement the project management, quality assurance / testing, and programming resources within the unit and enable to projects to progress more quickly. They will also provide back-up support for the Business Systems Manager when on vacation or sick leave. The County Administrator's Office has determined that the Senior Business Systems Analyst and Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III job classes will best meet the technical needs of the Unit going forward. With the advent of the new automated systems and the retirement of the mainframe systems, it is likely that the workload of the Law & Justice Systems Unit will require these additional resources indefinitely. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Lacking approval, the Office would be unable to recruit the necessary skills to assist with implementation and maintenance of the law and justice case management systems that are critical to the operation of the District Attorney, Probation, and Public Defender departments, as well as the Superior Court and local law enforcement agencies that depend on the resources of those systems. ATTACHMENTS P300 22046_Add Sr Bus Sys Anal & ISPA III in CAO April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1106 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22046 DATE 3/21/2017 Department No./ Department County Administrator-Law & Justice Sys Budget Unit No. 0235 Org No. 1095 Agency No. 3 Action Requested: ADD one Senior Business Systems Analyst (LTVJ) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZB5 1787 ($6,791.81 - $9,101.67) and one Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III (LPTB) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZA5 1694 ($6,194.33 - $7,529.25) in the County Administrator's Office (Law & Justice Systems Division). Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: 0 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $351,500.00 Net County Cost $351,500.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% County General Fund, Budgeted Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/11/2017 Add one Senior Business Systems Analyst (LTVJ) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZB5 1787 ($6,791.81 - $9,101.67) and one Information Systems Programmer/Analyst III (LPTB) (represented) position at salary plan and pay grade ZA5 1694 ($6,194.33 - $7,529.25) in the County Administrator's Office (Law & Justice Systems Division). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Mary Jane De Jesus-Saepharn 4/11/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1107 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/13/2017 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1108 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22037 to add two (2) full-time Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905 - $3,605); cancel one (1) Secretary-Journey (J3TF) (represented) vacant position No. 12361 at salary plan and grade 3R2 1018 ($3,267 -$4,504) and one (1) Secretary-Advanced (J3TG) vacant position No. 505 at salary plan and grade 3R2 1163 ($3,772 - $4,828) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in annual savings of approximately $22,000, of which approximately $4,000 represent retirement costs. There is no impact to County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) would like to cancel two (2) vacant positions, Secretary-Journey Level and Secretary-Advanced level, and replace these positions with two (2) Clerk-Experienced Level positions to meet the operational needs of the Department. Due to recent staffing reassignments and to meet additional workload in public records research and other areas of the Building Inspection division, DCD would like to fill our current support staff vacancies with the Clerk-Experienced Level. The department historically used the clerical series for these assignments and would like to continue to do so. Thus, DCD proposes cancelling two (2) vacant Secretary positions and replacing these with two (2) Clerk positions. This action will result in a net annual savings of approximately $22,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Victoria Mejia, (925) 674-7726 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Victoria Mejia C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one (1) Secretary-Journey Level and one (1) Secretary Advanced Level and add two (2) Clerk-Experienced Level positions April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1109 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the action is not approved, the Department will not the have appropriate classifications to perform the necessary clerical duties, resulting in work backlog and poor customer service to clients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None ATTACHMENTS P300 22037 - ADD/CANCEL CLERICAL POSITIONS IN DCD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1110 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22037 DATE 2/16/2017 Department No./ Department Conservation and Development Budget Unit No. 0280 Org No. 2651 Agency No. 38 Action Requested: Add two (2) full-time Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions; cancel one (1) Secretary- Journey (J3TF) (represented) vacant position No. 12361 and one (1) Secretary-Advanced (J3TG) vacant position No. 505 in the Dept. of Conservation and Development Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Net annual cost savings of approx $22,000 Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. VM for JK ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BR for JE 3/1/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 3/1/2017 Add two (2) full-time Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905- $3,605); cancel one (1) Secretary-Journey (J3TF) (represented) vacant position No. 12361 at salary plan and grade 3R2 1018 ($3,267-$4,504) and one (1) Secretary-Advanced (J3TG) vacant position No. 505 at salary plan and grade 3R2 1163 ($3,772- $4,828) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Mary Jane De Jesus-Saepharn 3/1/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 3/29/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1111 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 3/29/2017 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1112 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22065 to add one (1) permanent full-time Community Health Worker II (VKVB) at salary plan TC5 1043 ($3,251 - $3,951) position, increase the hours of one (1) part-time Public Health Nutritionist - Project (V9W1) position #15884 at salary plan TC5 1430 ($4,769 - $5,797) from 30/40 to 40/40, and cancel one (1) vacant permanent full-time Home Economist (V9WE) at salary plan TC5 1376 ($4,521 - $5,495) position #8491 in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, these actions will result in approximate annual cost savings of $1,662, including pension cost savings of $401. (Cost savings) BACKGROUND: The Public Health Division of Health Services Department is requesting to add one new Community Health Worker II position and increase the hours of a Public Health Nutritionist – Project from 30 hours a week to full time. These positions are assigned to Public Health APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one Home Economist, add Community Health Worker II and increase the hours of Public Health Nutritionist Project in Health Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1113 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Division’s West County Women, Infant and Children’s (WIC) Food and Nutrition Service Program. Public Health Division has an increased need and found they can effectively use Community Health Workers in their programs, especially in WIC. Given the fact the WIC program is a food and nutrition services program increasing the hours of an existing Public Health Nutritionist will benefit the program and full time positions are historically easer to fill. The department believes these two classifications will better fulfill the needs of the Public Health Division’s WIC Program than the current Home Economist position. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Public Health Division’s Women, Infant and Children’s Food and Nutrition Service Program of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of client care for those we serve. ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22065 HSD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1114 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22065 DATE 4/4/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES - Public Health Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 5828 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one permanent full-time Community Health Worker II position, increase the hours of one permanent part time 30/40 Public Health Nutritionist - Project position #15884 to full time 40/40, and cancel one vacant permanent full- time Home Economist position #8491position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 4/26/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost ($1,661.60) Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY ($276.93) N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost Savings Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/18/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/18/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1115 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/19/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms o f: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1116 RECOMMENDATION(S): Adopt Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22064 to increase the hours of Public Health Nurse – Project (VVX1) position #10848 from 20/40 to 24/40 at salary level LT2 1832 ($8,720 - $10,891) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, there is an annual cost of approximately $29,830, which includes estimated pension costs of $4,390. The cost will be offset with budgeted Hanson's Disease grant funding. (100% Federal) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to increase the hours of Public Health Nurse - Project position #10848 from 20/40 to 24/40. This position resides in the Public Health Division and serves both Hanson’s Disease and Tuberculosis (TB) programs. Currently the incumbent is working 16 hours in the Hanson’s Disease program and four hours in the Tuberculosis (TB) program. The Hanson’s Disease grant requires 20 hours a week instead of the current APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - 925-957-5248 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase hours of a permanent part-time Public Health Nurse - Project in the Health Services Department April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1117 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 16 hours. 100% of the funding for the increase in hours will come from the Hanson’s Disease Grant. The Department has determined an increasing the hours of this Public Health Nurse - Project is appropriate and will meet the needs of the program and its funding. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Public Health Division’s Hanson’s Disease and Tuberculosis (TB) programs will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of patient care for those we serve. In addition there could be the loss of funding because of the Division's inability to meet the requirements of the Hanson's Disease grant funding. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22064 HSD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1118 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22064 DATE 4/3/2017 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5899 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of one permanent Public Health Nurse - Project (VVX1) position #10848 from 20/40 to permanent full-time 24/40 in the Health Services - Public Health Division. Proposed Effective Date: 4/26/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $29,830.22 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $7,457.56 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hanson’s Disease grant funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 4/18/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/18/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1119 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/19/2017 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1120 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22021 to reallocate the classification of Properties Trust Officer (VAVA) (represented) on the salary schedule from salary plan and grade ZB5 1591 ($5,593 - $6,799) to salary plan and grade level ZB5 1591 ($6,870 - $8,350) in the Health Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will have an annual cost of approximately $7,677, including an estimate pension cost of $1,854. The total cost is fully funded by budgeted General Funds. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to reallocate the classification of Properties Trust Officer. This single position classification is allocated in the Conservatorship and Guardianship Program within the Behavioral Health Division. The program provides a range of services to county residents who have been legally referred by the court or hospital, and cannot provide properly for their own needs. The primary responsibility of the position is the management of estates and properties of conservatees and/or APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dorette McCollumn (925) 957-5240 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Reallocate the salary of the Properties Trust Officer classification in the Health Services Department April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1121 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) arrangement for the provisions of these services through contract providers. The duties and responsibilities are highly specialized and require extensive knowledge of Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, California Probate Codes, Federal and State laws related to real estate management. Over the years, the scope of the duties has evolved to include accounting and fiscal program management as the incumbent assumed the fiduciary responsibilities for the program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Given the increase in duties and responsibilities that is being performed in the Public Trust Officer classification, if this action is not approved, this classification will not be appropriately compensated on the salary schedule. ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 22021 HSD April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1122 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 22021 DATE 1/13/2017 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0451 Org No. 0451 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Reallocate the classification of Properties Trust Officer (VAVA) on the salary schedule at salary plan and grade level ZB2-1723 ($6,567-$8,407) in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 04/26/2017 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: $0.00 Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $7,677.37 Net County Cost $7,677.37 Total this FY $1,919.34 N.C.C. this FY $1,919.34 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% County General Funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jo-Anne Linares ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 3/20/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/10/2017 Reallocate the classification of Properties Trust Officer (VAVA) on the salary schedule from salary plan and grade ZB5-1591 ($5,593 - $6,799) to salary plan and grade level ZB5-1591 ($6,870- $8,350) in the Health Services Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Marta Goc 4/10/2017 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/18/2017 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1123 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/19/2017 No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1124 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the State of California, 23rd District Agricultural Association, including full indemnification of the State of California, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $32,500 to provide law enforcement services at the Contra Costa County Fair for the period May 17, 2017 through May 21, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $32,500; 100% State of California reimbursement revenue. BACKGROUND: Each year the State of California provides funding to the Office of the Sheriff to provide law enforcement services at the County Fair. This contract will enable the Sheriff's Office to augment regular deputies with reserve deputies during the event at no cost to the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Sheriff's Office will not be authorized to enter into the contract. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement with the State of California for law enforcement services at the County Fair April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1125 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Agreement #28-895 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc., a nonprofit organization, in an amount not to exceed $25,020 for the Health Services Department’s Communicable Disease Program to provide Zika virus testing coordination, surveillance and outreach, for the period from March 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $25,020 in funding from the Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. for Zika virus testing coordination, surveillance and outreach. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: As of March 2017, the Health Services Department’s Communicable Disease Program has identified twenty-five (25) Zika virus infections among Contra Costa County residents. Currently, only the California Department of Public Health and two commercial laboratories are able to perform Zika virus testing for Contra Costa County residents. The Centers for Disease Control guidance recommends testing of individuals based on symptoms, travel history and health status. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #28-895 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1126 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) To date, the Communicable Disease Program has coordinated the testing of over 600 specimens. The need for testing is not anticipated to stop and the risk of Zika infection persists. Approval of Agreement #28-895 will allow the County to continue testing coordination, surveillance and outreach for the Zika virus, through July 31, 2018. This Agreement includes provisions to indemnify Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the Department will not be able to provide additional Zika virus testing coordination, surveillance and outreach services to Contra Costa County residents. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1127 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Standard Amendment Agreement #29-502-41 (State 14-90053, A05) with the Department of Health Care Services, effective July 1, 2016, to amend Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35 through #29-502-40), to increase the amount payable to County by $2,441,274, from $32,595,452 to a new payment limit not to exceed $35,036,726, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment agreement will result in an increase of $2,441,274 in the FY2016-2017 Drug Medi-Cal Federal Participation. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) provides funding to counties for Substance Abuse Disorder (SUD) prevention and treatment services through a contractual mechanism. This contract is supported by State General Fund, Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant and the Federal Share of reimbursement claimed for Drug Medi-Cal APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment Agreement #29-502-41 with the Department of Health Care Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1128 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) services. On December 2, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Standard Agreement #29-502-34 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #29-502-35 through #29-502-40), with the Department of Health Care Services, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, to provide SUD prevention and treatment services. Approval of this Standard (Amendment) Agreement #29-502-41, will increase funding and make technical adjustment to the budgets for the Drug Medi-Cal Substance Abuse Treatment Services, with no change in the original term, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved the County will not be able to make adjustments to the budget and continue to receive funds to support the Substance Abuse Services, Prevention and Treatment Program. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1129 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from BBVA Compass Foundation to support SBDC operating expenses including a robust data collection and tracking system for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30. 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: County would receive grant funding in an amount not to exceed $5,000 from BBVA Compass Foundation. (No County match) BACKGROUND: The mission of the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) is to promote business growth, job creation and retention. SBDC will target low-to-moderate income residents prioritizing service to those with barriers to employment, including military veterans, youth, and the disabled. Asset creation and development is key to wealth accumulation in our society. Businesses of any size are an asset with tremendous potential to build equity. As recognized experts in the field, the Contra Costa SBDC supports APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:BBVA Compass Foundation grant funding April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1130 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) entrepreneurs to start and grow sustainable businesses. SBDC collects client and service data including revenue and business milestones on a continual basis. Business development, service support achievements, and demographic information are recorded in a data management program specifically developed for Small Business Administration (SBA) funded programs. The results are reported to SBA and other funding sources on a quarterly or semi-yearly basis. The data collection and reporting system is continually improved with more powerful tools to track and report of service delivery, outcomes, and the impact on the low-to-moderate income population and community. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: SBDC would not be able to fully support and maintain current general operating systems for data collection and reporting requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1131 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/137 approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a Boating Safety and Equipment Grant from the California Division of Boating and Waterways, for an initial amount of $87,810, for the re-power of a damaged engine, the purchase of a mud boat, and the purchase of a Forward-Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) camera lens for the Marine Patrol Unit. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue;100% State, $87,810. No County funding. BACKGROUND: The State of California's Division of Boating and Waterways announced a grant opportunity to assist local law enforcement agencies in repairing and maintaining Marine Patrol equipment. The County application will request funding go toward re-power of a damaged engine, the purchase of a mud boat, and the purchase of a FLIR camera lens for the Marine Patrol Unit. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board decide against granting authority to apply for and accept this grant, currently unfunded equipment replacement will continue to be deferred or be purchased with County funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Boating Safety and Equipment Grant April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1132 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/137 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1133 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/137 IN THE MATTER OF: Applying for and Accepting the FY 2017/2018 State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Equipment Grant. WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the California Division of Boating and Waterways Equipment Grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: Authorizes the Sheriff-Coroner, Undersheriff or the Sheriff's Chief of Management Services, to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any action necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the State of California for the Equipment Grant. Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1134 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/136 approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner or designee, to apply for and accept a California Division of Boating and Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant in an initial allocation of $200,000 for the abatement of abandoned vessels and the vessel turn in program on County waterways for the period beginning October 1, 2017 through the end of the grand funding availability. FISCAL IMPACT: $200,000; 90% State, 10% In kind match (Budgeted). BACKGROUND: The California Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) is prepared to award Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange grant to the Office of the Sheriff to assist the Sheriff's Marine Patrol with the removal of abandoned vessels and water hazards. The funding provided by this grant will enable the Marine Patrol Unit to remove abandoned vessels and identified hazards to vessel navigation in a continued effort to protect life and property on the waterways within Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:California Division of Boating and Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1135 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this request will result in the loss of State funding designed to significantly increase the safety and security of persons and property on the waterways within Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/136 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1136 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/136 IN THE MATTER OF : Applying for and Accepting the FY 2017/2018 California Division of Boating and Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant. WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the California Division of Boating and Waterways Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: Authorizes the Sheriff-Coroner, Undersheriff or the Sheriff's Chief of Management Services, to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra Costa, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any action necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the State of California for the Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange Grant. Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1137 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center, to apply for and accept grant funding in an amount not to exceed $10,000 from the City of Brentwood to provide advisory, training, and outreach services to Brentwood businesses for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive grant funding in an amount not to exceed $10,000 from City of Brentwood. (No County match) BACKGROUND: The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) is hosted by the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa and partially funded by the Small Business Administration. The City of Brentwood grant funding will support and expand the current activities of the SBDC in Brentwood and leverage existing funds to provide additional economic development focused services and employer benefits to the Brentwood community. SBDC directly supports the Brentwood City Council's goal of economic development by attracting APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:City of Brentwood funding April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1138 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) new and retaining current businesses. SBDC activities will achieve positive publicity for Brentwood as it will be a model of collaboration between the City and County for clear, consistent, and strategic investment in economic development. SBDC proposes to perform active outreach to Brentwood based small business owners in addition to delivering group and individual trainings with the goals of business and job retention, new business start-ups, increased revenue, debt/equity investment, and job creation. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Workforce Development Board, Small Business Development Center, will be unable to increase training and outreach services to Brentwood based businesses. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1139 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contracts with agencies listed below, including mutual indemnification, to reimburse the County for forensic services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019: City of Antioch, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Brentwood, Contra Costa Community College District, City of Clayton, City of Concord, Town of Danville, East Bay Regional Park District, City of El Cerrito, City of Hercules, Kensington Community Services District, City of Lafayette, City of Martinez, Town of Moraga, City of Oakley, City of Orinda, City of Pinole, City of Pittsburg, City of Pleasant Hill, City of Richmond, City of San Pablo, City of San Ramon and the City of Walnut Creek. FISCAL IMPACT: The contracts will allow for full cost recovery of providing forensic services to user agencies beginning in fiscal year 2017/18. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff’s Forensic Laboratory will continue to provide forensic services for evidence retrieved at crime scenes, a crime scene expert to provide technical advice for processing complex evidence issues, and witness and expert testimony for services rendered for contracting agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contracts to Provide Forensic Services to Local Law Enforcement Agencies April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1140 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to contract with other agencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1141 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute an agreement with the California Department of Food and Agriculture in an amount not to exceed $26,626 to place and service traps for the detection of the European Grapevine Moth from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The agreement reimburses the Department for all associated costs incurred for the implementation of the European Grapevine Moth Program, in an amount not to exceed $26,626 effective January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. There is no county match of funds. This revenue has been anticipated in the FY16/17 departmental budget. BACKGROUND: The County Department of Agriculture will provide all trapping materials, training of trappers, and deploy appropriate traps and service them at regular intervals according to the Insect Trapping Guide provided by CDFA. If European Grapevine Moth (EGVM) is detected it will be delimited and controlled/eradicated. Costs will be reimbursed by CDFA not to exceed $26,626. EGVM and it's vectors are a clear and present danger to Contra Costa County's agricultural commodity of grapes. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 646-5250 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:European Grapevine Moth Program 16-0612-SF April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1142 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this agreement will result in lost revenue for the department and a possible threat to the agricultural grape industry in Contra Costa County. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1143 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the Town of Moraga, including mutual indemnification, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $900,000 to provide police dispatching services for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No net County cost. $900,000 revenue over four years. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff will provide police dispatching services, limited to law enforcement activity for the Town of Moraga. Services will include dispatching, call-taking, sending and receiving voice and data traffic, answering emergency (911) calls and warrant checks to aid the the town's Police Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this contract will result in the inability of the Sheriff's Office to provide the Town of Moraga with adequate 911 Dispatcher Services resulting in a safety concern for the community, reduced revenue for the Office of the Sheriff and the County General Fund. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown, 335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Police Dispatching Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1144 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1145 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to submit a funding application to Contra Costa Community Awareness & Emergency Response (CAER) Group, Inc., on behalf of the County, in an amount not to exceed $1,400 for Emergency Preparedness Kits for Community Wellness & Prevention Program employees in the field, for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this funding application will result in a maximum amount of $1,400 from Contra Costa Community Awareness Wellness & Prevention Program employees for Emergency Preparedness Kits for employees working in the field. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County has approximately 10,933 children with major disabilities. The number is higher than the other Bay Area Counties. Recent emergency incidents have shown the importance and complexity of emergency planning for populations with disabilities. CAER Emergency Preparedness Team is offering grants to be used to support employees in the field in the event APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Submission of funding Application #28-894 to Contra Costa Community Awareness & Emergency Response (CAER) Group, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1146 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of an emergency. If this application is approved, the Community Wellness & Prevention Program will have permission to apply for funds for emergency preparedness kits for employees working in the field at schools in low income communities and community events at parks and open spaces through March 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this application is not accepted, the County will not have permission to apply for the funds to support 72 hour Emergency Preparedness Kits for Community Wellness & Prevention Program employees conducting services in the field. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1147 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to enter into a contract with Admin Inc., for Administrative Support Services, in an amount of $386,172.80 for the term of March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: $386,172.80 General Fund (Budgeted) BACKGROUND: Based on the increase in Public Records request, the Office of the Sheriff is in need of support in general administrative matters. Currently, the Office of the Sheriff has a sworn Lieutenant handling these requests. In order to utilized the sworn position is a capacity to benefit the department a contractor is needed to fill this role. The contractor has institutional knowledge that would greatly benefit the Office of the Sheriff. The Sheriff and the Executive Team have all worked with this contractor in the past and appreciate the quality of work he provides for their studies and inquiries. The contractor is also a member of the bar and has a good working relationship with County Counsel, Risk Management and the District Attorney’s Office. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-335-1553 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Admin Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1148 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action on this item would cause the Office of the Sheriff to continue to use a sworn position for administrative support services and not utilizing the sworn employee in more of a capacity trained for. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1149 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Richard A. Denton, Ph.D, PE, to extend the term from December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2019 and increase the payment limit by $120,000 to a new payment limit of $460,000 for water resource consulting related to the Delta and the San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improvement Study. FISCAL IMPACT: The $120,000 cost will be covered by the combination of funds from the Contra Costa County Water Agency and the Ship Channel Maintenance Assessment District. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development has a contract with Richard A. Denton, Ph.D, PE, of Richard Denton and Associates, to provide water resources consulting for matters relating to the Delta. Dr. Denton provides expert scientific review and comment on numerous items including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California Water Fix (BDCP/CWF), the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, and the San Francisco Bay to Stockton Navigation Improvement Study. Dr. Denton was hired on the basis of his technical expertise and his 42 years of experience in the areas of hydraulics, water quality and water quality modeling. Dr. Denton was previously Water Resources Manager for the Contra Costa Water District and has been involved in Bay Delta activities, including State Water Resources Control Board APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ryan Hernandez (925) 674-7824 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Contract with Dr. Richard A. Denton, Water Resources Consultant April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1150 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (SWRCB) water right and water quality hearings, since 1989. He has extensive experience analyzing Central Valley Project operations and flow and salinity regimes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The term of this contract currently expires on December 31, 2017. The Department seeks to extend his contract for another two years, to expire on December 31, 2019, to ensure that he remains under contract to the County through the completion of the BDCP/CWF planning process, a highly controversial project by the State and federal agencies and water export contractors. The BDCP/CWF application to the SWRCB to change the point of diversion began in January 2016 and the County has filed a formal protest. Dr. Denton is an integral part of the County’s team preparing testimony for this quasi-judicial hearing before the State Water Resources Control Board. The Department also seeks to increase the maximum contract amount from its current level of $340,000 to $460,000. The additional $120,000 will cover the remaining calendar year plus two additional years being added to the contract term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The contract with Dr. Richard Denton will expire on December 31, 2017, leaving the Department without critical expertise in water policy, Delta hydrology, water quality and fisheries during the BDCP/CWF application to the State Water Resources Control Board to change the point of diversion. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1151 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #24-680-32 with Telecare Corporation, a corporation, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Contract #24-680-31, to increase the payment limit by $575,000, from $1,352,909 to a new payment limit of $1,927,909, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 81% Mental Health Realignment; 19% Hospital Utilization Review. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On November 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-680-31 with Telecare Corporation for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, for the provision of mental health gero-psychiatric services and sub-acute care for Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill patients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #24-680-32 with Telecare Corporation April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1152 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the Contract was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #24-680-32 will allow Contractor to provide additional services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be compensated for additional services needed by County’s Behavioral Health Services Division. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1153 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) in an amount not to exceed $5,361,907, for temporary nursing and medical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical, Health Centers Clinics and Detention Facility for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. Since the County is still engaged in the meet and confer process with Teamsters, Local 856, this contract will exclude from the rate sheet work performed by classifications represented by Teamsters. Once an agreement is reached with Teamsters, a separate contract request will be submitted to the Board for approval and authorization. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, the Department may incur contractual expenses of up to $5,361,907 during the proposed contract period, which would be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-473-21 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-473-22) with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017, for the provision of temporary nursing and therapy services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers and Detention Facility. Despite significant efforts to permanently fill vacant positions, the County continues to face a shortage of permanent personnel and per diems to cover necessary shifts in the Health Services Department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, (925) 370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, Marcy Wilhelm, Tasha Scott C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-473-23 with SHC, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1154 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > On March 12, 2016, the County notified the appropriate unions regarding the need to renew this contract. Teamsters, Local 856 responded with a request to meet and confer over this renewal. While the County continues the meet and confer process with Teamsters, the Department requests to execute a contract renewal that excludes from the rate sheet work performed by classifications represented by Teamsters. This will allow the Department to continue utilization of contracted services, ensure continuity of patient care, and prevent disruptions of Expressive Arts Therapy services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have access to agency staff needed to support the Department's efforts at maintaining staffing levels, as needed to respond to ongoing and emergent patient care needs. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1155 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-4 with Minh Hiep Nguyen, M.D., an individual, effective May 1, 2017, to amend Contract #26-721-3, to increase the payment limit by $13,000, from $150,000 to a new payment limit of $163,000, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 8, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-721-3 with Minh Hiep Nguyen, M.D. for the provision of pulmonology critical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-4 will allow the Contractor to provide additional pulmonology critical care services through May 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not provide additional pulmonology critical care services at CCRMC. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-721-4 with Minh Hiep Nguyen, M.D. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1156 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-317-13 with Alternative Family Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Novation Contract #74-317-12 , to increase the payment limit by $231,978, from $744,110 to a new payment limit of $976,088, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and to increase the automatic extension payment limit by $115,989, from $372,055 to a new payment limit of $488,044 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–317-12 with Alternative Family Services, Inc., for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, for the provision of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) youth and their families APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-317-13 with Alternative Family Services, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1157 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-317-13 will allow the Contractor to provide additional MTFC services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, seriously emotionally disturbed children and their families will not have access to Contractor’s additional mental health services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1158 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #74-475-21(3) with Laura Ruano, MFT, effective April 1, 2017, to amend Contract #74-475-21(2), to increase the payment limit by $95,000, from $35,000 to a new payment limit of $130,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% by Federal Medi-Cal and 50% State General Fund. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In November 2016, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #74-475-21(2) with Laura Ruano, MFT, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, for the provision of Medi-Cal specialty mental health services. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the Contract was higher than originally anticipated. Approval of Contract Amendment #74-475-21(3) will allow the Contractor to provide additional mental health services through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Robert Curotto C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #74-475-21(3) with Laura Ruano, MFT April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1159 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, services provided to Contra Costa Mental Health Plan Medi-Cal beneficiaries could be negatively impacted, including access to services, choice of providers, cultural competency, language capacity, geographical locations of service providers, and waiting lists. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1160 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with The Gordian Group, Inc. d/b/a The Mellon Group ("Gordian"), effective April 25, 2017, to increase the payment limit by $500,000, to a new payment limit of $1,000,000, and to extend the termination date to July 28, 2020, to continue to provide Job Order Contracting Program development and implementation services for various County projects. FISCAL IMPACT: Gordian charges a 5% License and Job Order Development Fee if and when a job order is issued to a job order contractor, based on the value of the work. BACKGROUND: In order to be efficient in delivering projects, the County has needed to employ a variety of project delivery methods. One such method is Public Contract Code Section 20128.5, which authorizes counties to award one or more individual annual contracts for repair, remodeling, or other repetitive work to be done according to unit prices. Once an annual contract is awarded, individual projects are then done through APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria, (925) 313-2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with The Gordian Group, Inc. (WW0862) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1161 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) written job orders performed by the job order contractor at the unit prices bid for the annual contract. Such Job Order Contracting (JOC) is a project delivery tool that has been proven to reduce costs, save time, and increase productivity. Job order contracts are typically used for well-defined, recurring or repetitive work where quick execution is essential. It is an appropriate delivery method for any type of repetitive work, especially small renovation jobs. It allows for a longer relationship with the selected contractor as various job orders issued under the contract are performed during the contract term. Because the contractor has been selected and the unit price is fixed (by the project task catalog and the contractor’s adjustment factor), a job order contract allows contractor input prior to design, which can expedite the work. On June 11, 2015, the Public Works Department published a Request for Letters of Interest, seeking letters from firms to furnish, implement, and assist in executing and managing an Indefinite Quantity Contracting/Job Order Contract automated system. One letter was received by the July 7, 2015 deadline from The Gordian Group, Inc. d/b/a The Mellon Group. County staff therefore recommended that the County procure Gordian's services through a Consulting Services Agreement. On July 28, 2015, the Board approved a Consulting Services Agreement with The Gordian Group, Inc. d/b/a The Mellon Group to provide Job Order Contracting Program development and implementation services. Gordian's services include the development and maintenance of a job order contract catalog, also known as a unit price book that contains individual construction tasks for all aspects for general conditions, maintenance, repair and construction of facilities, driveway/parking lots, and other construction-related components used by the County. Gordian also provides training and support to Contra Costa County personnel and contractors for the implementation and success of the JOC program. The JOC Program has been a valuable construction project delivery tool for the term of the JOC contracts. Under the JOC program, the Public Works Department has assigned 47 projects; 13 projects completed, 26 projects which are in construction, 2 projects under review and slated to be completed, and 6 potential projects. As we near the expiration date and reach maximum contract amounts for the existing job order contracts, other projects are still eligible to be accomplished under the JOC program. There is a great need to continue utilizing the JOC program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Amendment No. 1 is not approved, the County will not have the resources to support the JOC program nor will it have the resource to complete deferred maintenance projects as described in the FLIP report and other County construction projects involving repair, remodeling, and other repetitive work. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1162 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to enter into a contract with the Contra Costa County Historical Society in an amount not to exceed $242,520 for continued support in the preservation and indexing of historical County records for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $242,520 over a five-year contract period; 100% County General Fund, Budgeted in fiscal year 2017/18. The contract allocates $45,680 to the Historical Society in fiscal year 2017/18 increasing each year by the CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area not to exceed 3%. The $242,520 reflects the maximum amount the County would pay to the Historical Society if the maximum CPI cap of 3% is reached in each year. BACKGROUND: On September 11, 1979, the Board of Supervisors declared the Contra Costa County Historical Society as the "Official Historical Society" of the County. Since that time, the County and the Society have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship resulting in the establishment of a History Center in the City of Pleasant Hill in 1986. The Historical Center made the Society's unique archive of letters, photos, and other historically significant documents available to the Public. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-335-1036 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONTRACT April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1163 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In 2000, the Society entered into a sub-lease agreement with the County for spaces located at 610 Main Street, Martinez. The County had previously entered into a 10-year lease agreement for spaces comprising 600-610-618 Main Street resulting in surplus space that was made available to the Society. This allowed the Society to establish a presence in Martinez, the County seat. In 2010, the lease was amended, extending the term by two years. In April 2012, the Conservation and Development Department vacated spaces located at 618 Main Street leaving the Historical Society as the only tenant occupying spaced at 600-610-618 Main Street. In an effort to continue supporting the Society, and specifically the History Center, the County Administrator's Office initiated business continuity planning sessions with the Society's Executive Director and Board members resulting in a five-year contract for the period July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. In consideration for the financial support, the County has benefited from professional archiving services made possible by the Society's Board of Directors, Executive Director, and volunteers. Today's action would authorize a new five-year contract with the Historical Society to ensure that the preservation of historical documents and memorabilia will continue. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Contra Costa County Historical Society would have difficulty maintaining a similar level of service to citizens within the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1164 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract with Election Systems & Software, LLC (ES&S) in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the license of elections software, and to provide hardware and software maintenance services and support for the County's voting system for the term of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this contract was anticipated and is included in the Department's 2016-2017 budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: In accordance with the Federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, Contra Costa County is required to have a voting system in place that allows voters with physical and/or visual impairments to vote confidentially and unassisted. The Board of Supervisors approved the initial purchase, licensing, and support of the ES&S voting system on January 11, 2005. The proposed contract provides for the licensing, maintenance, and support required to continue to use the voting system. Under the terms of the contract, the County is obligated to indemnify ES&S for third party claims arising out of misuse of the software or County's election not to receive hardware of software support services from ES&S. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott O. Konopasek, 925-335-7808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Renewal for Hardware and Software License and Maintenance of Voting System April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1165 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Licensing is required to use the HAVA compliant voting system. Without it, the County would not be able to produce, print, and count ballots. Without maintenance and support, the voting system would not be maintained and it would void equipment warranties. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1166 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet in an amount not to exceed $396,418, to provide emergency shelter receiving center services in Central Contra Costa County for children taken into protective custody or transitioning through foster placements for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (70% State; 30% County) FISCAL IMPACT: $396,418: 70% State; 30% County BACKGROUND: The Receiving Center serves as the hub of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) emergency shelter system. It provides temporary care to children who have been taken into protective custody and children and youth who are transitioning into foster placements. The Receiving Center offers a homelike setting and is designed to promote stability in placement, focus on the needs of the individual child, minimize move, and supports permanency at the early stages of EHSD intervention. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Emergency shelter will not be available to temporarily care for children taken into protective custody. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Aspiranet for Central County Receiving Center Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1167 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families," by providing a homelike environment for children entering the Child Welfare System. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1168 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet in an amount not to exceed $410,000, to provide emergency shelter receiving center services in the eastern region of the county for children taken into protective custody or transitioning through foster placements for the period May 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (70% State; 30% County) FISCAL IMPACT: $410,000: 70% State; 30% County BACKGROUND: The Receiving Center serves as the hub of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) emergency shelter system. It provides temporary care to children who have been taken into protective custody and children and youth who are transitioning into foster placements. The Receiving Center offers a homelike setting and is designed to promote stability in placement, focus on the needs of the individual child, minimize move, and supports permanency at the early stages of EHSD intervention. This contract is to add a second Receiving Center in the eastern region of the county. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Aspiranet for East County Receiving Center Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1169 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Emergency shelter will not be available to temporarily care for children taken into protective custody. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families," by providing a homelike environment for children entering the Child Welfare System. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1170 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lutheran Social Services of Northern California, in an amount not to exceed $282,409, to provide transitional housing assistance for emancipated youth for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. (100% State) FISCAL IMPACT: No County Costs: $282,409; 100% State Transitional Housing Program-Plus Funding BACKGROUND: Lutheran Social Services of Northern California provides Transitional Housing Program (THP) - Plus support services to emancipated foster youth up to age 21 who have been referred by the Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP) staff. AB427 authorized THP - Plus funds to counties who are interested in providing transitional housing services to emancipating foster youth. The State THP - Plus program funding provides for cost reimbursement for providing transitional housing services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Housing and support services will not be available to assist youth transitioning from foster care to independent living. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Lutheran Social Services of Northern California for Transitional Housing Assistance for Emancipated Youth April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1171 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families," by providing safe housing and support to assist youth while transitioning from foster care to independent living. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1172 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland, dba UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland, to increase the payment limit by $13,000 to a new payment limit of $28,000 to provide reflective supervision training with no change to the term October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Federal funds CFDA #93.600 Administration for Children and Families BACKGROUND: The Department's Community Services Bureau (CSB) operates childcare centers throughout the county to provide quality early care and education to program eligible families. The Head Start and Early Head Start programs, serving children ages 0 to 5 years, operates in an environment wherein the families face specific environmental challenges that require the supervisors of the childcare programs to have a set of abilities well suited to address the unique needs. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB 925-681-6301 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Monique Young-Edwards, Haydee Ilan, Cassandra Youngblood C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital for Training Services, amendment #1 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1173 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Bureau has identified a specific type of professional development training, Reflective Supervision, that will assist the childcare program supervisors to better serve the population. UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital has a training unit in the Early Intervention Program services, that are a good match for CSB. The board approved the establishment of a contract containing mutual indemnification language with UCSF Benioff to provide a 3-day training services to well equip the childcare program services in the practice of Reflective Supervision on November 1, 2016 (c.43). This board order is to approve a contract amendment for additional training services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, training will not be provided to staff. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1174 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Uplift Family Services, in an amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide family visitation center services to Contra Costa County for the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $150,000: 100% Federal (CFDA No. 93.556) BACKGROUND: The Community Based Family Visitation program provides supervised visitation to parents and their children in a community setting, with parent friendly hours of operation. The Visitation Centers primary activities include: 1) providing a family-friendly environment for supervised visitation; 2) observing parent-child interaction during supervised visits; 3) providing interactive parenting education and family support; 4) modeling and coaching appropriate parent-child interaction; 5) documenting services provided; and 6) consulting with assigned Children and Family Services (CFS) staff. The Visitation Centers, as part of the Progress Step-Down Model in the CFS Visitation Policy, offer an opportunity APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Uplift Family Services April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1175 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for parents to demonstrate their capacity to safely engage with their children. When parents demonstrate that they understand how to keep their children safe, they transition into unsupervised visits and ultimately, children return home. A key component in the Community Based Family Visitation model is that parents and children have more frequent visitation and for longer periods of time. Visits are supervised by Visitation Monitors who provide ongoing mentoring and coaching for the parent. It is our belief that this model allows for a more meaningful connection between the children and family, and has an inspirational effect on the parents continued work towards reunification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vital family visitation center services would not be provided. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families," by providing services to prevent child abuse and thus maintain the family. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1176 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #22-780-16 with John Muir Health, Inc., (dba Community Health Improvement) a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $3,000, for County’s use of a mobile van in Central, East and West Contra Costa County, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Federal Healthcare for the Homeless Grant. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 10, 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #22-780-15 with John Muir Health, Inc. (dba Community Health Improvement) for the County’s use of a mobile van in Central and East Contra Costa County, for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #22-780-16 will allow the County continuous use of John Muir Health, Inc., (dba Community Health Improvement) mobile van to conduct regularly scheduled clinics which offer much needed health care services to low-income families and disadvantaged individuals in Central and East Contra Costa County, through December 31, 2017. This contract includes mutual indemnification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #22-780-16 with John Muir Health, Inc. (dba Community Health Improvement) April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1177 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, many low income families and disadvantaged individuals in Contra Costa County will not receive mobile health services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1178 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #24-628-17 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $332,800, to provide outpatient psychiatric services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 24% Mental Health Services Act; 38% State Mental Health Realignment; 38% Federal Financial Participation. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-628-16 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D, for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services including, but not limited to: diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic training to clinical staff, for the intensive early psychosis intervention (First Hope) Program, located in Concord, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #24-628-17 will allow Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-628-17 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1179 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1180 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #24-837-25 with Daniel May, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $232,960, to provide outpatient psychiatric care services at the West County Mental Health Clinic for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Mental Health Realignment (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On February 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-837-24 with Daniel May, M.D., for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to mentally ill adults in West County for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #24-837-25 will allow the Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric services at the West County Mental Health Clinic through April 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-837-25 with Daniel May, M.D. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1181 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1182 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-872-1 with S/T Health Group Consulting, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $454,000, to provide 340B compliance and price verification recovery audits per Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) requirements at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: In September 2015, the County Administrator approved and the Health Services Manager executed Contract #26-872 with S/T Health Group Consulting, Inc. for the provision of 340B compliance and price verification recovery audits per HRSA requirements at CCRMC for the period from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-872-1 will allow Contractor to continue providing 340B audit services to the Health Services Department for the period April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-872-1 with S/T Health Group Consulting, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1183 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not be in compliance with HRSA requirements. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1184 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-288-8 with Diablo Nephrology Medical Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $750,000, to provide nephrology services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-288-7 with Diablo Nephrology Medical Group, Inc., for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2017 for the provision of nephrology services for Contra Costa Health Plan members. Approval of Contract #27-288-8 will allow Contractor to continue to provide nephrology services through April 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-288-8 with Diablo Nephrology Medical Group, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1185 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized professional health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1186 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-282-15 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $266,240, to provide child psychiatric services at the County’s Juvenile Hall and at the East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 25% Federal Financial Participation; 25% State Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT); and 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2016 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-282-14 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D., for the provision of child psychiatric services, including, diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment at the County’s Juvenile Hall and the East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #74-282-15 will allow the Contractor to continue providing child psychiatry services through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-282-15 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1187 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1188 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-462-4 with Indra Singh, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $266,240, to provide outpatient psychiatric services at the Central County Mental Health Clinic for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Mental Health Services Act. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-462-3 with Indra Singh, M.D., for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017, for the provision of psychiatric services including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to County patients at the Central County Adult Mental Health Clinic. Approval of Contract #74-462-4 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide outpatient psychiatric services at the Central County Mental Health Clinic through April 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-462-4 with Indra Singh, M.D. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1189 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring outpatient psychiatric services in Central County will not have access to Contractor’s services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1190 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-543 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $769,275, to provide mental health services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children and adolescents, for the period from April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. This contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2018, in an amount not to exceed $307,710. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mental health services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems to improve school performance, reduce unsafe behavioral practices, and reduce the need for out-of-home placements. Under Contract #74-543, the Contractor will provide mental health services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed children and adolescents through June 30, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-543 with YWCA of Contra Costa/Sacramento April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1191 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, SED children and adolescents will not have access to mental health services provided by Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1192 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #76-519-9 with Steven A. Harrison, M.D., APC, a professional corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,050,000, for the provision of ophthalmology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 3, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-519-8 with Steven A. Harrison, M.D., APC, for the provision of ophthalmology services including, but not limited to: clinic coverage, consultation, on call coverage, training and medical procedures at CCRMC for the period May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2017. Approval of Contract #76-519-9 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide ophthalmology services at CCRMC through April 30, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-519-9 with Steven A. Harrison, M.D., APC April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1193 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s ophthalmology services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1194 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #77-075 with Minimed Distribution Corp., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $600,000, to provide durable medical equipment services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Under Contract #77-075, the Contractor will provide durable medical equipment services for CCHP members for the period from May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan members will not receive the benefits of durable medical equipment from the Contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-075 with Minimed Distribution Corp. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1195 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Extension Agreement #27-633-14 with PerformRX, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, to extend the term from April 30, 2017 through July 31, 2017 for pharmacy administration services for Contra Costa Health Plan members. FISCAL IMPACT: None, there is no change in the Contract Payment Limit of $95,000,000. This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-633-13, with PerformRX, LLC, for the provision of pharmacy administration services for Contra Costa Health Plan members providing drug utilization review and management, prior authorization procedures, account management, member pharmacy call center, analysis and reporting services and developing partnerships with prescribers and pharmacies, for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. This contract includes mutual indemnification. Approval of Contract Extension Agreement #27-633-14 will allow the Contractor to continue providing pharmacy administration services through July 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, Marcy Wilhelm C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Extension #27-633-14 with PerformRX , LLC April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1196 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this extension is not approved, Contractor will not continue to provide services. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1197 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of Health Services Department, to purchase fifty $20 Safeway supermarket gift cards totaling $1,000 and execute a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $680 with Nob Hill / Raley's supermarket for food and drinks, to be provided to participants of data focus groups for the HIV/AIDS Program, for the period from April 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation grant. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Health Services HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Program provides medical case management services and other support services for approximately 800 people living with HIV/AIDS every year. In order to keep the program’s services relevant and useful to clients, we are conducting focus groups to get more in-depth feedback on ways to improve and better meet the needs of our clients. The data collected from focus groups will be used to design “patient-centered” quality improvement plans. The funding will provide food and a gift card incentive to clients to encourage attendance at our focus groups. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Robert Curotto C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Gift Cards for HIV/AIDS Program April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1198 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, clients participating in focus groups will not receive food or gift card incentives. This may impact our program’s ability to recruit and engage clients in the process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1199 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Kevin Blatter DBA Delta Bay Consulting in an amount not to exceed $298,700 for management consulting services the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $298,700: Administrative Overhead (10% County, 48% State, 42% Federal) BACKGROUND: Contracted services to include, but not limited to strategic planning; monitoring the ongoing status of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) initiatives; review Information Technology projects; analyze business practices development; assist in the implementation of a system of measuring & reporting the average caseload per worker and determining staffing level needs; provide training and guidance to various levels of staff indicated through specific projects by the EHSD Director. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Strategic planning processes and management consulting services would not be available. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Management Services Consultant April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1200 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute Amendment Number 10 to the Customer Support Agreement with Medtel Services, LLC, for the renewal of telecommunications software and equipment maintenance in an amount not to exceed $250,000, for the period April 20, 2017 through April 19, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $250,000 (100% User Fees); $169,200 of the cost is included in Department of Information Technology's (DoIT) Fiscal Year 2017/18 budget and reimbursed by user departments via DoIT's billing process. The remaining $80,800 would be billed out to user departments via DoIT's billing process, on an as-needed basis. BACKGROUND: The DoIT initiates the renewal of the OMNIWorks, Netpath, IRISnGEN and Private Branch Exchange (PBX) maintenance each year. This equipment and software maintenance is essential for the ongoing operation of several of the County's telephone systems including those used by Child Protective Services, the Superior Court's Traffic Department, Elections, and the Tax Collector's Office. These products are all manufactured and sole-sourced directly from MedTel Services, LLC, and the ongoing maintenance is required to maintain compliance and support. This renewal is Amendment number ten to Customer Support Agreement dated April 20, 2007. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: ED WOO (925) 383-2688 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Medtel Equipment and Software Maintenance Renewal April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1201 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No 611.0, County Departments are required to obtain Board approval for costs $100,000. The County Administrator’s Office has reviewed this request and recommends approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: This support is a critical component to maintaining several of the County's telephone systems. Without it, DoIT may be unable to resolve issues that arise during the normal course of County business. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1202 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department, a purchase order with Oracle America, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $158,671 for software support and maintenance renewals for the period May 16, 2017 through May 15, 2020. (10% County; 48% State; $42% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $158,671: 100% Administrative Overhead (10% County; 48% State; $42% Federal) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) needs to renew its Oracle software support and maintenance. Oracle provides the underlying database for CalWIN and Business Objects, which are used to develop EHSD’s CalWIN Information Systems reporting. EHSD utilizes the Oracle database system to keep EHSD’s data warehouse current, in operation, and secured against hacking and malware. Oracle America, Inc. provides the software and maintenance, which is not available through a third party. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, 3-1514 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Oracle America, Inc., Software Support and Maintenance April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1203 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Oracles technical support services are governed by the Oracle Public Sector Agreement, dated November 24, 2015 between Oracle and the County. By agreeing to purchase three years software maintenance and support from Oracle America Inc., EHSD was able to negotiate a discount on the Oracle support. In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No. 611.0, County Departments are required to obtain Board approval for single item purchases greater than $100,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EHSD will be unable to maintain its CalWIN data warehouse, keeping it current, in operation, and secured against hacking and malware. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1204 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Hammons Supply Company, in an amount not to exceed $165,000 for the purchase of miscellaneous custodial supplies and equipment repairs as needed by the three County detention facilities for the period June 1, 2017 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: $165,000. 100% General Fund; Budgeted. BACKGROUND: Hammons Supply Company provides miscellaneous janitorial products and equipment for the three Detention Facilities of Contra Costa County. This vendor offers lower pricing for specific custodial products, such as plastic liners, latex gloves and toilet paper when compared to major county suppliers such as Supply Works. They also have a local warehouse that accommodates quicker delivery and/or pick-up of supplies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Liz Arbuckle, 925-335-1529 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Hammons Supply Company April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1205 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Illumina, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $109,148 to purchase the MiSeq System for the Public Health Laboratory. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funded by State Homeland Security Grant. BACKGROUND: Illumina, Inc. is an industry leader in Next Generation Sequencing equipment, reagents and supplies. Centers for Disease Control and the State laboratory both use the MiSeq system to sequence bacteria and viruses for identification and epidemiology purposes. Sequencing allows public health to link cases in outbreak situations. This system, using deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing, will allow the public health labortory to identify unknown bacteria and viruses in the most accurate manner. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this purchase order is not approved, the Public Health laboratory would not be able to provide DNA and whole genome sequencing of bacteria and viruses for the hospital and the sheriff’s office in emergency situations. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, 313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Melody Hung-Fan C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Illumina, Inc. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1206 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with McKesson Corporation in an amount not to exceed $5,500,000 for the purchase of pharmaceuticals designated as 340B replenishment inventories dispensed through ten (10) Rite Aid pharmacies and one (1) City Center pharmacy located within Contra Costa County, for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Enterprise Fund III budget. Participation in the 340B program allows the Health Plan to maximize savings. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) has entered into the 340B pharmacy program through the Federal Government’s Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA). CCHP received OPA approval to contract with ten (10) local Rite Aid pharmacies and one (1) City Center pharmacy in the 340B program. This program supplies prescription medications to CCHP members at a significantly reduced price structure governed by the OPA. The $5,500,000 request, for a new two year purchase order, maintains drug inventories for our current population. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Patricia Tanquary, 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Mary Buscaglia C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with McKesson Corporation April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1207 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the County would not be able to purchase drugs under the 340B Drug Pricing Program, resulting in savings of approximately 70% compared to traditional pharmacy pricing. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1208 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Medical Information Technology Inc., in an amount not to exceed $103,000 for annual maintenance of Medical Information Technology software for the period from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department uses Medical Information Technologies software modules as the primary point of care information system for its Clinical Laboratory. Pursuant to a Program License Agreement date July 16, 1992, and a Health Care Information System Software Agreement dated April 28, 2003, the County purchased software modules from Medical Information Technology. Modules presently in use include Laboratory Module, Microbiology Module, Anatomical Pathology Module, Blood Bank Module, Materials Management Module, Data Repository and MAGIC Operating Systems (Disaster Recovery). Health Services’ Clinical Laboratory use these modules, which allow an exchange of and immediate access to real-time patient medical information among the Clinical Labs. The County pays Medical Information Technology Inc., annually for the continued use of the software modules. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Medical Information Technology, Inc. for Software Maintenance Renewal April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1209 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this purchase order is not approved, lack of these software applications could disrupt real-time patient data exchange between Clinical Laboratories resulting in data loss. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1210 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Blanket Purchase Order with Zebra Technologies International LLC., in the amount of $550,000 to purchase patient label sheets and customized adult wrist bands for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers for the period of June 5, 2017 through June 4, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Zebra Technologies International LLC provides the Health Services Department with customized patient labels and wrist bands. These label sheets and wrist bands are required to identify patient names, birthdays, and allergies when giving medication or performing procedures or surgeries. This is essential to patient identification and safety. This vendor is a Vizient Group Purchasing Organization vendor, thereby ensuring that the County has secured the best prices for these products. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Tasha Scott, Margaret Harris C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order Zebra Technologies International, LLC April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1211 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the Health Services Department will be unable to definitively identify patients and confirm who they are before administering medications or doing a procedure or surgery. This could possibly result in the wrong medication being given or the wrong procedure done on the wrong patient. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1212 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute Agreement #17-73-06-0251RA with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services in an amount not to exceed $39,852 to provide wildlife damage management for the period of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded with Unclaimed Gas Tax revenue (60%) and County General Fund (40%). BACKGROUND: This work and financial plan defines the objectives, plan of action, resources and budget for the maintenance of an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management program (IWDM) to protect residents, property, livestock, crops, and natural resources from damage caused by predators and other nuisance wildlife to be conducted from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) is a federal agency with a broad mission that includes carrying out wildlife damage management activities. In recent years, USDA-APHIS has maintained an effective IWDM program to resolve conflicts with wildlife throughout the County. APHIS-WS APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 646-5250 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Rolanda Hartfield, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:USDA INTEGRATED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT #17-73-06-0251RA April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1213 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) is available and qualified to conduct the wildlife damage management services necessary to accomplish the county's goal. Wildlife Services' overall goal is to maintain a biologically sound IWDM program to assist property owners, businesses, private citizens, and governmental agencies in resolving wildlife damage problems and conduct control activities in accordance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. Assistance may be in the form of providing technical assistance or direct control activities. To accomplish this goal, the following general field services will be provided: (1) technical assistance through demonstration and instruction of wildlife damage prevention and/or control techniques; (2) predator identification and removal when livestock, crop or natural resource damage is verified; (3) nuisance wildlife technical assistance including removal, if necessary, when property damage is identified; (4) removal of wildlife displaying aggressive behavior or causing actual injury to county residents. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will restrict the Department in providing wildlife damage management and taking corrective actions on existing wildlife damage problems for the residents of the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1214 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2017/139 authorizing the execution and delivery of a termination agreement (the "Termination Agreement") related to the Regulatory Agreement and County of Contra Costa County Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Willowbrook Apartments) 2002 Series A issued to make a loan used to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 71-unit multifamily rental housing project generally known as Willowbrook Apartments, located at 110 Bailey Road in Bay Point, including: a) APPROVE the form of the Termination Agreement; b) AUTHORIZE and DIRECT the Chair or Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator, the Director of Conservation and Development, the Assistant Deputy Director of the Department of Conservation and Development, or the Community Development Bond Program Manager to execute and deliver the Termination Agreement, and to do any and all things, take any and all actions, and execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements, and other documents which the officer may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of the Resolution; and c) DESIGNATE the law firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP as Bond Counsel. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kristen Lackey (925) 674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Termination Agreement Relating to Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Willowbrook Apartments April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1215 FISCAL IMPACT: The Regulatory Agreement requires the Owner to pay the County an annual fee of $29,495 from May 1, 2013 until May 1, 2042. The New Regulatory Agreement will include the same provision. These funds will be used by the Successor Agency of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency to pay its recognized obligations. BACKGROUND: Resolution No. 2017/139 approves a termination agreement relating to County of Contra Costa Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Willowbrook Apartments) 2002 Series A (the “Bonds”). In 2002, the County issued $5,120,000 Bonds to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation by Willowbrook Housing Partners, L.P. (the "Owner") of a 71-unit apartment project (the "Project") known as Willowbrook Apartments located in Bay Point. In connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the County, the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the "Former Agency"), the trustee for the Bonds and the Owner entered into a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Regulatory Agreement") that set forth certain affordability restrictions and Community Improvement Contribution provisions related to the Project. The Project is now being refinanced with the proceeds of bonds (the "Refunding Bonds") being issued by the California Public Finance Authority (the "Authority"), which will loan the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to Willowbrook Affordable Communities, L.P. (the "New Owner") that will acquire the Project from the Owner at the closing for the Refunding Bonds. The New Owner will undertake substantial rehabilitation work on the Project, in connection with the refinancing of the Project. The refinancing will require a new regulatory agreement (the “New Regulatory Agreement”) with at least the same affordability restrictions as the original Regulatory Agreement with the County. In order to have only one regulatory agreement, the New Owner requested the County to terminate its Regulatory Agreement and has agreed to make the owners of the Bonds and the County beneficiaries under the New Regulatory Agreement. The New Regulatory Agreement will cover the affordability restrictions of the Regulatory Agreement and be for a term at least as long as the remaining term of the Regulatory Agreement and provide for the continuation of Community Improvement Contributions. The Community Improvement Contribution is an annual payment of $29,495 to the County from the Owner. It will be included in the New Regulatory Agreement and will be paid by the New Owner. The County has not received any payments to date and will be paid the past due amount of $117,980 at close of escrow of the Refunding Bonds. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the County does not execute the Termination Agreement, it is unlikely that the Project will be refinanced and sold and rehabilitation of the Project may not occur. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2017/139 Termination Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2017_139 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1216 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/25/2017 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2017/139 Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Termination Agreement Related to Willowbrook Apartments. WHEREAS, in 2002, the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) issued $5,120,000 of multifamily housing revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation by Willowbrook Housing Partners, L.P. (the “Owner”) of a 71-unit apartment project (the “Project”) known as Willowbrook Apartments located in Bay Point; and WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Bonds, the County, the former Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency (the “Former Agency”), the trustee for the Bonds and the Owner entered into a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated as of June 1, 2002 (the “Regulatory Agreement”) that set forth certain restrictions relating to the operation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project is now being refinanced with the proceeds of bonds (the “Refunding Bonds”) being issued by the California Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”), which will loan the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to Willowbrook Affordable Communities, L.P. (the “New Owner”), that will acquire the Project from the Owner at the closing for the Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, proceeds of the Refunding Bonds will be used to legally defease the outstanding Bonds; and WHEREAS, the County has succeeded to the housing assets of the Former Agency, including its rights under the Regulatory Agreement; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Refunding Bonds, the Authority and the New Owner have agreed to enter into a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the “New Regulatory Agreement”), which New Regulatory Agreement sets forth terms and conditions relating to the operation of the Project substantially the same as those in Sections 3, 4, 6, and 7A(f) of the Regulatory Agreement, and is for a term at least as long as the remaining term of the Regulatory Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the New Owner have agreed to make the owners of the Bonds and the County beneficiaries of the New Regulatory Agreement; and WHEREAS, the New Owner has requested that the County terminate the Regulatory Agreement so that there are not two such agreements (the Regulatory Agreement and the New Regulatory Agreement) governing the operation of the Project, and in light of the provisions of the New Regulatory Agreement described above, the County is willing to so terminate the Regulatory Agreement pursuant to a termination agreement (the “Termination Agreement”), to be executed by the County (for itself and as successor to the housing assets of the Former Agency), the trustee for the Bonds and the Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, as follows: Section 1. The Termination Agreement, in the form on file with the Clerk of the Board, is hereby approved. Any one of the County Administrator, the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development, the Assistant Deputy Director of the Department of Conservation and Development and the Community Development Bond Program Manager (collectively, the “Designated Officers”), each acting alone, is hereby authorized, for and in the name and on behalf of the County, and for the 5 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1217 “Designated Officers”), each acting alone, is hereby authorized, for and in the name and on behalf of the County, and for the County as successor to the housing assets of the Former Agency, to execute and deliver the Termination Agreement in said form, together with such additions thereto or changes therein as are recommended or approved by the Designated Officer executing the Termination Agreement upon consultation with Bond Counsel to the County, the approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Termination Agreement by the County. Section 2. The Designated Officers are hereby authorized to execute and deliver such other certificates and agreements as may be reasonably required to defease and redeem the Bonds and terminate agreements related thereto, so long as any of such documents do not result in any liability to the County, as determined by the Designated Officer executing the same upon consultation with Bond Counsel. Section 3. The law firm of Quint & Thimmig LLP is hereby designated as Bond Counsel to assist the County with matters related to the Termination Agreement, the New Regulatory Agreement and the defeasance of the Bonds. The fees and expenses of Bond Counsel shall be paid solely by the Owner, the New Owner or otherwise from the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. Contact: Kristen Lackey (925) 674-7888 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1218 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1219 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1220 OHSUSA:766732660.4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attention: Jesse Albani, Esq. TERMINATION AGREEMENT by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as successor to the housing assets of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, and WILLOWBROOK HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, dated as of April 1, 2017 relating to: Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated as of June 1, 2002, by and among the County of Contra Costa, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, Willowbrook Housing Partners, L.P., a California limited partnership and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1221 -1- OHSUSA:766732660.4 TERMINATION AGREEMENT This TERMINATION AGREEMENT, dated as of April 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), is by and among the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a public body, corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Prior Issuer”), the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as successor to the housing assets of the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (the “Redevelopment Agency” and, together with the Prior Issuer, the “County”), U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (successor trustee to STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.), a banking corporation organized and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the United States of America (the “Trustee”), and WILLOWBROOK HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership (the “Owner”). R E C I T A L S : WHEREAS, pursuant to a Trust Indenture, dated as of June 1, 2002, between the County and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California, N.A., as trustee (the “Former Trustee”), the County issued its County of Contra Costa Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Willowbrook Apartments) 2002 Series A (the “2002 Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the 2002 Bonds were loaned (the “2002 Loan”) by the County to the Owner pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2002 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the County and the Owner, and the Owner used the proceeds of the 2002 Loan to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 71-unit (plus 1 manager’s unit) multifamily rental housing project (the “Project”) known as Willowbrook Apartments located in the City of Bay Point; and WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the 2002 Bonds, the County, the Redevelopment Agency, the Former Trustee and the Owner entered into a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated as of June 1, 2002 (the “Regulatory Agreement”) and recorded on June 19, 2002 in the official records of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as Document No. 2002- 0216961-00, which Regulatory Agreement sets forth certain terms and conditions relating to the operation of the Project; WHEREAS, the Trustee is the successor by merger to the Former Trustee; and WHEREAS, the Owner will convey its interest in the Project to Willowbrook Affordable Communities, L.P. (the “New Owner”) on [CLOSING DATE]; and WHEREAS, the New Owner will obtain two separate loans (together, the “2017 Loans”) from the California Public Finance Authority (the “Authority”), which will execute and deliver its Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction/Permanent Note (Willowbrook Apartments) 2017 Series B-1, Multifamily Housing Revenue Construction Note (Willowbrook Apartments) 2017 Series B-2 and Multifamily Housing Revenue Taxable Note (Willowbrook Apartments) 2017 Series B-3 (collectively, the “Senior Notes”) and issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Willowbrook Apartments) 2017 Series B-S (Subordinate Issue) (the “Subordinate Bonds” and, together with the Senior Notes, the “Obligations”), and use the proceeds of such Obligations to make the 2017 Loans; and WHEREAS, in connection with the execution, delivery and/or issuance of the Obligations, the Authority and the New Owner have agreed to enter into a Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the “New Regulatory Agreement”), which New Regulatory Agreement sets forth April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1222 -2- OHSUSA:766732660.4 terms and conditions relating to the operation of the Project, including provisions substantially the same as those in Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Regulatory Agreement, and is for a term at least as long as the remaining term of the Regulatory Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the New Owner have agreed to make to owners of the Obligations and the County beneficiaries of the New Regulatory Agreement, so that the New Regulatory Agreement can supplant the Regulatory Agreement upon its execution; and WHEREAS, the County and the Owner now desire to provide for the termination of the Regulatory Agreement as provided herein, and have requested that the Trustee execute this Agreement. A G R E E M E N T : NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: Section 1. Termination. (a) The County, the Trustee and the Owner hereby agree that the Regulatory Agreement shall cease and terminate; (b) in accordance with the foregoing, the Regulatory Agreement recorded June 19, 2002, as Document No. 2002-0216961-00 in the Official Records of Contra Costa County, State of California, is hereby terminated and is of no further force and effect; and (c) that from and after the date hereof, none of the County, the Trustee or the Owner shall have any further rights or obligations under the Regulatory Agreement. Section 2. Execution in Counterparts. This Termination Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1223 [Signature page to Termination Agreement] S-1 OHSUSA:766732660.4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Termination Agreement as of the day and year first written above. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA By: John Kopchik, Director, Department of Conservation and Development COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, as successor to the housing assets of the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency By: John Kopchik, Director, Department of Conservation and Development U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Francine Rockett, Vice President April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1224 [Signature page to Termination Agreement] S-2 OHSUSA:766732660.4 WILLOWBROOK HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Community Revitalization and Development Corporation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, its Managing General Partner By: David Rutledge, President By: Amerland Development, L.L.C., a California limited liability company, its Administrative General Partner By: Islas Development, LLC, a California limited liability company, its Member By: Ruben Islas, Jr., Sole Member April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1225 OHSUSA:766732660.4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Bay Point, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as follows: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1226 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT and APPROVE the 2017 program year annual Head Start self-assessment and corrective action plan as submitted and as recommended by Employment & Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Head Start Act of 2007 (Section 641A (g)(1)(2)(B)) requires Board approval of the Head Start Grantee corrective action plan in response to the annual self-assessment completed by the Department. During the period of March 6, 2017 through March 10, 2017, the Community Services Bureau completed the required self-assessment wherein internal processes were examined and evaluated for efficacy. The Head Start Performance Standards [CFR 1302.102(b)(2)(i-iii)] requires that the Board of Supervisors approve the program's corrective action plan once all of the corrections have been certified by program staff. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, Department will not be able to submit required documents to federal agency. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Nguyen, (925) 681-6304 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Carolyn Nguyen, Cassandra Youngblood C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:2017 Head Start Self-Assessment Report and Corrective Action Plan April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1227 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment & Human Services Department Community Services Bureau supports three of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes - Outcome 1: “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School,” Outcome 3: “Families that are Economically Self-sufficient,” and, Outcome 4: “Families that are Safe, Stable, and Nurturing.” These outcomes are achieved by offering comprehensive services, including high quality early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. ATTACHMENTS 2017 HS Self Assessment Report April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1228 Community Services Bureau 2017 Self-Assessment Report March 6 – 10, 2017 Overview of Methods The purpose of the annual self-assessment is to determine the effectiveness of CSB’s efforts in meeting program goals and objectives and in implementing Federal regulations. CSB’s self-assessment was conducted during the week of March 6th by a team of 45 members, which included grantee and delegate staff, board members, community partners and parents. The components of the self-assessment reviewed consisted of six components: 1. Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS™) 2. Eligibility, Recruitment, Selection, Enrollment and Attendance (ERSEA) 3. New Early Head Start Child Care Partnership (EHS-CCP) Program 4. Health & Safety 5. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and 6. Fiscal Integrity Monitoring Components, Instruments, & Measures The six self-assessment program components were reviewed utilizing seven instruments: Components Instruments Measures 1. CLASS™ • The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS™) • 13 Classroom Reviews 2. ERSEA • FY 2017 Office of Head Start ERSEA Monitoring Protocol • A locally designed file monitoring tool based on Office of Head Start need and eligibility guidelines • Grantee Interviews • 42 File Reviews 3. EHS – CCP • FY 2017 Early Head Start – Child Care Partnership Monitoring Protocol • Grantee & Partner Interviews 4. Health & Safety • A locally designed center monitoring tool based on Office of Head Start health and safety guidelines • 6 Classroom Reviews • 4 Family Child Care (FCC) Reviews 5. CACFP • A locally designed monitoring tool based on USDA CACFP monitoring guidelines • 1 Classroom review 6. Fiscal • A locally designed fiscal monitoring tool based on Office of Head Start health Fiscal Integrity Monitoring Protocol • Grantee and Delegate Fiscal Review April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1229 Key Findings Areas of Strength: Components Areas of Strength CLASS™ Strong CLASS™ scores that are above the Federal Minimum Threshold of 4, 3, 2 for the three domains (see page 3). ERSEA Systems, processes, and technology are strong. CLOUDS is used for eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment, and attendance tracking. “Real time” data is available to ensure efficiency of tracking, documentation, and purging of outdated information. EHS-CCP Strong partnership and implementation of policies. This unique partnership with the Childcare Council and Family Childcare Homes, in its second year, is proving to be successful in terms of the additional support and resources for the providers and families. Health & Safety Locally designed monitoring tool is working well. The Family Child Care and Center Health & Safety Tool, both developed in 2014 in collaboration with stakeholders, provides a structured list of criteria to identify indicators that needs to be assessed for potential risks to remain in compliance for licensing, state, and federal mandates. The tools streamline the process to identify and address all health and safety regulations to generate evaluations and results. CACFP Children are participating fully in family style dining. Children set the tables, serve themselves, clean-up and fully engage in the dialogue happening in small groups during meal times. Fiscal Strong management systems and internal controls. Six key performance areas were monitored: financial management systems, reporting, recruitment, compensation, cost principles, and facilities and property. All areas were in compliance with no findings. Areas Require Strengthening: Areas Requiring Strengthening Person Responsible Date to be Completed Corrective Action ERSEA File Monitoring: Of forty-two child and family files reviewed, sixteen files were not locked to ensure confidentiality ERSEA Manager 4/10/17 and ongoing Quality Management Unit will continue to monitor that files are locked and ongoing monitoring will indicate compliance. Health & Safety Monitoring: Four out of six earthquake containers had items that were expired. Health & Safety Content Manager 4/10/17 A review of earthquake containers at every center will occur and items that are expired or soon-to-be expired will be replaced. Health & Safety Monitoring: One center’s bleach solution was not labeled. Site Supervisor 4/10/17 Site Supervisors will review all bleach solution in classrooms and ensure all are appropriately labeled as demonstrated by clear health and safety checks. Areas Requiring Corrective Action: Areas Requiring Corrective Action Person Responsible Date to be Completed Corrective Action FCC – Health & Safety Monitoring: Children are not brushing their teeth; there were no toothbrushes. Partner Manager 4/10/17 All FCCs are provided oral hygiene supplies, given training, and demonstrate compliance with tooth brushing requirements. FCC – Health & Safety Monitoring: Homes did not have required postings, such as licensing and first aid postings. Partner Manager 4/10/17 Copies of postings are provided and posted at providers’ homes. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1230 FCC – Health & Safety Monitoring: Individualization was not evident on lesson plans. Partner Manager 4/10/17 and ongoing Review lesson plans in every classroom and provide one-on-one support to those who need it to ensure that the system for individualizing on lesson plans is properly implemented. Ongoing training during staff development reflects emphasis on implementation of the individualization system. FCC – Health & Safety Monitoring: Two out of four FCC’s did not have designated locked space for medications. Partner Manager 4/10/17 Medication boxes are given to providers. Ongoing training during staff development reflects emphasis on importance of properly storing medications. CLASS Results: CLASS™ is an observational monitoring tool that assesses classroom quality and primarily focuses on the interaction between the teacher and the students and what teachers do to boost children’s learning. The CLASS™ tool has 10 dimensions of teacher-child interactions rated on a 7-point scale. The 10 CLASS™ dimensions are organized into three domains: 1. Emotional Support assesses the degree to which teachers establish and promote a positive climate in their classroom through their everyday interactions. 2. Classroom Organization assesses classroom routines and procedures related to the organization and management of children’s behavior, time, and attention in the classroom. 3. Instruction Support assesses the ways in which teachers implement the curriculum to effectively promote cognitive and language development. The Office of Head Start (OHS) has established the minimum threshold on the three CLASS™ domains to be 4 for the domain of Emotional Support, 3 for the domain of Classroom Organization, and 2 for the domain of Instructional Support. Thirteen of CSB’s directly operated, partner, and the delegate agency classrooms were assessed using the CLASS™ instrument. Figure 1 below indicates that the program exceeded the established minimum set by OHS for the three domains. Figure 1: CLASS Results from Thirteen Classrooms 6.62 5.97 3.28 4 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support CSB/FBHS/Partner Agencies Federal Minimum Threshold April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1231 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE recommendations from the Fish & Wildlife Committee for the allocation of 2017 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grant funds for 16 projects totaling $102,185. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendation will have no impact on the County General Fund. The FWC is proposing to allocate $102,185 or 37% of the $272,962 propagation funds available as of January 13, 2017. Fish and wildlife propagation funds are restricted to costs for the protection, conservation, propagation, and preservation of fish and wildlife, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 13100, and are budgeted in the Fish and Game Fund (110200). BACKGROUND: On November 22, 2010, the IOC received a status report from Department of Conservation and Development regarding the allocation of propagation funds by the Fish and Wildlife Committee (FWC). The IOC accepted the report along with the recommended modifications to improve the grant process in the future. The modifications included (1) updating the FWC Conflict of Interest Code, which was accomplished, and; (2) having the IOC conduct a preliminary review of annual FWC grant recommendations prior to Board of Supervisors review, which is now a standing referral to the IOC. Attached is a memo describing the outreach and selection process and criteria, and transmitting the grant funding recommendations of the County's Fish & Wildlife Committee for full or partial funding of 16 projects. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Maureen Parkes 925.674.7831 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, Fish & Wildlife Cte Staff-DCD C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:ALLOCATION OF 2017 FISH & WILDLIFE PROPAGATION FUNDS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1232 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Fish & Wildlife Committee exercised care in limiting allocations to the direct costs of each project for activities that protect, conserve, propagate, and preserve fish and wildlife. The grant matrix at the back of the transmittal shows each project in summary form, including the amount requested vs. the proposed allocation, the rationale for the FWC's decision, and any limitations on the use of the funds. The IOC, at its April 10 meeting, reviewed and approved the recommended funding levels for the 16 projects delineated in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS Fish & Wildlife Cte Recommendations for 2017 Propagation Fund Allocation April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1233 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1234 FWC Grant Program The Board has charged the FWC with coordinating a process by which fine money could be appropriately “expended for the protection, conservation, propagation, and preservation of fish and wildlife” [Fish and Game Code 13100]. Since 1996, the FWC has implemented a structured process for reviewing funding requests. The FWC developed a grant application packet (attached), which includes a cover letter to explain the grant process and funding priorities, an application to solicit relevant information about the project, and a copy of the expenditure criteria established by California law for the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund. In November 2016, the application packet was sent to the Fish and Wildlife Committee mailing list, Contra Costa Watershed Forum mailing list, Contra Costa County Office of Education, Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College and Los Medanos College for distribution to interested teachers and programs that could benefit from the grant program. A press release was distributed to local and regional media outlets regarding the availability of the grant application packet and CCTV publicized it on the CountyNet Bulletin Board which reaches 400,000+ homes in the County. It was posted on the California Regional Environmental Education Community (CREEC) website; and also made available on the Committee’s website and to anyone who requested a copy. FWC Grant Review Process in 2017 A total of 19 applications requesting a total of $145,557.92 were received by the application deadline. The Fish and Wildlife Committee members considered the funding of the applications at their January and February meetings. Some applicants attended FWC meetings to make themselves available to answer questions regarding their applications. II. Recommendation of Funding on Grants for 2017 At the February 15, 2017 meeting, the FWC recommended funding for 16 proposed projects. Projects recommended for funding total $102,184.92 and are geographically located across the County. More details are provided on the attached grant recommendations chart, which provides information on all of the applications. The specific FWC recommendations and the vote of the FWC on these recommendations are listed on Page 3. Members in attendance and voting on these items were: Judy Bendix (District I), Susan Heckly (District II), Clark Dawson (District III), Brett Morris (District IV), Daniel Pellegrini (District V), Rhonda Gehlke (At-large), Heather Rosmarin (At-large) and Jeff Skinner (At-large). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1235 All recommendations are for full funding of the project as proposed unless noted otherwise. FWC Recommendations: 1) Appropriate $980.00 to Friends of Alhambra Creek to add additional native plants and garden enhancements for their existing and future gardens and the printing cost of the Alhambra Native Plant Trail brochure. [8 ayes/0 noes] 2) Purchase seven Swarovski spotting scopes for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the estimated cost of $21,019.53. The spotting scopes will be used by the Department's Enforcement Branch throughout Contra Costa County to aid in the surveillance of violators, locating evidence, and observing behaviors and actions that may result in violations. [8 ayes/0 noes] 3) Appropriate $1,000.00 to Worth a Dam to fund a wildlife educational activity at the 10th Annual Beaver Festival in Martinez. Children will earn badges while learning the importance of beavers in the ecosystem. [8 ayes/0 noes] 4) Appropriate $1,320.00 to Berkeley Partners for Parks (the fiscal sponsor of Greens-at-Work) to expand and maintain an existing habitat restoration project (including weed removal, native plant re-vegetation, public outreach, and trash pickup) along 2,000 feet of the Bay Trail at Point Isabel marsh in Contra Costa County. [8 ayes/0 noes] 5) Appropriate $5,079.00 to KIDS for the BAY to deliver the Watershed Action Program to five classes in low-income Richmond elementary schools. The Program will teach students about the scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation, as well as help to improve the health of the fish and wildlife habitats in Contra Costa County through Environmental Action Projects. [8 ayes/0 noes] 6) Appropriate $3,803.50 to Golden Gate Audubon Society for partial funding to support the materials associated with their Eco-Richmond/Bird-Friendly Schools Program, a year-long program that serves 3rd - 5th grade children and their families in four Title I (federally-assisted) schools within the communities adjacent to the North Richmond Shoreline. Each class will receive a progression of at least three in-class/schoolyard lessons and field trips to North Richmond Shoreline and Wildcat Creek Canyon. [8 ayes/0 noes] 7) Appropriate $20,478.00 to The Watershed Project, working with SPAWNERS, to expand their water quality monitoring program in four additional Contra Costa County watersheds: Wildcat Creek, Walnut Creek, Grayson Creek and Marsh Creek Watersheds. The funds will go toward annual stipends for trained monitoring interns as well as purchasing monitoring equipment and supplies. Results will be shared with the community through outreach events, newsletters, and websites, including behavioral changes people can make to improve the creeks' water quality. [8 ayes/0 noes] 8) Appropriate $6884.50 to Lindsay Wildlife Museum (dba Lindsay Wildlife Experience) for the purchase and installation of two commercial grade stack-unit dryers. [8 ayes/0 noes] 9) Appropriate $10,000.00 to Regional Parks Foundation for the purchase of a horse that will help to expand East Bay Regional Park District’s horse mounted patrol which focuses on outreach, education and resource protection. [8 ayes/0 noes] 10) Appropriate $953.64 to Pleasant Hill Instructional Garden to provide water quality monitoring, journaling and observation for initial assessment of Grayson Creek, involving Mt. Diablo Unified School District Horizons Independent High School students and home schooled students with their families in accordance with Watershed Forum guidelines and protocols. [8 ayes/0 noes] April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1236 11) Appropriate $10,000.00 to Save Mount Diablo to improve habitat for wildlife, including threatened species, along a sensitive riparian corridor of Curry Creek by removing debris and re-establishing native plantings, which will provide food and shelter for both migrating and resident populations. [8 ayes/0 noes] 12) Allocate $800.00 to Mt. View Sanitary District and The River Otter Ecology Project to study the ecological niche of river otters in MVSD's wetlands throughout Moorhen Marsh, McNabney Marsh, and Peyton Slough. Partial funding is recommended and may only be used for the purchase of the sampling equipment. Staff costs and not benefiting Contra Cost County students were the factors for not recommending the funding of the remainder of the grant request. Since The River Otter Ecology Project involves multiple counties, the FWC recommends a condition that requires that the equipment only be used and stored in Contra Costa County. [8 ayes/0 noes] 13) Allocate $3,936.00 to Earth Team for their research, education and habitat improvement on Marsh Creek project. Partial funding is recommended and may only be used for direct costs for project supplies, materials and services, and travel as outlined in Earth Team's grant request application. [8 ayes/0 noes] 14) Allocate $1,700.00 to The Ruth Bancroft Garden to help develop, market and deliver free education days known as "Waterwise Wednesdays" at The Ruth Bancroft Garden. The Ruth Bancroft Garden will partner with other environmental and conservation groups to educate the community about specific, actionable and practical ways community members can reduce water consumption, create beautiful areas of wildlife habitat and forage in home gardens, and reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. [8 ayes/0 noes] 15) Allocate $9,430.75 to Mills College to fund long-term tracking of stress responses of wild California ground squirrels in Contra Costa County. Undergraduates will be central in the project; students will live-trap wildlife, conduct hormone assays, author manuscripts, and present their findings. The results of this study will provide useful information on the effects of stress which may prove applicable to a range of mammal species. [8 ayes/0 noes] 16) Allocate $4,800.00 to The Regents of the University of California to support the installation and evaluation of artificial nesting systems for native bees and educational materials for presentations, workshops, conferences, local producers and other stakeholders. Partial funding is recommended and to be used for travel expenses for research trips to Brentwood and educational materials only. [8 ayes/0 noes] 17) Further, the FWC also recommended that within a year of grant funding approval, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. Details will be outlined in the grant award packet provided to all successful applicants. [8 ayes/0 noes] Please contact Maureen Parkes at 925-674-7831 or Abigail Fateman at 925-674-7820 with any questions. Attachments: • Grant application packet for Fish and Wildlife Propagation Funds • Chart summarizing the applications and recommendations April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1237 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of the Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of the Request e s t FWC Rationale for Recommendation A Friends of Alhambra Creek Group of volunteers for the betterment of the Alhambra Creek Watershed Alhambra Native Plant Trail (e) habitat improvement Central County $980.00 $980.00 A request for funding to add additional native plants and garden enhancements for their existing gardens and future new gardens and the printing cost of their Alhambra Native Plant Trail brochure. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) by providing forage, cover, and nesting areas for insects, local birds, and small mammals. It also creates an opportunity to teach student volunteers and visitors about the importance of native plants and wildlife. B California Department of Fish and Wildlife government Spotting Scopes (g) purchase and maintain materials, supplies, or equipment for either the department's ownership and use or the department's use Countywide $21,019.53 $21,019.53 A request for seven Swarovski spotting scopes to be gifted to CDFW. The spotting scopes will be used by the Department's enforcement branch throughout CCC to aid in the survelliance of violators, locating evidence, and observing behaviors and actions that may result in violations. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (g). The spotting scopes will be used by the CDFW's enforcement branch throughout CCC to aid in the survelliance of violators, locating evidence, and observing behaviors and actions that may result in violations. C Worth a Dam non-profit Working for the EcoSystem (a) public education Central County $1,000.00 $1,000.00 A request to fund a wildlife educational activity at the 10th Annual Beaver Festival in Martinez. Children will earn badges while learning the importance of beavers' role in the ecosystem, highlighting the direct impact beavers have on other wildlife. t v The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education and fullfills the goals of the Committee by providing funds to educate children with an activity that will teach them about the complex connections between habitat, food chain and species abundance using the beaver's ecoystem services. D Greens at Work/Berkeley Partners for Parks (BPFP) non-profit Point Isabel/Hoffman Marsh Restoration Project (Richmond) (e) habitat improvement West County $1,320.00 $1,320.00 A request for funding to expand, fill in, and maintain an existing habitat restoration project (including weed removal, native plant re-vegetation, public outreach, and trash pickup) along 2,000 feet of the Bay Trail at Point Isabel and marsh from just above the Hoffman Channel to the southern end of Hoffman Marsh (at the intersection of Central Avenue and Rydin Road).e s t The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. This is an important area for restoration and helps to achieve a healthier environment for the mutitude of shorebirds that use the marsh. E KIDS for the BAY non-profit Watershed Action Program (a) public education (e) habitat improvement West County $5,079.00 $5,079.00 A request for funding to deliver the Watershed Action Project to five classes in low-income Richmond elementary schools. The Program will teach students about the scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation, as well as help to improve the health of the fish and wildlife habitats in CCC through Environmental Action Projects. e a s e e d The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education and (e) habitat improvement. The project provides hands on science classroom lessons and a field trip where the students will use water quality testing equipment to assess watershed health and learn scientific skills. Through trash clean-ups, habitat restoration and water quality testing, students will improve the quality of life for fish and wildlife in CCC. F Golden Gate Audubon Society non-profit Eco-Richmond/Bird- Friendly Schools Program (a) public education (e) habitat improvement West County $3,803.50 $3,803.50 A request for partial funding to support the materials associated with their Eco- Richmond/Bird Friendly Schools Program, a year-long program that serves 3rd - 5th grade children and their families in four Title I (federally-assisted) schools within the communities adjacent to the North Richmond Shoreline. Each class will receive a progression of at least three in-class/schoolyard lessons and field trips to North Richmond Shoreline and Wildcat Creek Canyon. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education and (e) habitat improvement fulfilling the educational goals of the Committee by providing hands-on lessons of at least three in-class/schoolyard lessons and field trips to North Richmond Shoreline and Wildcat Creek Canyon related to ecology and stewardship while improving the habitat. G The Watershed Project & SPAWNERS non-profit Monitoring Water Quality in Contra Costa County Watersheds (a) public education (e) habitat improvement Countywide $20,478.00 $20,478.00 A request to fund an expansion of their water quality monitoring program in four additional CCC watersheds: Wildcat Creek, Walnut Creek, Grayson Creek and Marsh Creek Watersheds. The funds will go toward annual stipends for trained monitoring interns as well as purchasing monitoring equipment and supplies. Results will be shared with the community through outreach events, newsletters, and websites, including behavioral changes people can make to improve the creeks' water quality. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement. With the assistance of highly trained interns, the goal of the project is to standardize monitoring and assessment such that they can compare data across watersheds and learn important information about regional and local trends. Information will be shared with the community through outreach events, newsletters, and websites, including behavioral changes people can make to improve the creeks' water quality. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1238 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of the Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of the Request e s t FWC Rationale for Recommendation H Lindsay Wildlife Experience non-profit Reliable disease control in a wildlife hospital through commercial-grade laundry equipment (b) temporary emergency treatment and care of injured and orphaned wildlife Countywide $6,884.50 $6,884.50 A request to fund the purchase and installation of two-commerical grade stack- unit dryers. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (b) temporary emergency treatment and care of injured or orphaned wildlife. These commercial grade Speed Queen stack tumble dryers are the same make/model as as they have had since 2003 and have found them to be energy efficient and reliable. I Marine Science Institute non-profit Delta Discovery Voyage (a) public education Central County/ East County $4,688.00 $0.00 A request for partial funding for marine science education for 5th grade students aboard MSI's 90' research vessel on the Delta. Curriculum includes an activity book designed to prepare the students to get the most out of their upcoming excursion and hands-on scientific exploration on their 3.5 hour voyage. Funding is not recommended. Payroll, benefits and overhead costs were a substantial amount of their funding request. J Regional Parks Foundation non-profit East Bay Regional Park District - Education, Outreach, and Resource Protection using Horse Mounted Patrol Officers (a) public education (m) other expenditures Countywide $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A request for funding to expand the EBRPD's Horse Mounted Patrol unit from a 2-person to a 3-person team. The funds would be used to purchase a horse. The focus of outreach, education and resource protection is to prevent the spread of disease potentially carried by domestic dogs which could be spread to San Joaquin kit fox. They will patrol Round Valley Regional Preserve approximately 5 - 8 times a month. Other park trails they visit are Ironhorse Trail, Marsh Creek Trail, Big Break, Contra Loma and Delta Deanza. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (m) other expenditures. Funding the purchase of the horse will help to expand EBRPD's horse mounted patrol which will focus on outreach, education and resource protection. K Pleasant Hill Instructional Garden non-profit Grayson Creek Watershed Initial Assessment at Pleasant Hill Education Center (a) public education Central County $953.64 $953.64 A request for funding to provide water quality monitoring, journaling and observation for initial assessment of Grayson Creek, involving MDUSD Horizons Independent High School students and home schooled students with their families in accordance with Watershed Forum guidelines and protocols. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. The project provides for public education with a base line site assessment including water quality data for Grayson Creek near and behind Mt. Diablo Unified School District's Pleasant Hill Education Center. The project will practice curriculum and standard water sampling protocols used by other volunteer creek restoration organizations as part of the County Watershed Forum. L Save Mount Diablo non-profit Curry Creek Habitat Restoration (e) habitat improvement Central County $10,000.00 $10,000.00 A request for funding to improve habitat for wildlife, including threatened species, along a sensitive riparian corridor of Curry Creek by removing debris and re-establishing native plantings. e a d The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (e) habitat improvement by improving water quality and allowing natural cover (native plant species) to re- establish along Curry Creek, which will provide food and shelter for both migrating and resident populations. M California Waterfowl Association non-profit Quimby Island Marijuana Trespass Grow Site Clean Up and Reclamation (e) habitat improvement East County $4,760.00 $0.00 A request for funding to facilitate clean up and reclamation of a marijuana trespass grow on Quimby Island in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. s t e Funding is not recommended. The Committee determined this was not a good use of public funds. The island is privately owned and generally, there is no open public access to it. N Nomad Ecology for-profit Study to Identify Important Characteristics of California Red-Legged Frog Breeding Sites on John Muir Land Trust and Save Mount Diablo Lands (i) scientific research (m) other expenditures for protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife Countywide $13,680.00 $0.00 A request to fund a study to collect aquatic feature characteristic data and conduct focused surveys for the purpose of understanding habitat features important for California red-legged frog breeding populations within John Muir Land Trust and Save Mount Diablo properties. Funding is not recommended. Staff salaries were a substantial amount of their funding request. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1239 Organization Type of Org Project Title Type of Project Location of the Project Requested Funding Amount Recommended Funding Amount Staff Summary of the Request e s t FWC Rationale for Recommendation O Mt. View Sanitary District & The River Otter Ecology Project MVSD - government ROEP - non-profit MVSD River Otter Prey Study and Environmental Education Pilot Program (i) scientific research Central County $8,940.00 $800.00 A request for partial funding to study the ecological niche of river otters in MVSD's wetlands throughout Moorhen Marsh, McNabney Marsh, and Peyton Slough. ROEP, as part of its “Hands-on High School” environmental education project, will partner with Marin Academy in San Rafael to undertake scat analysis for this project, providing a unique environmental education experience for participating students. If successful, ROEP and MVSD will explore expanding the environmental education experience to Contra Costa County high schools. t The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (i) scientific research. Partial funding is recommended and may only be used for the purchase of the sampling equipment. Staff costs and not benefiting Contra Cost County students were the factors for not recommending the funding of the remainder of the grant request. Since The River Otter Ecology Project involves multiple counties, the FWC recommends a condition that requires that the equipment only be used and stored in Contra Costa County. P Earth Team non-profit Research, education and habitat improvement on Marsh Creek (a) public education (e) habitat improvement East County $10,761.00 $3,936.00 A request to fund research and habitat improvement internships at Marsh Creek with Antioch High School ESA. Earth Team will recruit and train a team of 14 youth from Antioch High School as interns to work as research assistants to help restore native vegetation and monitor water quality on a three acre adopted site in the upper Marsh Creek area. y The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education and (e) habitat improvement. The project fullfills the goals of the Committee by providing funds for public education and has important long-term ecological restoration objectives that include the viability of the fish passage in the lower Marsh Creek. Partial funding is recommended to fund the direct costs for project supplies, materials and services, and travel as outlined in Earth Team's grant request application. Q The Ruth Bancroft Garden non-profit Waterwise Wednesdays @ The Ruth Bancroft Garden (a) public education Central County $1,700.00 $1,700.00 A request for funding to help develop, market and deliver free education days known as "Waterwise Wednesdays" at The Ruth Bancroft Garden. The Ruth Bancroft Garden will partner with other environmental and conservation groups to educate the community about specific, actionable and practical ways community members can reduce water consumption, create beautiful areas of wildlife habitat and forage in home gardens, and reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education. The Ruth Bancroft Garden will partner with other environmental and conservation groups to educate the community about specific, actionable and practical ways community members can reduce water consumption, create beautiful areas of wildlife habitat and forage in home gardens, and reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides. R Mills College non-profit Ecology of Fear: What Stresses Out Wild Mammals? (a) public education (i) scientific research (m) other expenditures for protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife Countywide $9,430.75 $9,430.75 A request to fund long-term tracking of stress responses of wild California ground squirrels in CCC. The specific goals of this project are to: (1) track the health of a wildlife population by monitoring animals from two distinct areas over time, (2) identify the relative influences of multiple stressors, including those imposed by humans, in shaping the stress response for a free-living mammal, and (3) elucidate whether these key stressors predict reproductive outcomes that should in turn regulate the abundance of wildlife populations. The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education, (i) scientific research and (m) other expenditures for protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife. Undergraduates will be central in the project; students will live-trap wildlife, conduct hormone assays, author manuscripts, and present their findings. The results of this study will provide useful information on the effects of stress which may prove applicable to a range of mammal species. S The Regents of the University of California Public University Farming for Native Bees (a) public education (e) habitat improvement (i) scientific research East County $10,080.00 $4,800.00 A request for funding to support the installation and evaluation of artificial nesting systems for native bees in Brentwood, which includes travel for research trips to Brentwood and presentations, workshops and conferences. In addition, funds would be used for educational materials to ensure that their findings are reaching local producers and other stakeholders, including a set of video training modules that walk viewers through the process of designing, installing and maintaining native bee habitat. They plan to integrate screenings of the modules into their full schedule of workshops and presentations. o d e The project meets the requirements of Section 13103 (a) public education, (e) habitat improvement and (i) scientific research. The Committee supports the installation and evaluation of artificial nesting systems for native bees and educational materials for presentations, workshops, conferences, local producers and other stakeholders. Partial funding is recommended and to be used for travel expenses for research trips to Brentwood and educational materials only. $102,184.92 $272,962.20 Remainder $170,777.28 Subtotals by Region Requested Funding Amount Percentage of Total Amount Requested Recommended Funding Amount Percentage of Total Amount Recommended for Approval East $27,945.00 19.20%$8,736.00 8.55% West $10,202.50 7.01%$10,202.50 9.98% Central $15,917.64 10.94%$5,433.64 5.32% Countywide $91,492.78 62.86%$77,812.78 76.15% TOTAL $145,557.92 100.00%$102,184.92 100.00% Total Available Funds (as of January 13, 2017) $145,557.92 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1240 Contra Costa County November 17, 2016 Dear Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Grant Applicants: The Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee is pleased to announce that completed funding applications are now being accepted for consideration for the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund (Fund). All application materials and guidelines are attached. Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 (a postmark of January 11, 2017, does not satisfy the submission deadline). Proposals may be emailed or mailed. Any applications that are received after the due date or without a signature will not be considered. The recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Committee will be forwarded to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, which maintains final decision-making authority for expenditures from the Fund. The Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund is entirely supported by fine revenues resulting from violations of the Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in Contra Costa County (County). Projects awarded from the Fund must benefit the fish and wildlife resources of the County and must meet the requirements of Section 13103 of the Fish and Game Code (attached). All applications that satisfy the requirements listed in the funding application directions will be considered. The Fish and Wildlife Committee strongly encourages applications related to: • improving habitat • scientific research • public education In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Committee wishes to fund one or more projects that increase collaboration with law enforcement agencies, the court, and community cultural organizations on enforcement issues and education focusing on communities that may be unaware of local fish and game laws. Projects that provide multilingual signage and educational materials are encouraged. The Fish and Wildlife Committee generally does not recommend funding for operating costs and overhead, such as benefits or utilities. If an hourly rate is listed, costs need to be itemized separately (see grant guidelines for more details). The Committee expects to recommend awards to several applicants. However, it is possible that a particularly excellent proposal will be recommended to receive a large portion of the total available funds. During the 2016 grant cycle a total of $22,449.51 was awarded to six projects. The awards ranged from $975 to $7,567. Successful applicants may anticipate receiving notification of funding awards by the late spring or summer of 2017. The grant award funds will be disbursed on a cost reimbursement basis.* (See below for exceptions.) Within a year of grant funding approval, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. Fish and Wildlife Propagation fund grants will be disbursed after receipt and approval of the final project report. Details will be outlined in the grant packet to all successful applicants. John Kopchik Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Jason Crapo Deputy Director Maureen Toms Deputy Director Kara Douglas Assistant Deputy Director Victoria Mejia Business Operations Manager Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone:1-855-323-2626 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1241 *Exception For Non-Profit Organizations That Can Demonstrate Financial Hardship: Private, non-profit entities that can demonstrate that providing Fish and Wildlife Propagation grant funding on a cost reimbursement basis will create a financial hardship and be detrimental to the operation of the program will be eligible to receive up to ½ of the grant amount after the grant is awarded. The remaining amount of the grant will be disbursed after the entity has submitted information including invoices and receipts documenting how the initial disbursement was spent. Within a year of initial notification of the grant funding award (i.e. spring or summer of 2018), or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, the entity will be required to submit information including invoices and receipts documenting how the second disbursement was spent, and provide a final project report documenting the results of the project. *Exception For Small Projects Under $1,000: Grant funding may be disbursed to private, non-profit entities prior to the beginning of the project if the award is under $1,000 and the entity has provided documentation that the project could only be initiated with advance funding. Within a year of grant funding, or within one month of project completion, whichever comes sooner, recipients must submit a final project report which includes invoices and receipts documenting how funds were spent and the results of the project. The Committee appreciates your interest in this opportunity to improve the fish and wildlife resources in Contra Costa County. Should you have any questions about the Fish and Wildlife Committee or this funding program, please contact me at 925-674-7831 or maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us. Sincerely, Maureen Parkes Fish and Wildlife Committee Staff April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1242 INSTRUCTIONS What Must Be Included in Your Proposal (not to exceed 3 pages): 1) Signed Application Cover Page (see attached) 2) Description of the project for which funding is requested. Please include an explanation of: • how this project will benefit the fish and wildlife of Contra Costa County • how this project meets the requirements of Section 13103 of the Fish & Game Code (attached) which defines the eligibility requirements for projects requesting funding from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund. Indicate which letter(s) of the Section 13103 is/are satisfied. • If your proposal is eligible under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), or (m), send a copy of your draft proposal a minimum of 40 days prior to the final deadline to the attention of Scott Wilson, Regional Manager, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, 7329 Silverado Trail, Napa, CA 94558, to request a letter of support. (This letter does not count toward your page limit) *The Fish and Wildlife Committee wishes to be acknowledged for its financial support of the project. FWC or staff review may be required prior to printing any written materials that receive funding. Please refer to the guidelines listed below: • Grant recipients agree to obtain advance written approval from the FWC of any communication/written material that may reasonably be understood to represent the views of the FWC and to provide the FWC with reasonable opportunity to review, comment and approve the communication/written material in advance. Grant recipients may use the following standard language in making attributions for funding by the FWC: • Attribution for full Grant funding: “This (research, publication, project, Web site, report, etc.) was funded by the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee.” • Attribution for partial Grant funding: “This (research, publication, project, Web site, report, etc.) is funded in part by the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee.” 3) Project schedule - The project must be completed within a year from the date you receive notification of funding (by Spring/Summer 2018). 4) Project budget (itemized). The Fish and Wildlife Committee generally does not recommend funding for operating costs and overhead. Examples for these may include benefits such as health insurance, and operation costs such as electricity to run an office. If an hourly rate is listed, overhead costs need to be itemized separately. The Committee generally gives preferences to funding material expenses (e.g. purchase of equipment). 5) Annual budget for the applying organization (not itemized). 6) Statement describing the applying organization, listing the Board of Directors and officers of the organization, and listing all affiliated organizations. 7) Statement describing the qualifications of the sponsoring organization and participating individuals for completing the project. 8) List of individuals responsible for performing project and of individuals responsible for overseeing project. 9) Statement describing the status of permit approvals necessary to perform project (if applicable). 10) Request for an exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement due to financial hardship or an exception for a small project under $1,000. (This request does not count toward your page limit and is only required if requesting an exception.) Format: • Your proposal packet, including cover sheet and any attachments must not exceed four single-sided pages or two double-sided pages, 8.5 by 1 1 inches in size. Please use 11 point font or larger and ½ inch margins or larger on your pages. If you are including a letter from the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife to demonstrate eligibility under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i) or (m) of the Fish and Game Code, this will not be counted as part of your page limit. Otherwise, if you submit more than 3 pages plus required cover sheet, your proposal may be disqualified without review. • Do not attach an additional cover letter, brochures, posters, publications, CDs, DVDs, large maps or yellow-sticky paper (e.g. Post-ItTM). • Your complete application packet including signature must arrive by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 (Pacific Standard Time) to be considered for funding. (Please note: A postmark of January 11, 2017 does not satisfy the submission deadline. If submitted after the deadline, your proposal will be disqualified). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1243 Your complete application should be: Emailed: maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us or Mailed: Contra Costa County Fish & Wildlife Committee c/o Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553-4601 Attn: Maureen Parkes If you wish to hand deliver, contact Maureen by email or at 925-674-7831. Final Checklist Before You Submit Your Proposal: Please note that your proposal will not be considered if you provide more materials than required below: • Signed Cover page (your proposal will be disqualified if it does not have your original signature on the cover page). • 3 pages or less on your project description (any extra attachments such as a map and an organization budget will be counted as one of the three page limit.) • Letter from the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife only if your project is under Section 13103 (d), (h), (i), or (m) of the Fish and Game Code. (This is not a part of the page limit listed above). • Request for an exception to the grant funding cost reimbursement requirement due to financial hardship or an exception for a small project under $1,000. (This is not a part of the page limit listed above and is only required if requesting an exception). If you have questions regarding the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund grant process, please contact Maureen Parkes: maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us / (925) 674-7831. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1244 (a) Public education relating to the scientific principles of fish and wildlife conservation, consisting of supervised formal instruction carried out pursuant to a planned curriculum and aids to education such as literature, audio and video recordings, training models, and nature study facilities. (b) Temporary emergency treatment and care of injured or orphaned wildlife. (c) Temporary treatment and care of wildlife confiscated by the department as evidence. (d) Breeding, raising, purchasing, or releasing fish or wildlife which are to be released upon approval of the department pursuant to Sections 6400 and 6401 onto land or into waters of local, state, or federal agencies or onto land or into waters open to the public. (e) Improvement of fish and wildlife habitat, including, but not limited to, construction of fish screens, weirs, and ladders; drainage or other watershed improvements; gravel and rock removal or placement; construction of irrigation and water distribution systems; earthwork and grading; fencing; planting trees and other vegetation management; and removal of barriers to the migration of fish and wildlife. (f) Construction, maintenance, and operation of public hatchery facilities. (g) Purchase and maintain materials, supplies, or equipment for either the department's ownership and use or the department's use in the normal performance of the department's responsibilities. (h) Predator control actions for the benefit of fish or wildlife following certification in writing by the department that the proposed actions will significantly benefit a particular wildlife species. (i) Scientific fish and wildlife research conducted by institutions of higher learning, qualified researchers, or governmental agencies, if approved by the department. (j) Reasonable administrative costs, excluding the costs of audits required by Section 13104, for secretarial service, travel, and postage by the county fish and wildlife commission when authorized by the county board of supervisors. For purposes of this subdivision, "reasonable cost" means an amount which does not exceed 3 percent of the average amount received by the fund during the previous three-year period, or three thousand dollars ($3,000) annually, whichever is greater, excluding any funds carried over from a previous fiscal year. (k) Contributions to a secret witness program for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of this code and regulations adopted pursuant to this code. (l) Costs incurred by the district attorney or city attorney in investigating and prosecuting civil and criminal actions for violations of this code, as approved by the department. (m) Other expenditures, approved by the department, for the purpose of protecting, conserving, propagating, and preserving fish and wildlife. California Fish and Game Code Section 711.2. (a) "For purposes of this code, unless the context otherwise requires, "wildlife" means and includes all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability ..." California Fish and Game Code Section 13103. Expenditures from the fish and wildlife propagation fund of any county may be made only for the following purposes: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1245 Office Use Only: Contra Costa County 2017 Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund Application Cover Page Project title: Organization/Individual applying: (Organization type: please check one – government, non-profit, for-profit, other (explain) Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: Name and title of contact person: One sentence summary of proposal: Requested grant: Proposal prepared by (name & title): Signature (Typing your name does not count as a signature. If this section is empty, your proposal will not be considered): ________________________________________________ Signed on _______________ April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1246 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2016 Annual Report from the Contra Costa County Commission for Women. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2002, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2002/377, which requires that each regular and ongoing board, commission, or committee shall annually report to the Board of Supervisors on its activities, accomplishments, membership attendance, required training/certification (if any), and proposed work plan or objectives for the following year, on the second Tuesday in December. The annual report for the Contra Costa County Commission for Women covering the period of January 2016 through December 2016, is attached, outlining accomplishments achieved and proposed actions and goals for 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board and the public will not have this information. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Enid Mendoza, (925) 335-1039 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Annual Report from the Contra Costa Commission on Women April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1247 ATTACHMENTS CCCW 2016 Annual Report April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1248 1 Advisory Body Annual Report Advisory Body Name: Contra Costa County Commission for Women Meeting Time/ Location: Third Tuesday of the month 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. County Connection, Gayle B. Uilkema Memorial Board Room 2477 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord CA Chair: Iris Wong Staff person: None Reporting period: January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 I. COMMISSION SPONSERED ACTIVITIES a. Teleseminar on Time Management: On January 28, 2016, the Commission hosted a teleseminar featuring Rosie Aiello, award winning entrepreneur, bestselling author, and founder of ClearVista Consulting International. Ms. Aiello spoke to twenty-four (24) participants about organizing and prioritizing their time to lessen stress for a fulfilling and meaningful life. b. 13th Biennial Women’s Hall of Fame: On March 24, 2016, the Commission honored 12 women in the following categories as part of the 13th Biennial Women’s Hall of Fame: i. Women Creating Community – Donna Kerger, Lill Pierce, Mary Rocha, Qwivander Smith, Synitha Walker ii. Women Improving Health – Lucinda Bazile, Dr. Barbara Bunn McCullough iii. Women Demonstrating Leadership – Menbere Aklilu, Elena Sfreddo Bicker, Joan Buchanan iv. Women Improving the Environment – Diane Burgis v. Women Contributing to the Arts – Diane Gilfether The event was hosted at Crowne Plaza in Concord. It was sold out with more than six hundred (600) attendees, and featured keynote speaker Fiona Ma, Member of the Board of Equalization. Supervisors John Gioia, Candace Anderson, Karen Mitchoff, and Federal Glover were present. The event was covered by CCTV, and can be viewed here. c. Pittsburg High School Outreach: In April, Commissioner Phyllis Gordon lead the annual Cookie Project curriculum at the high school, engaging over 650 female junior students about pay inequity. Then, on May 2, 2016, the Commission participated in the inaugural Women’s Equality Day event at Pittsburg High School, titled “Bite of Reality.” The event featured keynote speaker Betty Dukes, who spoke about her experiences in fighting pay inequity and gender discrimination in Walmart v. Dukes. Due to the success of these events, the Commission has been invited to return in 2017, and Antioch High School has expressed interest in implementing the Cookie Project in their school as well. d. Women and Entrepreneurship Panel: On May 18, 2016, the Commission partnered with the Contra Costa Small Business Development Center to host a panel on “Becoming an Entrepreneur.” Over twenty (20) participants attended the event to network and learn from panelists: Dr. Julianna Hynes, Julianna Hynes & Associates, Executive Coaching and Leadership Development; Michele Long, MA, Bloom Retreat, Wholeness April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1249 2 Center for Women; Vanity Vale-Ayala, Ayala Property Maintenance, Skilled Home Repair Service; Angela De La Housaye, Esq., De La Housaye & Associates, ALC., Law Firm. e. Equal Means Equal Screening and Panel: On August 26, 2016, the Commission partnered with Supervisor Federal Glover to screen “Equal Means Equal,” a powerful award winning documentary about the status of women in the United States and efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. This event was attended by more than thirty (30) people, and was one of only fourteen (14) that took place nationwide on August 26 to bring awareness to these issues, where in the movie producers provided the movie at no cost. After the screening, a panel of experts discussed their insights in achieving women’s equality in the community and workplace: Gina Del Carlo, Work Force Development Board Specialist; Beth Mora, Esq. of Mora Employment Law; and Cynthia Peterson, Executive Director of Community Violence Solutions. f. Money Matters Panel: On October 26, 2016, the Commission partnered with the Contra Costa Small Business Development Center to discuss how to start and build a sustainable small business. The panel experts include: Shey Lunger, Lunger Electric; Sylvia Melendez, Tierra Mia Organics; Lisa Murphy, Sosu Sauces; Kim Nelson, Raina's Textile House. II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS The Commission was successful in achieving its objectives and work plan for 2016: a. Increase visibility: Commissioner Stacey Howard modernized the Commission’s logo to showcase its focus on Contra Costa County; it is shown at the top of this report. Through quarterly newsletters, Facebook posts, and tweets, the Commission has been building its visibility to the public. Commissioners frequently attend community events, especially those hosted by Supervisors, so that they can build relationship with other community leaders and raise awareness about the Commission’s work. b. Collaborate with organizations in Contra Costa County: The Commission hosted several panels with the Contra Costa Small Business Development Center to teach women how to manage time, become an entrepreneur, and build a sustainable small business. c. Meet the needs of the community: The Commission compiled a countywide survey to better understand women’s needs, and began collecting responses. In addition, the Commission is looking into partnering with local universities to conduct data analysis. III. ATTENDANCE & REPRESENTATION A quorum was achieved at all 12 monthly Commission meetings. In 2016, the Commission welcomed eight new Commissioners, and now has a total of 16 Commissioners out of 21 possible seats. Of those, 5 are representatives from the Board of Supervisors, 15 are members-at-large, and 1 is a member-at-large-alternate. There are 5 vacancies. Three potential members are currently in the appointment process. The Commission is proud to be represented by a diverse group of members, including African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Caucasian. All Commissioners are women. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1250 3 IV. TRAINING & CERTIFICATION The following members of the Commission for Women who began their term in 2016 and/or 2017 have completed the Brown Act Training in a timely fashion: Jennifer DeLano Cohen, Angela Herron, Liliana Gonzalez, Lanita Mims, Bonnie McCreary, Beth W. Mora, Patricia Ramirez, and Natalie Oleas. Commission members who were appointed prior did not have to re-certify and thus are current. V. PROPOSED WORK PLACE & TWO YEAR OBJECTIVES The Contra Costa County Commission for Women’s mission is to improve the economic status, social welfare and overall quality of life of women in Contra Costa County. In 2017, the Commission decided to focus its work on the theme of “Implicit Gender Bias.” To that end, a special committee has been formed to educate the Commission about the subject. a. Executive Committee o Revise bylaws b. Implicit Gender Bias Education Committee - Two (2) Year Agenda o Educate the Commission at each meeting about implicit gender bias in different industries o Work with the Commission to plan events that educate the public on the topics c. Goal Advancement Committee o Ensure the goals set by each Committee reflect the overall goals of Education, Collaboration, Advocacy, and Empowerment d. Legislative Committee o Be aware of and monitor the State and Federal Legislative platform for the Board of Supervisors o Monitor State and Federal legislation that are relevant to the goals of the Commission e. Membership Committee o Grow the Commission to its maximum of 21 members, including an alternate member f. Public Relations Committee o Redesign Commission’s website o Develop internal protocol for Commissioners to post on social media accounts o Send out newsletter each quarter o Post on Facebook and Twitter three times per month o Take and post pictures at each public Commission event g. Events Committee o Work with Committee members to support any events as necessary. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1251 RECOMMENDATION(S): FIND that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project; and FIND that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project is adequate and complete, was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and County and State CEQA Guidelines, and reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; and CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, and ADOPT the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan contained herein; and ADOPT the CEQA Findings including the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A) pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines; and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director or designee to arrange for payment of $3,078 for California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, a $25 fee to Conservation and Development APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Hillary Heard, 925 313-2022 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project and related actions under CEQA, Martinez area. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1252 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. APPROVE the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to proceed with demolition of the 1944 Jail Annex portion of the Downtown Martinez Jail, and COMMIT to temporary preservation of the historic original 1903 portion of the Downtown Martinez Jail for a minimum of two years (April 25, 2019). FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $1.5 million (100% General Fund). BACKGROUND: The Project would involve demolition and removal of the existing Jailhouse building, including all building elements (i.e., foundations, roof equipment, and building appurtenances). The basement of the Jailhouse building and the sunken garage would also be demolished and filled. The existing Jailhouse building consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex built in 1944. The Jailhouse building is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Jailhouse building is approximately 19,008 gross square feet and 35 feet in height. There are seven parking spaces in a parking lot to the south of the building and five in a parking lot to the north of the building. The Jailhouse is currently vacant (with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage). The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials including asbestos and lead-based paint. Following demolition of the existing Jailhouse building, the Project site would be leveled to match the surrounding area and a surface parking lot would be constructed on the Project site. As described above, the existing parking lots have a total of 12 striped parking spaces. The County Public Works Department would repave the entire site, providing a total of 25 to 30 spaces. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the parking demand from the adjacent County buildings and would be restricted to County employees only. Construction activities would include abatement of hazardous materials and the demolition of the existing Jailhouse, site preparation and excavation, site grading, and paving of the new parking lot. Additionally, the Project would include the demolition and removal of all other site features, including building footings, granite bollards, granite curb, concrete curb, metal railings, walls, paving, and limited portions of sidewalks within the Project site. All existing planters and landscaping would be removed as well. The Project would have significant effects with regard to historic architectural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. With the exception of historic architectural resources, these impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The Project site is not included on a hazardous materials/contaminated sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. On November 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors awarded three job order contracts (JOC) for repair, remodeling, and other repetitive work to be performed pursuant to the Construction Task Catalog. The Public Works Department is unable to utilize one of the three existing job order contractors due to the expiration of the contracts and/or exhausted funds. The Public Works Department is in the process of awarding bids received on March 23, 2017, for job order contractors under Job Order Contracts 004, 005, 006, and 007. This Project is expected to be performed by one of the four JOC contractors. In the event that it is not performed by a JOC contractor, the Public Works Department will advertise and solicit public bids and return to the Board for its award. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of demolition. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Harlan Bailey, resident of Martinez; Kris Carlock, resident of Martinez; Melissa Jackson, resident April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1253 Speakers: Harlan Bailey, resident of Martinez; Kris Carlock, resident of Martinez; Melissa Jackson, resident of Lafayette (handout attached). Written commentary was also received from Annette Nunez, resident of Pacheco; Marie Knutson, resident of Martinez; Debra Reuter, resident of Martinez; Steve Older, Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Kara Lucca, resident of Martinez; Dean McLeod, Director, Architectural Preservation Foundation of Contra Costa County; Kristen Henderson, resident of Martinez (attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Martinez Jail Demolition Draft EIR Martinez Jail Demolition_Findings (Exhibit A) Martinez_Jail_Demolition_Final EIR NOD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1254 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN MARTINEZ JAIL DEMOLITION PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2015112003 P REPARED FOR: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Hillary Heard 925.313.2022 P REPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Sally Zeff 916.737.3000 March 2016 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1255 ICF International. Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project Environmental Impact Report. Draft. March. 2016. (ICF 00413.15) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1256 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report i March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Contents Page List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................. ES-2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ ES-2 Summary of Project Impacts ....................................................................................................... ES-2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .......................................................................................... ES-2 Project Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... ES-2 Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ............................................................... ES-3 Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 CEQA Environmental Review Process .............................................................................. 1-2 1.2.1 Intent of the EIR ........................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.2 Notice of Preparation ................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.3 Scoping ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.4 Public Comment on the Draft EIR.............................................................................. 1-3 1.3 EIR Organization ............................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Location ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1 Project Design and Characteristics ............................................................................ 2-3 2.3.2 Abatement, Demolition and Construction ................................................................ 2-4 2.4 Required Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 2-6 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1257 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ii March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 3.1-7 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.1-13 3.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 3.2-1 3.2.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 3.2-5 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.2-10 3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 3.3-1 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 3.3-7 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3.3-8 3.4 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.1 Noise Terminology ................................................................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 3.4-2 3.4.3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 3.4-5 3.4.4 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3.4-5 3.5 Transportation and Traffic ............................................................................................ 3.5-1 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................. 3.5-1 3.5.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 3.5-2 3.5.3 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3.5-4 3.6 Other Topics .................................................................................................................. 3.6-1 3.6.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 3.6-1 3.6.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ......................................................................... 3.6-3 3.6.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 3.6-4 3.6.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................... 3.6-8 3.6.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 3.6-11 3.6.6 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 3.6-18 3.6.7 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 3.6-19 3.6.8 Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 3.6-20 3.6.9 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 3.6-21 3.6.10 Recreation ............................................................................................................ 3.6-22 3.6.11 Utilities ................................................................................................................. 3.6-23 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1258 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report iii March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 4 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria .......................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives ............................................................................ 4-2 4.1.3 Impact Avoidance ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.4 Feasibility ................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative ...................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative ................................. 4-3 4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 Off-Site Alternative .................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.5 Relocation Alternative ............................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.6 Alternatives Dismissed from Analysis ....................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-5 4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Project ......................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative ................................. 4-8 4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative ................................................................................................. 4-12 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................................... 4-16 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Legal Requirements ................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 5-3 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................ 5-6 5.2.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth or Provide New Access .............................................. 5-7 5.2.2 Economic, Population, and Housing Growth ............................................................ 5-7 5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ...................................................... 5-8 Chapter 6 References ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................ 7-1 Appendices Appendix A NOP and Scoping Comments Appendix B Air Quality Modeling Results and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Results Appendix C Archaeological Survey Report Appendix D Historic Resources Evaluation Report Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1259 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report iv March 2016 ICF 00413.15 List of Tables Tables Page ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................. ES-5 2-1 Summary of Equipment Types ......................................................................................... 2-4 3.1-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................ 3.1-2 3.1-2 Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Several Greenhouse Gases .................. 3.1-10 3.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data from the Vallejo-Tuolumne Street Monitoring Station (2012–2014) ................................................................................ 3.1-11 3.1-4 Federal and State Attainment Status of Contra Costa County ................................... 3.1-12 3.1-5 Global, National, State, and Local GHG Emissions Inventories .................................. 3.1-13 3.1-6 BAAQMD Criteria Pollutant Significance Thresholds .................................................. 3.1-16 3.1-7 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ......................... 3.1-19 3.1-8 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ............................. 3.1-19 3.1-9 Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) ........................................................ 3.1-22 3.4-1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ................................................................................. 3.4-2 3.4-2 City of Martinez Maximum Noise Levels for New Uses Affected by Non- Transportation Noise .................................................................................................... 3.4-4 3.4-3 Project Equipment by Phase ......................................................................................... 3.4-6 3.4-4 Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels ................................................................. 3.4-7 3.4-5 Project Noise Levels by Phase ....................................................................................... 3.4-7 3.5-1 Maximum Number of Trips during Demolition and Construction ................................ 3.5-5 3.6-1 Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters in the Project Vicinity ........................................... 3.6-13 3.6-2 Martinez and Contra Costa County Population Growth Forecast 2015–2040 ........... 3.6-20 3.6-3 Martinez and Contra Costa County Household Growth Forecast 2015–2040 ........... 3.6-20 4-1 Comparison of Alternatives’ Impacts ............................................................................. 4-18 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1260 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report v March 2016 ICF 00413.15 List of Figures Figures Follows Page 2-1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 2-2 2-3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2-2 3.4-1 Contra Costa Land Use Compatibility Standards .......................................................... 3.4-4 3.4-2 City of Martinez Land Use Compatibility Standards ..................................................... 3.4-4 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1261 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report vi March 2016 ICF 00413.15 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations °F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACCMs asbestos-containing construction materials ACMs asbestos-containing materials AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act APN Assessor Parcel Number AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ARB California Air Resource Board ASCI Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry ASR Archaeological Survey Report BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs best management practices CAA federal Clean Air Act CAAQS California ambient air quality standards Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal-OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCCFPD Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCCSD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District CCR California Code of Regulations CCT&RS Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa County Water District CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CMP congestion management program CO carbon monoxide April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1262 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report vii March 2016 ICF 00413.15 CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities commission C-R&S Commercial, Retail and Services CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CTP Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DHS California Department of Health Services DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DPM diesel particulate matter DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EMT Early Period-Middle Period Transition EO executive order EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GHG greenhouse gas GLO General Land Office gsf gross square foot GWP global warming potential HABS Historic American Building Survey HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFCs Hydroflourocarbons HRER Historical Resources Evaluation Report HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development I-680 Interstate 680 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LBPs lead-based paints LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ldn Day-Night Level Leq Equivalent Sound Level LID Low Impact Development Lmax Maximum Sound Levels LOS level of service mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MLT Middle/Late Transition MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1263 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report viii March 2016 ICF 00413.15 NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NCP National Contingency Plan NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO nitric oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOX nitrogen oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR New Source Review NWIC Northwest Information Center OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PFCs perfluorocarbons PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter ppb parts per billion PPD pounds/person/day ppm parts per million Project Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ROG Reactive Organic Gases SAR Second Assessment Report sf square feet SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SIL Significant Impact Level SIP State Implementation Plan SIS Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties SO2 sulfur dioxide SR State Route State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Toxic Air Contaminates Tanner Act Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act Transportation 2035 Plan Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USC United States Code VMT vehicle miles traveled April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1264 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Executive Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project (Project). As required by Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this executive summary contains the following sections.  Project Overview  Project Objectives  Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures  Project Alternatives  Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Project Overview The Project sponsor (Contra Costa County Public Works) proposes to demolish the Downtown Martinez Jailhouse building and to construct a surface parking lot in its place. The Jailhouse building is located on a single parcel along with the County Finance building on the block between Court, Escobar, Pine, and Main Streets. The building is approximately 19,008 gross square feet. There are two parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building. The County Public Works Department would repave the entire site, providing a total of 25 to 30 spaces. The existing driveways on the north and south sides of the Jailhouse building would be maintained. The proposed parking lot would be designed in compliance with County Ordinance No. 82-16 regarding off-street parking. The Project site could potentially be used in the future as the site for construction and operation of new structures for County administrative functions, but no plans or designs have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time. For these reasons, analysis of impacts of construction and operation of such potential future uses and structures would be speculative and are not evaluated in this EIR. At the time such potential future uses and structures are proposed, additional evaluation under CEQA would be required. The Jailhouse building includes the original structure, completed in 1903, and an annex, built in 1944. The Jailhouse building is on the National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1989). The exterior of the 1903 portion of the building is hand-chiseled granite, and the exterior of the 1994 is textured concrete in neutral earth tones (Guzzetti 2015). The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead-based paint. Under the proposed Project, the Jailhouse building, and sunken garage, including building footings and the surrounding granite curb, would be demolished and hazardous materials would be abated and disposed of in an appropriate facility. Following demolition, an asphalt surface parking lot would be constructed on the Project site with 25 to 30 spaces. The existing driveways on the north and south sides of the Jailhouse building would be maintained to provide access to the parking lot. All April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1265 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 pedestrian amenities would be maintained. The parking lot would utilize the existing two street lamp, and include landscaping features. Project Objectives The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The County’s objectives for the Project are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement the Martinez General Plan, Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and Contra Costa County General Plan policies for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez.  Promote future development of required space for County government administrative uses.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Summary of Project Impacts The Project impacts are summarized in Table ES-1 (presented at the end of this summary). For potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures are identified, where feasible, to reduce the impact on environmental resources to a less-than-significant level. Refer to Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, for a detailed discussion of Project impacts and detailed descriptions of the mitigation measures. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects of a project, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The impact analysis presented in Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, has identified that the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impact:  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource Project Alternatives State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and reduce the degree of environmental impact. Chapter 4, Alternatives, provides a qualitative analysis of alternatives as compared with the Project. Three alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 4.  Alternative 1 − No Project Alternative: Under this alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would not be demolished. No parking lot would be constructed. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1266 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative: Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. There would be no demolition and no construction of a parking lot.  Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative: Under this alternative, the County would demolish the 13,089-gross square foot 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the 5,919-gross-square-foot original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. A parking lot with approximately 15 spaces would be developed in the current location of the annex. Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved The County Public Works Department prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the Project. The NOP was posted in the County Clerk’s office and delivered to the State Clearinghouse for distribution on November 2, 2015. The County Public Works Department also mailed copies of the NOP to interested parties, local agencies, and other interested stakeholders. The scoping period for the EIR was initially scheduled to close on December 2, 2015. At the request of public comments, the scoping period for the EIR was extended and closed on December 16, 2015. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was conducted by the Zoning Administrator on November 16, 2015. Comments received regarding the scope of the Draft EIR pertained to the following topics: cultural resources, land use and planning, hazards and hazardous materials, utilities, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Appendix A contains the NOP and written and oral comments on the NOP. While there is substantial interest in the historic value of the Old Jail, there is not controversy concerning its value as a historic resource. The structure is considered to be a significant historic resource. A commenter on the NOP suggested that the Draft EIR analyze “the whole of the action,” including the future construction of a new building at the Project site. Under CEQA, a “project” subject to environmental review must be the “whole of an action” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)). This CEQA rule of analysis serves to assure that a large project is not chopped up into many smaller ones, resulting in piecemealing or segmenting of environmental review and masking the full scope of project impacts. Put another way, “a narrow view of a project could result in…overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole” (San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App.4th 713, 714). Courts have determined that an EIR must include analysis of the environmental effects of a future action if: 1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and 2) the future action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. This standard involves determining whether the EIR has left out of the environmental analysis a “crucial element” or “integral part” of the project, without which the project cannot go forward (National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. County of Riverside (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1519). Where an action is not a crucial element of the project, but merely contributes to the same pool of cumulative impacts, the action may be included in the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts instead. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1267 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 This EIR analyzes the whole of the project as it is known at this time. As described in the Project Description, a potential future use of the Project site would be for County administrative functions, but no plans or designs have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time. Therefore, no further details are known at this time regarding what structures might be planned and constructed at the site. State CEQA Guidelines Article 10 Section 15145 states that if a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the court noted that where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Because future development is unspecified for this Project site, it would be speculative to attempt to determine potential impacts of an unknown future use. Therefore, the unknown future use is not considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, nor will this future potential action change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not analyze the impacts of construction or operation of such a potential future use. At the time that such construction is planned, further environmental review under CEQA would be required. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1268 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan Less than significant -- -- Impact AQ-2: Violate any quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or project air quality violation Less than significant Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions Less than significant Impact AQ-3: Potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard Less than significant -- -- Impact AQ-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Less than significant -- -- Impact AQ-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Less than significant -- -- Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Less than significant Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices for GHG Emissions Less than significant Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases Less than significant -- -- Impact EGY-1: Result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, including transportation energy use Less than significant -- -- Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Record the Building’s History and Architecture following Historic American Building Survey Guidelines and Prepare Materials for Public Interpretation Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Plan for Reuse of Salvaged Components of the Building in Public Spaces Significant and Unavoidable April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1269 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources are Encountered During Ground-disturbing Activities Less than significant Impact CUL-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Stop Work if Paleontological or Unique Geologic Features are Encountered During Ground-disturbing Activities Less than significant Impact CUL-4: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Significant Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Stop Work if Human Remains are Encountered During Ground-disturbing Activities Less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Less than significant -- -- Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment Significant Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prepare a Hazardous Materials Specification for the Abatement of Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs) Prior to Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Retain a State Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor to Perform Hazardous Materials Abatement Prior to Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Obtain Proper Building Permits and Follow Applicable Regulations Regarding the Handling of Hazardous Materials during Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Ensure that Contractors and Designers Know the Exact Location of All Hazardous Materials Less than significant Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school Less than significant -- -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1270 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment No impact -- -- Impact HAZ-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area No impact -- -- Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No impact -- -- Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands No impact -- -- Noise Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies Less than significant -- -- Impact NOI-2: Expose persons to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than significant -- -- Impact NOI-3: Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels Significant Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Vibration-Reducing Demolition Practices Less than significant Impact NOI-4: Expose persons to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project Less than significant -- -- Impact NOI-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels No impact -- -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1271 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Transportation Impact TRA-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit Less than significant -- -- Impact TRA-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways No impact -- -- Impact TRA-3: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks No impact -- -- Impact TRA-4: Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses Less than significant -- -- Impact TRA-5: Result in inadequate emergency access Less than significant -- -- Impact TRA-6: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities Less than significant -- -- Other Topics Aesthetics Effect on a scenic vista and visual character Less than significant -- -- Damage scenic resources along a scenic highway; new source of light and glare No impact -- -- Agricultural and Forest Resources No impact -- -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1272 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Biological Resources Effect on special-status species Less than significant -- -- Effect on sensitive natural community or federally protected wetlands No impact -- -- Interfere with wildlife corridors or impede use of wildlife nursery site Significant Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Implement Protective Measures for Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat and Other Roosting Bats Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Demolition outside Nesting Season (September 1 to January 31) or Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey for Demolition during Nesting Season (February 1 to August 31) Less than significant Conflict with local policies or ordinances or an adopted habitat conservation plan No impact -- -- Geology and Soils Expose people or structures to adverse effects due to rupture of earthquake fault, ground failure, or landslides; soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or wastewater disposal systems No impact -- -- Expose people or structures to adverse effects due to seismic ground shaking; result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil; located on unstable soil or expansive soil Less than significant -- -- Hydrology and Water Quality Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; degrade water quality; deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge; alter drainage pattern or create runoff water exceeding the capacity of the stormwater drainage system Less than significant -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1273 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact Level of Significance before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Place structures or people within 100-year flood hazard areas, expose significant loss, injury, or death, or impede redirect flows; contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No impact -- -- Land Use and Planning Divide an established community; conflict with habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan No impact -- -- Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation Less than significant -- -- Mineral Resources No impact Population and Housing Induce population growth Less than significant -- -- Displace housing or people No impact -- -- Public Services No impact -- -- Recreation No impact -- -- Utilities Exceed wastewater treatment requirements; require new water, wastewater or stormwater treatment facilities; have sufficient water supplies or wastewater treatment capacity No impact -- -- Served by landfill with sufficient capacity; comply with solid waste regulations Less than significant -- -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1274 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Executive Summary Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Cumulative Impacts Contribution to Cumulative Effects Additional Mitigation Measures Contribution after Mitigation Aesthetics Not considerable None necessary -- Agricultural and Forest Resources No impact None necessary -- Air quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Not considerable None necessary -- Biological Resources Not considerable None necessary -- Cultural Resources Not considerable None necessary -- Geology and Soils Not considerable None necessary -- Hazards and hazardous materials Not considerable None necessary -- Hydrology and Water Quality Not considerable None necessary -- Land Use and Planning Not considerable None necessary -- Mineral Resources No impact None necessary -- Noise Not considerable None necessary -- Population and Housing Not considerable None necessary -- Public Services No impact None necessary -- Recreation No impact None necessary -- Transportation and Traffic Not considerable None necessary -- Utilities Not considerable None necessary -- April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1275 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Proposed Project This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of demolishing the Downtown Martinez Jailhouse and constructing an asphalt surface parking lot in its place (Project). The EIR is intended to identify the anticipated environmental impacts of the demolition and construction that may be undertaken by Contra Costa County (County) Public Works Department. 1.1.1 Overview The Project sponsor (County Public Works Department) proposes to demolish the Martinez Jailhouse building and surrounding granite curb, and proposes to expand the existing parking lot on the south side of the building as an interim use of the Project site. A potential future use of the site would be for County administrative functions, but no plans or designs have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time. 1.1.2 Background The existing Jailhouse building consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex built in 1944. The Jailhouse building was closed in 1986. Since then, the building has fallen into disrepair, staying vacant with the exception of a limited amount of rarely used storage. The Jailhouse building shares a single parcel with the County Finance building. The parcel occupies the entire block between Court, Escobar, Pine, and Main streets. The parcel is owned by Contra Costa County but lies within the city limits of Martinez. The Contra Costa County zoning and general plan designation apply to the Project site, and the City of Martinez zoning and general plan designations apply to the surrounding non-County-owned land, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091. Both the Finance and Jailhouse buildings were listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in December 1989 as Contra Costa County Courthouse Block, Finance Building. The NRHP nomination identified the buildings as historically significant for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction, and that represent the work of master architects. In 2006, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan identified a proposed Downtown Historic Overlay District, which the Martinez City Council approved in 2010. Although the Finance and Jailhouse buildings are not listed as local landmarks, they are contributing elements to that locally designated historic district. Thus, they are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1276 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 1.2 CEQA Environmental Review Process 1.2.1 Intent of the EIR The County Public Works Department has prepared this Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR is an informational document to aid in public review and official decision making. The EIR addresses the Project, disclosing information describing the environmental setting; potential direct, indirect, cumulative, and growth-inducing impacts of the Project; mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce or avoid those impacts; alternatives to the Project; and impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development is the CEQA Lead Agency for the Project. 1.2.2 Notice of Preparation The County Public Works Department prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the Project. The NOP was posted in the County Clerk’s office and delivered to the State Clearinghouse for distribution on November 2, 2015. The County Public Works Department also mailed copies of the NOP to interested parties, local agencies, and other interested stakeholders. The scoping period for the EIR was initially scheduled to close on December 2, 2015. At the request of public comments, the scoping period for the EIR was extended and closed on December 16, 2015. 1.2.3 Scoping A public scoping meeting was conducted at a Public Hearing held by the Zoning Administrator on November 16, 2015. There were two public speakers at the meeting. Impacts on historic cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials were the primary environmental issues raised during the meeting. A commenter also requested analysis of an offsite alternative. This is discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives. This EIR addresses comments on the NOP to the extent that they influenced the scope of the environmental analysis. Nine comment letters were received, including three from public agencies and six from members of the public or businesses. Comments received regarding the scope of the Draft EIR pertained to the following topics: cultural resources, land use and planning, hazards and hazardous materials, utilities, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. Appendix A contains the NOP and written and oral comments on the NOP. A commenter suggested that the Draft EIR analyze “the whole of the action,” including the future construction of a new building at the Project site. Under CEQA, a “project” subject to environmental review must be the “whole of an action” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)). This CEQA rule of analysis serves to assure that a large project is not chopped up into many smaller ones, resulting in piecemealing or segmenting of environmental review and masking the full scope of project impacts. Put another way, “a narrow view of a project could result in…overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole” (San Joaquin Raptor/ Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App.4th 713, 714). Courts have determined that an EIR must include analysis of the environmental effects of a future action if: 1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and 2) the future action will be significant in that it April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1277 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. This standard involves determining whether the EIR has left out of the environmental analysis a “crucial element” or “integral part” of the project, without which the project cannot go forward (National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. County of Riverside (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1519). Where an action is not a crucial element of the project, but merely contributes to the same pool of cumulative impacts, the action may be included in the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts instead. This EIR analyzes the whole of the project as it is known at this time. As described in the Project Description, a potential future use of the Project site would be for County administrative functions, but no plans or designs have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time. Therefore, no further details are known at this time regarding what structures might be planned and constructed at the site. State CEQA Guidelines Article 10 Section 15145 states that if a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the court noted that where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Because future development is unspecified for this Project site, it would be speculative to attempt to determine potential impacts of an unknown future use. Therefore, the unknown future use is not considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, nor will this future potential action change the scope or nature of the initial project analyzed or its environmental effects. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not analyze the impacts of construction or operation of such a potential future use. At the time that such construction is planned, further environmental review under CEQA would be required. Commenters also recommended this EIR analyze several Project alternatives. Commenters requested analysis of a No Project alternative. A No Project Analysis is analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, as Alternative 1. Several commenters requested analysis of adaptive reuse of the Jailhouse building, including the preservation of the Jailhouse building as an historical museum or selling the building to a private developer. An adaptive reuse alternative is analyzed in Chapter 4 as Alternative 2. Several commenters requested analysis of demolition of only the 1944 annex. Partial demolition is analyzed in Chapter 4 as Alternative 3. Finally, a commenter requested analysis of relocating the Jailhouse building. Relocation is discussed in Chapter 4. 1.2.4 Public Comment on the Draft EIR CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, CEQA does encourage “wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). This Draft EIR was made available for public comment beginning March 29, 2016, and the 45-day public comment period will end on May 12, 2016. A public hearing to receive additional comments will be conducted on April 18, 2016 in the Zoning Administrator Room, located at the Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California. Written comments may be submitted at any time during the public comment period. All comments on the Draft EIR will be presented in the Final EIR and a response will be provided to each comment received. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1278 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 1.2.4.1 Making Effective Comments Readers are invited to review and comment on the adequacy and completeness of this Draft EIR in describing the potential impacts of the proposed Project, their level of severity, the mitigation measures being proposed to reduce or avoid impacts, and the Project alternatives being considered. The most effective comments are those that focus on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analysis and that are supported by factual evidence. Comments that focus on whether the Project should be approved or denied are not comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. All comments submitted during the comment period deadline will be responded to and included within the Final EIR. 1.2.4.2 Submitting Comments Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the following addresses by May 12, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Contra Costa County Public Works Department Attention: Hillary Heard 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 email: hillary.heard@pw.cccounty.us 1.3 EIR Organization This Draft EIR and supporting information are presented in the chapters and appendices listed below. Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the focus of the Draft EIR and the environmental review process. Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the Project and provides details on location, objectives, and required approvals. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, describes the environmental and regulatory setting, provides analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures for any significant impacts. For the Project, the County Public Works Department concluded that for all but five of the environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, five topic areas (air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation and traffic) are addressed in complete, detailed sections. All other environmental topic areas, for which no significant environmental impacts were identified, are addressed in summary fashion within a single section of Chapter 3. The summary discussions in Chapter 3 are similar to the level of detail that would appear in an Initial Study. Chapter 4, Alternatives, provides an evaluation of Project alternatives. Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, provides a discussion of significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental effects, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Chapter 6, References, lists the published sources of information and individuals consulted for preparation of this Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1279 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Introduction Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 7, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared this document. Appendix A, NOP and Scoping Comments. Appendix B, Air Quality Modeling Results and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Results Appendix C, Archaeological Survey Report. Appendix D, Historic Resources Evaluation Report. Appendix E, Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), lists all mitigation measures and denotes the appropriate timing, implementing parties, monitoring parties, and monitoring actions. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1280 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Setting 2.1.1 Location The Project site is located at 650 Pine Street in Downtown Martinez, California (Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The existing Martinez Jailhouse building (Jailhouse building) faces Pine Street and shares a rectangular block with the Contra Costa County Finance building located at 625 Court Street (Assessor Parcel Number 373-262-001). The Project site encompasses approximately 0.3 acre (14,881 square feet) of County-owned property (Figure 2-2). The Project site is bounded by Escobar Street to the north, Pine Street to the east, Main Street to the south, and the Contra Costa County Finance building to the west. The Project site is situated approximately 1 mile west of Interstate 680 (I-680) and 0.3 mile east of the Martinez train station. The parcel is owned by Contra Costa County but lies within the city limits of Martinez. The Contra Costa County General Plan designation applies to the Project site, and the City of Martinez zoning and general plan designations apply to the surrounding non-County-owned land uses. Because the Project site is County-owned property, activities on the Project site are not required to comply with City of Martinez zoning ordinances or regulations pursuant to Government Code sections 53090 and 53091. 2.1.2 Existing Conditions The Project site is currently developed with the three-story Jailhouse building, which is vacant with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage (Figure 2-3). There are two parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building. A granite curb separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk. There is also a sunken garage that provides basement access on the north end of the west side of the building. The entire northern side of the Project site is a driveway providing access to the north parking lot and sunken garage. A driveway from Main Street on the southwest corner of the Project site provides access to the south parking lot. The existing Jailhouse building consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex built in 1944. The Jailhouse building is on the National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1989). The exterior of the 1903 portion of the building is hand-chiseled granite; the exterior of the 1944 annex is textured concrete in neutral earth tones (Guzzetti 2015). The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos. Existing onsite vegetation consists of landscaping shrubs on the east side of the Jailhouse building. The Project site is generally flat, with a sunken garage. The following is a summary of the main components of the Project site.  The Jailhouse building (the combination of the 1903 and the 1944 portions) is approximately 19,008 gross square feet and 35 feet in height. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1281 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  The 2,640-square-foot south parking lot has seven striped parking spaces. Six spaces are 45-degree angled spaces, and one is a 90-degree space facing Pine Street.  The 1,008-square-foot north parking lot has five striped 90-degree parking spaces facing south, toward the Jailhouse building.  The 471-square-foot sunken garage providing basement access was constructed as part of the 1944 annex. The garage floor slab, roof slab, and interior walls are made of concrete. The exterior is made of stone. The garage is approximately 8 feet, 6 inches high and has a connecting driveway from Escobar Street. 2.1.3 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses The Project site is on County-owned property but within the limits of the City of Martinez. The Contra Costa County General Plan designation applies to the Project site, and the City of Martinez zoning and general plan designations apply to the surrounding non-County-owned land uses. The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the site as Public/Semi-Public (County of Contra Costa 2005). The surrounding land uses are predominantly County government buildings to the west, east, and south, and parking lots to the north. The Contra Costa County Administration building and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office are to the east, directly across Pine Street from the Jailhouse building. To the south are various Contra Costa County courthouses. There are parking lots to the north of the Project site, across Escobar Street. To the west, sharing the same parcel as the Jailhouse building, is the Contra Costa County Finance building. Martinez Waterfront Park is approximately 0.1 mile to the north, on the far side of the Union Pacific Railroad train tracks. Farther west is the downtown core, a commercial district with restaurants, retail, and offices. 2.2 Project Objectives The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The County’s objectives for the Project are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. 2.3 Project Overview The Project sponsor (Contra Costa County Public Works) proposes to demolish the Jailhouse building, including the sunken garage and the surrounding granite curb, and proposes to construct a parking lot in its place as a near-term use. In total, the Project would provide 25 to 30 parking spaces for existing County employees. A potential future use of the Project site is County administrative functions, but no plans or designs have been prepared and no funding is available for April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1282 N APA C OUNTY S OLANO C OUNTY A LAMEDA C OUNTY C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY A LAMEDA 24 13 29 242 12 12 29 12 4 4 121 112 80 80 80 80 680 680 580 580 880 101 Faireld Sonoma San Francisco Vallejo AmericanCanyon Richmond San Pablo Pinole Oakland Berkeley Albany El Cerrito Alameda San Leandro Concord Pleasant Hill Benicia Suisun City Cordelia Martinez Antioch Pittsburg Dublin Danville Orinda Lafayette Walnut Creek Napa Vacaville San Pablo Bay San Francisco Bay N a pa R.Suisun Bay Grizzly Bay Figure 2-1 Project Location Miles 50 ProjectLocation Graphics … 00413.15 (12-3-2015) ABApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1283 Union Pacific Railroad F e r r y S t Pine St C o u r t S t Marina Vista AveEscobar StC o u r t S t MellusStE s t u d i l l o S t E s t u d i l l o St Court StThompson StGra n d v i e w D r W i l l o w S tN Co u r t S t Pi n e S t Green StF e r r y S t L a s J u n t a s S tJoe DiMaggio DrMain StWard St MartinezJail Figure 2-2Project SitePath: K:\Projects_1\ContraCostaCounty_DPW\00413_15_MartinezJail\mapdoc\Fig_02_2_Project_Site_20151008_PD.mxd; User: 19402; Date: 12/17/2015Source: Streetmap, ESRI 2015; Imagery, ESRI 2015 Legend Project Site 0 200100 Feet´ Martinez Waterfront Park Contra Costa CountyFinance Building April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1284 1. View of the Project site from Main Street.2. View of the Project site from Escobar Street. 3. View of the Project site from Pine Street.Graphics … 00413.15 (1-28-2016)Figure 2-3 Existing Conditions Source: Carey & Co, Inc., 2015. Original Structure Annex April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1285 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 such a future use at this time. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not analyze the impacts of this potential future use. 2.3.1 Project Design and Characteristics As described below, the Project would involve the demolition of the existing Jailhouse building and the construction of a new surface parking lot on the site. 2.3.1.1 Abatement and Demolition of the Jailhouse Building The County Public Works Department proposes abatement, demolition and removal of the existing Jailhouse building, including all building elements (i.e., foundations, roof equipment, and building appurtenances). The basement of the Jailhouse building and the sunken garage would also be demolished and filled. Approximately 1,600 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the Project site. Additionally, the Project would include the demolition and removal of all other site features, including building footings, granite bollards, granite curb, concrete curb, metal railings, walls, paving, and limited portions of sidewalks within the Project site. All existing planters and landscaping would be removed as well. All existing utilities not scheduled to remain would be abandoned or removed prior to demolition. The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead-based paint. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an appropriate facility. All demolition work associated with the Project would conform with the 2013 California Building Code and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations. 2.3.1.2 Parking Lot Following demolition of the existing Jailhouse building, the Project site would be leveled to match the surrounding area and a surface parking lot would be constructed on the Project site. As described above, the existing parking lots have a total of 12 striped parking spaces. The County Public Works Department would repave the entire site, providing a total of 25 to 30 spaces. The existing driveways on the north and south sides of the Jailhouse building would be maintained. The proposed parking lot would be designed in compliance with County Ordinance No. 82-16 regarding off-street parking. The existing sidewalks on the north, east, and south sides of the Project site would be maintained in their current form. The parking lot would use the existing street lighting, consisting of two street lamps, and would not require the addition of any light fixtures. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the parking demand from the adjacent County buildings and would be restricted to County employees only. The Project would involve bioretention landscaping features such as vegetated bioswales and drought-tolerant plants that meet the Provision C.3 requirements of the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Bioretention systems are low impact development (LID) features that use landscaped areas to slow, treat, and retain stormwater runoff, mimicking the natural, pre-development hydrology of a site. Bioretention systems look like regular landscaped areas, but are designed (engineered) to manage stormwater runoff created by urbanization. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1286 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 2.3.2 Abatement, Demolition and Construction A description of the construction schedule, equipment, staffing, and demolition methods is provided below. 2.3.2.1 Abatement, Demolition and Construction Schedule Abatement and demolition is anticipated to begin in fall 2016 and continue for approximately 4 months. Construction of the parking lot is anticipated to begin following demolition and continue for approximately 1 month. Demolition, excavation, and construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. High noise-producing construction activities would be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 2.3.2.2 Abatement, Demolition and Construction Equipment and Staffing Specific construction equipment and personnel are not yet known. However, based on the size and duration of construction, the types of equipment included in Table 2-1 would be needed during construction. Table 2-1. Summary of Equipment Types Phase Equipment Type Abatement and demolition Diesel crane Demolition excavator Loader Bobcat Backhoe End dump Site preparation, grubbing, excavation Grader Backhoe End dump Site grading Grader Compactor Backhoe End dump Paving Paver Striper Backhoe End dump Roller Tractor loader Source: Contra Costa County Department of Public Works 2016. The number of construction staff onsite is expected to range from 5 to 10 people per day. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1287 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 2.3.2.3 Demolition Methods Before performing demolition activities at the Project site, the County Public Works Department would perform a comprehensive building materials survey for asbestos-containing materials,1 lead-based paint, electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors and lights. If any of these materials are found, construction worker health and safety regulations and materials removal and disposal would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state standards, including the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. The Project contractor would comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an approved facility. The Project would include the abatement, demolition and removal of the Jailhouse building and all other features on the Project site. The Project contractor would remove exposed piping, valves, meters, equipment, supports, and foundations of disconnected and abandoned utilities, and would prepare for building demolition by disconnecting and capping utilities outside of the demolition zone. The demolition and construction methods for the Project would be similar to other projects set in a busy urban setting and would not include explosives or use of a wrecking ball. The equipment to be used during abatement, demolition and construction is listed in Table 2-1. The Project contractor would submit a Demolition Plan, a Debris Recovery Plan, a Waste Management and Recycling Plan, and a Debris Recovery Report to comply with local and state ordinances related to solid waste. Demolition would be performed in a manner that maximizes salvage and recycling of materials. A minimum of 50 percent, by weight, of the solid waste generated would be diverted from landfill disposal through re-use and recycling as required by the California Green Building Standard Code 2013. Materials to be recycled or re-used would be stored onsite in non-combustible containers. All demolition materials, waste, and debris that are not designated to be salvaged would become the Project contractor’s property and would be removed and disposed of in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations. 2.3.2.4 Protection for Offsite Features The adjacent Finance building would remain operational during the Project’s abatement, demolition and construction activities. Disruption of utility services at the Finance building would be restricted to hours during which the building is unoccupied. The Project contractor would protect against damage to the building and site elements of the Finance building, including underground utilities, site work, landscaping, and structures. The Project contractor would also provide barricades and covered walkways to all entrances and exits impacted by Project abatement, demolition and construction. The Project contractor would provide new natural gas line and meter service to the adjacent Finance building and would coordinate installation with the utility provider and the building owner (the County). The Project contractor would also coordinate with the utility provider and the County to determine the location of a trench for new data/telecom utility lines. 1 An asbestos survey for the existing Jailhouse building was conducted in November 2014 by Bureau Veritas. Samples were taken from different features within the building (e.g., a white/gray window, orange and brown ceramic tile, and gray grout). The results of the analysis indicate that asbestos (i.e., chrysotile or amosite) was detected in some of the 195 samples. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1288 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Description Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 2.4 Required Permits and Approvals Implementation of the Project would require the following approvals.  Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate from BAAQMD.  County review and approval, including possible permits from the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and demolition and grading permits from the Department of Conservation and Development Building Inspection Division.  Encroachment permit from the City of Martinez. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1289 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 3 Impact Analysis This chapter describes the environmental and regulatory setting, significance criteria and methodology used in the impact analysis, and the potential direct and indirect impacts. Where applicable, feasible mitigation measures are identified and a discussion of whether significant environmental effects of the Project would remain after application of policies, programs, and feasible mitigation measures is included in the section. The Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts for all but five of the environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, five topic areas, which are listed below, are addressed in complete, detailed sections. All other environmental topic areas (for which no significant environmental impacts were identified) are addressed in summary fashion within Section 3.6, Other Topics. The summary discussions in Chapter 3 are similar to the level of detail that would appear in an Initial Study. This chapter is organized into the following sections.  3.1, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.  3.2, Cultural Resources.  3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.  3.4, Noise.  3.5, Transportation and Traffic.  3.6, Other Topics. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1290 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Project area. It also analyzes environmental impacts associated with air quality, GHG, and climate change that could result from implementation of the Project and provides mitigation measures for significant impacts, where appropriate and feasible. 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting Air quality regulation in the United States is governed by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). At the federal level, the CAA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is currently developing regulations under the CAA to address GHG and climate change. In addition to being subject to requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). In California, the CCAA is administered by California Air Resources Board (ARB) and by air districts at regional and local levels. The CAA and CCAA set overall air quality standards that are achieved by various rules and regulations at the regional and local level. This section describes relevant federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the Project. 3.1.1.1 Federal Regulations Clean Air Act The CAA was first enacted in 1963 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes federal air quality standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six criteria pollutants and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that the state submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for local areas not meeting those standards. The plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. The 1990 amendments to the CAA identify specific emission-reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS. These amendments require both a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. Table 3.1-1 shows the NAAQS currently in effect for each criteria pollutant, as well as the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) (discussed below). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1291 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.1-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standardsa Primary Secondary Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm Noneb Noneb 8–hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Annual mean 20 µg/m3 None None Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour None 35 µg/m3 35 µg/m3 Annual mean 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm None Nitrogen Dioxide Annual mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm None Sulfur Dioxide Annual mean None 0.030 ppmc None 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.014 ppmc None 3-hour None None 0.5 ppm 1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm None Lead 30-day Average 1.5 µg/m3 None None Calendar quarter None 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 3-month average None 0.15 µg/m3 0.15 µg/m3 Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 None None Visibility Reducing Particles 8-hour -d None None Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm None None Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm None None ppm= parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a National standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare and the environment. b The federal 1-hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced because it was employed for such a long period and is a benchmark for State Implementation Plans. c The annual and 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide only apply for 1 year after designation of the new 1-hour standard to those areas that were previously in nonattainment for 24-hour and annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards. d California Ambient Air Quality Standards for visibility-reducing particles is defined by an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility of 10 miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70%. Source: California Air Resources Board 2013. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1292 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Nonroad Diesel Rule EPA has established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new offroad diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and locomotives. All construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and offroad construction equipment, is required to comply with the emission standards that were applicable to the model year of manufacture. The standards are enforced at the manufacturer level. No action would be required of the Project contractors to comply with these regulations. Greenhouse Gas Regulation Although there is currently no federal overarching law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of GHGs, EPA is developing regulations under the CAA that may be adopted pursuant to EPA’s authority under the CAA in the next 2 years. Foremost among recent developments have been the settlement agreements between EPA, several states, and nongovernmental organizations to address GHG emissions from electric generating units and refineries; the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA; and EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” “Cause or Contribute Finding,” and Mandatory Reporting Rule. Although periodically debated in Congress, federal legislation concerning GHG emissions limitations is not in effect. In Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al. v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA. 3.1.1.2 State Regulations California Clean Air Act In 1988, the state legislature adopted the CCAA, which established a statewide air pollution control program. The CCAA requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to meet the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Unlike the CAA, the CCAA does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the CCAA establishes increasingly stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles, and vinyl chloride. The CAAQS and NAAQS are shown in Table 3.1-1. ARB and local air districts bear responsibility for achieving California’s air quality standards, which are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans incorporated into the SIP. In California, EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to ARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts. ARB traditionally has established state air quality standards, maintaining oversight authority in air quality planning, developing programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developing air emission inventories, collecting air quality and meteorological data, and approving SIPs. The CCAA substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control measures. The CCAA also emphasizes the control of “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions. The CCAA gives local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution and to establish traffic control measures. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1293 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 State Tailpipe Emission Standards ARB has established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new offroad diesel equipment, onroad diesel trucks, and harbor craft. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy duty trucks and offroad construction equipment would be required to comply with the standards. Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations California regulates toxic air contaminants (TACs) primarily through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Act) and the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (“Hot Spots” Act). In the early 1980s, ARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Tanner Act created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The “Hot Spots” Act supplements the Tanner Act by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks. In August 1998, ARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel particulate matter [DPM]) as TACs. In September 2000, ARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the plan is to reduce DPM (respirable particulate matter) emissions and the associated health risk by 75% by 2010 and by 85% by 2020. The plan identifies 14 measures that ARB will implement over the next several years. Because the ARB measures would be enacted before any phase of construction, the Project would be required to comply with applicable diesel control measures. Greenhouse Gas Regulation California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this legislation establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. The Governor of California has also issued several executive orders (EOs) related to the state’s evolving climate change policy. Of particular importance to local governments is the direction provided by the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan, which recommends that local governments reduce their GHG emissions by a level consistent with state goals (i.e., 15% below current levels). In the absence of federal regulations, control of GHGs is generally regulated at the state level and is typically approached by setting emission reduction targets for existing sources of GHGs, setting policies to promote renewable energy and increase energy efficiency, and developing statewide action plans. Summaries of key policies, legal cases, regulations, and legislation at the state levels that are relevant to the Project are provided below. Assembly Bill 1493—Pavley Rules (2002, Amendments 2009, 2012 rulemaking) Known as Pavley I, AB 1493 standards are the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles. AB 1493 requires ARB to adopt vehicle standards that will lower GHG emissions from new light-duty autos to the maximum extent feasible beginning in 2009. Additional strengthening of the Pavley standards (referred to previously as Pavley II, now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measure) has been proposed for vehicle model years 2017–2025. Together, the two standards are expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1294 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Assembly Bill 32—California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) AB 32 codified the state’s GHG emissions target by requiring that the state’s global warming emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Since being adopted, ARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities commission (CPUC), and the Building Standards Commission have been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan for AB 32 identifies specific measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and requires ARB and other state agencies to develop and enforce regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHGs. Specifically, the Scoping Plan articulates a key role for local governments, recommending they establish GHG reduction goals for both their municipal operations and the community consistent with those of the state. Executive Order S-01-07—Low Carbon Fuel Standard (2007) EO S-01-07 essentially mandates: (1) that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020; and (2) that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established in California. ARB approved the LCFS on April 23, 2009, and the regulation became effective on January 12, 2010 (California Air Resources Board 2011). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled in December 2011 that the LCFS violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ARB appealed this ruling in 2012 and on September 18, 2013, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the LCFS, ruling that the program does not violate the Commerce Clause and remanding the case to the Eastern District. State CEQA Guidelines (2010) The State CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions that would result from a project. Moreover, the State CEQA Guidelines emphasize the necessity to determine potential climate change effects of a project and propose mitigation as necessary. The State CEQA Guidelines confirm the discretion of lead agencies to determine appropriate significance thresholds, but require the preparation of an EIR if “there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with adopted regulations or requirements” (Section 15064.4). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 includes considerations for lead agencies related to feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions, which may include measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; implementation of project features, project design, or other measures that are incorporated into the Project to substantially reduce energy consumption or GHG emissions; and offsite measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required. 3.1.1.3 Regional Regulations At the regional level, responsibilities of air quality districts include overseeing stationary-source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality monitoring stations, overseeing agricultural burning permits, and reviewing air quality–related sections of environmental documents required by CEQA. The air quality districts are also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws and for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are met. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1295 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District The air quality study area falls under the jurisdiction of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD adopted advisory emission thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of a project’s emissions. The thresholds are outlined in BAAQMD’s 2011 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). BAAQMD has also adopted air quality plans to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. The Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted to reduce ozone and achieve the NAAQS ozone standard. BAAQMD also adopted a redesignation plan for carbon monoxide (CO) in 1994. The redesignation plan includes strategies to ensure the continuing attainment of the NAAQS for CO in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Project may be subject to the following district rules. This list of rules may not be all encompassing because additional BAAQMD rules may apply to the Project as specific components are identified. • Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminates [TAC]). This regulation outlines guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and their potential health threats. • Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter [PM]). This regulation restricts emissions of PM darker than No. 1 on the Ringlemann Chart to less than 3 minutes in any 1 hour. • Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts). This regulation limits emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROG) caused by paving materials. • Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). This regulation limits emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and CO from stationary internal combustion engines of more than 50 horsepower. 3.1.1.4 Local Regulations Contra Costa County The following goals and policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan 2020 related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are applicable to the Project. Goal 8-AB. To continue to support Federal, State and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order to protect human and environmental health. Policy 8-100. Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. Policy 8-103. When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed. Policy 8-104. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants. Policy 8-105. Land uses which are sensitive to air pollution shall be separated from sources of air pollution. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1296 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Ambient air quality is affected by climatological conditions, topography, and the types and amounts of pollutants emitted. The area potentially affected by the Project is within the SFBAAB. The following discussion describes relevant characteristics of the SFBAAB, describes key pollutants of concern, summarizes existing ambient pollutant concentrations, and identifies sensitive receptors. Unlike other air resource that are primarily concerned with localized project impacts, the global nature of climate change requires a broader analysis approach. This is because of the unique chemical properties of GHGs that enable them to become well-mixed within the atmosphere and to be transported over long distances. While this section focuses on GHG emissions generated at the Project site as a result of construction and operation, the analysis considers potential regional and global GHG impacts. In this way, it is both an individual and cumulative impact analysis. 3.1.2.1 Climate and Meteorology The SFBAAB contains all of Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin Counties, as well as portions of Sonoma and Solano Counties (CCR Section 60101). Climate within the SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains, which occur in the months of December through March, account for about 75% of the average annual rainfall. Climate is affected by marine air flow and the basin’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay. Bay breezes push air onshore during the daytime and draw air offshore at night. During the summer months, the bay helps to cool the warm onshore flows, while it warms the air during the winter months. This mediating effect keeps temperatures relatively consistent throughout the year. In the westernmost portion of the SFBAAB, which encompasses the study area, the bay wind patterns can concentrate and carry air pollutants from other cities to the region, adding to the mix of pollutants that are emitted locally (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010). Climate Change The phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms. Present in the Earth’s lower atmosphere, GHGs play a critical role in maintaining the Earth’s temperature; GHGs trap some of the long-wave infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface that would otherwise escape to space. According to AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, GHGs encompass the following gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, SF6, and HFCs. State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15364.5) also identify these six gases as GHGs. Visible sunlight passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Some of the sunlight striking the Earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface. The surface emits infrared radiation to the atmosphere, where some of it is absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted toward the surface; some of the heat is not trapped by GHGs and escapes into space. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of the Earth (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2011). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1297 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels enhance the greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere induces large-scale changes in ocean circulation patterns, precipitation patterns, global ice cover, biological distributions, and other changes to the Earth system that are collectively referred to as climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC estimates that the average global temperature rise between the years 2000 and 2100 could range from 1.1° Celsius, with no increase in GHG emissions above year 2000 levels, to 6.4° Celsius, with substantial increase in GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a:97–115). Large increases in global temperatures could have substantial adverse effects on the natural and human environments on the planet and in California. 3.1.2.2 Pollutants of Concern Criteria Pollutants As discussed above, the federal and state governments have established NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively, for six criteria pollutants: ozone, lead, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM, which consists of PM less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Ozone and NO2 are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO2, and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. The primary pollutants of concern in the Project vicinity are ozone (including NOX and ROG), CO, and PM. Principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below. Ozone, or smog, is a photochemical oxidant that is formed when ROG and NOX (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. Ozone poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Additionally, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth and premature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are compounds made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROG are emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROG but rather by reactions of ROG that form secondary pollutants such as ozone. Nitrogen Oxides serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOX acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1298 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Carbon Monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Particulate Matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized—inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, and inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) Although NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist for TACs. Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. For TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, ARB has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk-free. Individual TACs vary greatly in the risks they present. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. TACs are identified and their toxicity is studied by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air toxics are generated by a number of sources, including: stationary sources; such as dry cleaners, gas stations, auto body shops, and combustion sources, mobile sources; such as diesel trucks, ships, and trains; and area sources; such as farms, landfills, and construction sites. Adverse health effects of TACs can be carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic) noncarcinogenic. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and respiratory disorders. Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) The principal anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources. The primary GHGs of concern associated with the Project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below. Carbon Dioxide enters the atmosphere through fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) combustion, solid waste decomposition, plant and animal respiration, and chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1299 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Nitrous Oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. To simplify reporting and analysis, methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas. The most commonly accepted method to compare GHG emissions is the global warming potential (GWP) methodology defined in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) reference documents (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Note that ARB has transitioned from the GWP values within the Second Assessment Report (SAR) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1996) to the more recent AR4 GWPs (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007), and the ARB’s updated Scoping Plan Update (California Air Resources Board 2014) now incorporates the AR4 GWPs. Therefore, GWP methods from the AR4 are used herein. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition). Table 3.1-2 lists the global warming potential of several GHGs, their lifetimes, and abundances in the atmosphere. Table 3.1-2. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Several Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gases Global Warming Potential (100 years) Lifetime (years) Current Atmospheric Abundance CO2 1 50–200 401 ppm CH4 28 9–15 1,893 ppb N2O 298 121 326 ppb SF6 22,800 3,200 7.8 ppt HFC-23 14,800 222 18 ppt HFC-134a 1,430 13.4 75 ppt HFC-152a 124 1.5 3.9 ppt Sources: Myhre et al. 2013; Blasing 2014; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2015. CO2 = carbon dioxide CH4 = methane N2O = nitrous oxide SF6 = sulfur hexafluoride HFC = hydrofluorocarbon ppm = parts per million by volume. ppb = parts per billion by volume. ppt = parts per trillion by volume. Existing Air Quality Conditions The existing air quality conditions in the Project vicinity can be characterized by monitoring data collected in the region. Table 3.1-3 summarizes data for criteria air pollutant levels from the Vallejo-Tuolumne Street monitoring station, which is the closest station to the Project site, for the last 3 years for which complete data are available (2012–2014). Air quality concentrations are expressed in terms of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). As shown in Table 3.1-3, the monitoring station detected only occasional violations of the PM NAAQS and CAAQS. No violations of the ozone, CO, or NO2 NAAQS and CAAQS were reported during the monitoring period. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1300 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.1-3. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data from the Vallejo-Tuolumne Street Monitoring Station (2012–2014) Pollutant 2012 2013 2014 Ozone (O3) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.85 0.082 0.077 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.062 0.068 0.068 Number of days standard exceededa CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.2 2.3 2.1 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.8 2.8 2.5 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 8-hour (>9 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0524 0.0494 0.0501 State second-highest 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0487 0.0482 0.0476 Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.0091 0.0098 0.0079 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 1-hour (>0.1 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10)c Not measured at Vallejo-Tuolumne station Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 36.8 42.6 39.6 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 30.4 44.2 35.7 National annual average concentration (µg/m3) 8.9 9.9 9.9 State annual average concentration (µg/m3)d -e 11.3 10.0 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 1 6 1.1 NAAQS annual (>12 µg/m3) 0 0 0 CAAQS annual (>12 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0025 0.0025 0.0024 Nationalb maximum 3-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0069 0.0058 0.0062 Nationalb maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0142 0.0081 0.0108 Statec maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0239 0.0081 0.0142 Number of days standard exceededa CAAQS 24-hour (>0.04 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 3-hour (0.5 ppm) 0 0 0 NAAQS 1-hour (0.075 ppm) 0 0 0 CAAQS 1-hour (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board 2015a; United States Environmental Protection Agency 2015a. ppm = parts per million. NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter. > = greater than. - = data not available. a An exceedance is not necessarily a violation. For some standards multiple exceedances may occur before the regulatory criteria for a violation are met. b National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. c State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, for which statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, State statistics are based on California approved samplers. d State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. e Insufficient data available to determine the value. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1301 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Attainment Status Local monitoring data (Table 3.1-3) are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified for the NAAQS and CAAQS. The four designations are further defined as shown below. • Nonattainment—assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question. • Maintenance—assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. • Attainment—assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time. • Unclassified—assigned to areas were data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the attainment status of Contra Costa County. Table 3.1-4. Federal and State Attainment Status of Contra Costa County Pollutant Federal State CO Maintenance – Moderate (P) Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Ozone (8 hr) Nonattainment – Marginal Nonattainment PM10 Attainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment – Moderate Nonattainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015a; California Air Resources Board 2015b. (P) Designation applies to the portion of the County in which the Project is located. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories A GHG inventory is a quantification of all GHG emissions and sinks within a selected physical and/or economic boundary. GHG inventories can be performed on a large scale (i.e., for global and national entities) or on a small scale (i.e., for a particular building or person). Although many processes are difficult to evaluate, several agencies have developed tools to quantify emissions from certain sources. Table 3.1-5 outlines the most recent global, national, statewide, and local GHG inventories to help contextualize the magnitude of potential project-related emissions. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1302 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-13 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.1-5. Global, National, State, and Local GHG Emissions Inventories Emissions Inventory CO2e (metric tons) 2010 IPCC Global GHG Emissions Inventory 52,000,000,000 2013 EPA National GHG Emissions Inventory 6,673,000,000 2013 ARB State GHG Emissions Inventory 459,300,000 2007 SFBAAB GHG Emissions Inventory 95,800,000 2013 Contra Costa County Emissions Inventory1 1,392,450 2005 City of Martinez GHG Emissions Inventory 321,000 Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2015; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015; California Air Resources Board 2015; Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2008; Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan 2015; City of Martinez Climate Action Plan 2009. 1 Inventory of sectors subject to regulatory and enforcement authority by Contra Costa County. Includes unincorporated portions of the County. Excludes stationary sources regulated by BAAQMD or ARB. If the excluded sectors were included, the County total for 2013 would be 18,292,510 MT CO2e. CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent 3.1.2.3 Sensitive Receptors The NAAQS and CAAQS apply at publicly accessible areas, regardless of whether those areas are populated. For the purposes of air quality analysis, sensitive land uses are defined as locations where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the air quality standards (i.e., 24-hour, 8-hour, and 1-hour). Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. The Project site is located in Downtown Martinez, near many sensitive land uses. Governmental buildings border the Project site to the east, south, and west, and a parking lot borders the site to the north. The Martinez Waterfront Park is about 0.1 mile to the north of the Project site. The nearest residence is approximately 200 feet from the Project site. Martinez Middle School is approximately 0.3 mile away. The nearest hospital, Alhambra Convalescent Hospital, is approximately 0.75 mile from the Project site. 3.1.3 Impact Analysis This section describes the environmental impacts of the Project in the context of air quality and GHGs. It describes the methods used to evaluate the impacts and the thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate significant impacts are provided, where appropriate. 3.1.3.1 Methods Air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project were assessed and quantified using standard and accepted software tools, techniques, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below. Although the significance thresholds drafted by the BAAQMD are not sanctioned for purposes of BAAQMD project review, the method by which BAAQMD derived these significance thresholds nonetheless provides substantial evidence for the efficacy of applying their threshold to projects April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1303 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-14 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 within the Bay Area. In brief, the thresholds were developed by the BAAQMD for their CEQA guidelines. The thresholds for criteria pollutants were based on the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable and are considered both project-level and cumulative thresholds. The thresholds for GHGs were derived from the AB 32 Scoping Plan’s assignment of emissions reductions to local actions, pro-rated for the Bay Area’s share of that emissions reduction. The thresholds developed by the BAAQMD for their CEQA guidelines and applied here by the County are therefore based on sound reasoning and are consistent with the reduction targets of the ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the County chooses to apply them to this Project. The thresholds are applied for purposes of determining the significance of the Project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Construction Air Quality Construction of the Project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that could result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality in the study area. Emissions would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee vehicle exhaust, dust from demolition and land clearing, and dust from vehicles on roads. Based on data provided by the Project sponsor, it is expected that construction would require four phases occurring over an 18-week period in 2016: abatement and demolition; site preparation, grubbing, and excavation; site grading; and paving (see Appendix B for a summary of assumptions used in the analysis and air emission modeling results). It was also anticipated the four construction phases would occur sequentially with no overlap. Criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty equipment, on-road vehicles, and land disturbance were estimated using methodology and assumptions consistent with the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2. Model defaults for emission factors and project-specific estimates for equipment usage and vehicle trips provided by the Project sponsor were used in the analysis (see Appendix B for detailed information). Greenhouse Gases Construction of the Project would generate short-term emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Emissions would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, worker vehicle exhaust, and haul truck vehicle exhaust. Mass emissions generated by these sources were estimated using emission factors and modeling methodologies found within the CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2) emissions inventory model, and construction information provided by the Project sponsor. Operation Air Quality Operation of the Project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. There are currently two parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building (12 total parking spaces). Under the Project, the County Public Works Department would construct a parking lot that provides a total of 25 to 30 parking spaces on the site. The new parking lot would serve some of the existing demand for County employees of the adjacent County buildings and is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. The Project does not include any April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1304 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-15 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 other land uses that could generate new vehicle trips. As a result, the Project would result in no net increase in emissions and no long-term impacts on air quality. Consequently, this analysis only evaluates the effects of the Project’s construction-related activities related to air quality. Greenhouse Gases As stated above, the new parking lot would serve some of the existing demand for the adjacent County buildings and so is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. The Project does not include any other land uses that could generate new vehicle trips. As a result, the Project would result in no net increase in emissions and no long-term impacts on GHGs. Consequently, similar to the methodology for air quality, this analysis only evaluates the effects of the Project’s construction-related activities related to GHGs. 3.1.3.2 Thresholds of Significance Air Quality The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.) identifies the following significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing air quality. 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be used to make significance determinations for potential impacts on environmental resources. As discussed above, BAAQMD is responsible for ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are not violated within the SFBAAB. Analysis requirements for construction- and operation-related pollutant emissions are contained in the BAAQMD’s (2011) CEQA Guidelines; these thresholds are presented in Table 3.1-6. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1305 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-16 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.1-6. BAAQMD Criteria Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations ROG 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year NOX 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year CO -- Violation of CAAQS PM10 (exhaust) 82 pounds/day 82 pounds/day or 15 tons/year PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day or 10 tons/year PM10 /PM2.5 (dust) Best management practices required -- Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010. CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds In March 2012, an Alameda County Superior Court ruled that BAAQMD needed to comply with CEQA prior to BAAQMD adopting its 2010 CEQA Guidelines. The Superior Court decision was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeal, holding that, in general, the adoption of local CEQA guidelines by the BAAQMD is not subject to CEQA review. The decision by the Court of Appeal reinforces State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, which establishes the required procedure for enacting generally applicable thresholds of significance, and does not require a CEQA review as part of the process. The Court of Appeal’s decision was subsequently appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review to the issue of whether CEQA requires “an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project.” This challenge relates to the applicability of TAC standards based on the effect of existing pollutant sources on new development. In light of the litigation regarding the 2010 CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD is no longer recommending their use. In December 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” The Supreme Court identified several exceptions in which CEQA does apply to impacts of the environment on the Project. All of which are statutory provisions in CEQA that specifically require consideration of impacts of the environment, such as consideration of projects near airports, school construction projects, and statutory exemptions for housing and transit priority projects. Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the BAAQMD has not formally issued any guidance on use of their 2010 CEQA Guidelines. While the BAAQMD is no longer recommending its significance thresholds for use by local agencies at this time, the BAAQMD’s proposed thresholds are supported on substantial evidence and are well-grounded on air quality regulations, scientific evidence, and scientific reasoning concerning air quality and GHG emissions. Use of these thresholds is appropriate to determine significance in the environmental review of this Project and allows a rigorous standardized approach of determining whether the Project would cause a significant air quality impact. BAAQMD’s Justification Report, found in Appendix D of the BAAQMD’s May 2011 CEQA Guidelines, explains the agency’s reasoning and provides substantial evidence for developing and adopting their thresholds (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010). Below is a summary of the basis upon which the BAAQMD’s thresholds were developed. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1306 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-17 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 The significance thresholds, as shown in Table 3.1-6, for criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5) are based on the stationary source emission limits of the federal CAA and the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2. The federal New Source Review (NSR) program, created by the federal CAA, set the emissions limits to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed in a manner that is consistent with attainment of NAAQS. Similarly, to ensure that new stationary sources do not cause or contribute to a violation of an NAAQS, BAAQMD Regulation 2 Rule 2 requires any new source that emits criteria air pollutants above specified emissions limits to offset those emissions. Although the emission limits are adopted in the regulation to control stationary source emissions, when addressing public health impacts of regional criteria pollutants, the amount of emissions is the key determining factor, regardless of source. Thus, the emission limits are appropriate for the evaluation of land use development and construction activities as well as for stationary sources. Those projects that result in emissions below the thresholds would not be considered to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions. The federal NSR emission limits and BAAQMD’s offset limits are identified in the regulation on an annual basis (in tons per year). For construction activities, the limits are converted to average daily emissions (in pounds per day), as shown in Table 3.1-6, because of the short-term intermittent nature of construction activities and, if emissions would not exceed the average daily emission limits, the Project would also not exceed the annual levels. Similar to the criteria pollutant thresholds, the health risk impact thresholds are developed based on the cancer and non-cancer risk limits for new and modified sources adopted in BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5 and the EPA Significant Impact Level (SIL) for PM2.5 emissions. The EPA SIL is a measure of whether a source may cause or contribute to a violation of NAAQS. Health risks due to toxic emissions from construction, though temporary, can still result in substantial public health impacts due to increased cancer and non-cancer risks. Applying quantitative thresholds allows a rigorous standardized method of determining when a construction project will cause a significant increase in cancer and non-cancer risks. The cumulative health risk thresholds are based on EPA guidance for conducting air toxics analyses and making risk management decisions at the facility and community-scale level, and are also consistent with the ambient cancer risk in the most pristine portions of the Bay Area based on BAAQMD’s recent regional modeling analysis and the non-cancer Air Toxics Hot Spots mandatory risk reduction levels. The odor threshold is consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 7 for Odorous Substances and reflects the most stringent standards derived from the Air District rule. With respect to potential health effects from project-generated emissions, the analysis focuses on those pollutants with the greatest potential to result in a significant, material impact on human health, which are DPM and locally concentrated CO (i.e., CO hot-spots). As noted above, the traffic volumes associated with construction of the Project would be low and would be well below levels that could lead to a significant or material impact on human health. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change The State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G identifies the following significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts GHGs. 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1307 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-18 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change is a global problem and GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants (such as ozone precursors), which are primarily pollutants of regional and local concern. Given their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 3.1-2), GHGs emitted by many sources worldwide accumulate in the atmosphere. No single emitter of GHGs is large enough to trigger global climate change on its own. Rather, climate change is the result of the individual contributions of countless past, present, and future sources. Thus, GHG impacts are inherently cumulative. BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for the evaluation of construction-related GHG emissions. The significance of construction GHG emissions is, therefore, evaluated by determining whether or not the project has incorporated all feasible reduction measures. Operational emissions are evaluated against BAAQMD’s land use development threshold of 1,110 metric tons CO2e. Accordingly, operational GHG emissions are considered significant if they exceed 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year. As noted above, there are currently two parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building (12 total parking spaces). Under the Project, the County Public Works Department would construct a parking lot that provides a total of 25 to 30 parking spaces on the site. The new parking lot would serve some of the existing demand for the adjacent County buildings and so is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. Therefore, there would be no “new” trips or VMT associated with the Project and no associated new emissions. The Project does not include any other land uses that could generate new vehicle trips. As a result, the Project would result in no net increase in GHG emissions and no long-term impacts on climate. 3.1.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (less than significant) A project is inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population or employment growth that exceeds estimates used to develop applicable air quality plans. Projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the relevant land use plans would be consistent with the current BAAQMD air quality plans. Likewise, projects that propose development that is less dense than anticipated in a general plan or other governing land use document would be consistent with the air quality plans because emissions would be less than estimated for the region. As noted above, the new parking lot would serve some of the existing demand for the adjacent County buildings and is not anticipated to generate any “new” trips or VMT associated with the project. The Project does not include any other land uses that could generate new vehicle trips. Although emissions would be generated during demolition and construction (discussed under Impact AQ-2), emissions are expected neither to exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds nor to impede attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or CAAQS with implementation of mitigation. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable land use plan or policy. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1308 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-19 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Impact AQ-2: Violate any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation (less than significant with mitigation) Construction Construction of the Project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, and truck hauling trips. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and land clearing, and from vehicles traveling on roads. Criteria pollutant emissions generated by these sources were quantified consistent with CalEEMod (version 2013.2.2). Please refer to Appendix B for model outputs. Estimated construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.1-7. Table 3.1-7. Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Year ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Total Dust Exhaust Total 2016 2.9 50.8 16.4 1.1 1.4 2.5 0.3 1.3 1.6 Threshold 54 54 – 82 BMPs – 54 BMPs – BMPs = best management practices CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds As shown in Table 3.1-7, construction of the Project would not generate emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s numeric thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which are best management practices (BMPs), for all projects whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds. BAAQMD considers dust impacts to be less than significant with the application of BMPs. Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is recommended for the Project. Estimated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 are summarized in Table 3.1-8. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Table 3.1-8. Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Year ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Dusta Exhaust Total Dusta Exhaust Total 2016 2.9 50.8 16.4 0.5 1.4 1.9 0.1 1.3 1.4 Threshold 54 54 – 82 BMPs – 54 BMPs – a Assumes a 53% reduction in fugitive dust with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. BMPs = best management practices CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter PM2.5 = fine particulate matter ROG = reactive organic compounds April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1309 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-20 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction-Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Impact AQ-3: Potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (less than significant) BAAQMD has identified project-level thresholds to evaluate criteria pollutant impacts (see Table 3.1-6). In developing these thresholds, BAAQMD considered levels at which project emissions would be cumulatively considerable. As noted in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2011), In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The criteria pollutant thresholds presented in Table 3.1-6, therefore, represent the maximum emissions a project may generate before contributing to a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Exceedances of the project-level thresholds, as identified in Section 3.1.3.2, Thresholds of Significance, would be cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Impact AQ-2, construction of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1310 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-21 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. All construction emissions would be short-term and would cease once construction is complete. The impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (less than significant) The analysis of health risks during project construction considers exposure to DPM and CO hot-spots. Exposure to Ambient Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel-fueled engines, which generate DPM, would be used during construction of the Project. BAAQMD considers ultra-fine particle (PM2.5) emissions to be the DPM of greatest health concern. Cancer health risks associated with exposure to diesel exhaust are typically associated with chronic exposure, in which a 70-year exposure period is assumed. As indicated above, the nearest residence is approximately 200 feet from the Project site. Construction of the entire Project would occur over an 18-week period. This is well below the 70-year exposure period that is typically associated with increased cancer health risks. As indicated in Table 3.1-7, construction activities would generate only minor amounts of DPM, as PM10 exhaust emissions are estimated at 1.4 pounds per day. Consequently, construction activities are not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk for exposed persons or exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Construction-related DPM emissions impacts would be less than significant. Exposure to Potential Project-Generated Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spots Elevated CO concentrations are typically found in areas with significant traffic congestion. CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. BAAQMD requires an analysis of localized CO concentrations associated with traffic congestion to ensure concentrations remain below CAAQS and NAAQS. The potential for Project traffic to result in CO hot-spots was evaluated based on estimated construction traffic volumes (see Appendix B) and the BAAQMD’s (2011) CO screening criteria listed below. These criteria were used to determine whether the Project would result in a significant CO impact. • Increase traffic volumes at intersections affected by project traffic to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • Increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). • Increase traffic to a level that is inconsistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. Project construction traffic volumes would be well below the levels given in the first two criteria. With respect to the third screening criterion, the volumes also would be too small to contribute to congestion, and consequently would not be inconsistent with any congestion management program. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in a significant CO impact as the Project April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1311 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-22 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 would not conflict with BAAQMD’s screening criteria and would not cause or contribute to an existing or future violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS. This impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (less than significant) Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Any project with the potential to frequently expose the public to objectionable odors would have a significant impact. According to ARB’s (2005) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, refining, and manufacturing. The Project may cause temporary odors resulting from diesel exhaust during construction. Although these emissions may be noticeable from time to time, they would be intermittent and localized and are not likely to adversely affect adjacent receptors. This impact would be less than significant. Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (less than significant with mitigation) Construction Project construction would generate emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust and employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. BAAQMD and the County have not established significance thresholds for GHG emissions from construction activities. Table 3.1-9 provides the estimated construction GHG emissions for informational purposes only. The BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are primarily directed at dust emissions, and BAAQMD has not quantified potential reductions in GHG emissions due to use of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Accordingly, Table 3.1-9 does not include any potential effect of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 on GHG emissions. Table 3.1-9. Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Year CO2 CH4 N2O Other CO2e a All phases, 2016 289 0.04 0.01 0.72 293 Threshold – – – – – a CO2e is calculated using the Global Warming Potentials given in Table 3.1-2. CO2 = carbon dioxide CH4 = methane N2O = nitrous oxide CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown in Table 3.1-9, the Project would generate approximately 293 metric tons of CO2e during the construction period. This is equivalent to adding 3 typical passenger vehicles per year to the road during the construction period (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). The construction emissions are primarily the result of diesel powered construction equipment and heavy-duty haul trucks. Because construction emissions would cease once construction is complete, they are considered short-term. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions. While BAAQMD’s 1,100 metric ton CO2e operational threshold is not established as a April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1312 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-23 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 construction threshold, construction-related emissions associated with the Project would be less than this operational threshold. Because construction emissions are temporary, as opposed to annual, comparing construction emissions to BAAQMD’s operational threshold represents a conservative assessment of potential impacts. Moreover, as described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project incorporates feasible BMPs, including using alternative-fueled (e.g. biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet, using at least 10 percent local building materials, and meeting a goal of recycling 50 percent of construction waste. These BMPs would further reduce construction-related emissions shown in Table 3.1-9. Accordingly, the Project is not expected to generate a significant amount of construction-related GHG emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement BAAQMD’s best management practices for GHG emissions Require all construction contractors to implement the following BAAQMD-recommended best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions, as applicable. • Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet. • Use at least 10 percent local building materials. • Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (less than significant) The state has adopted AB 32, which codifies the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for the future. Contra Costa County published a draft Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2015. The CAP covers emissions generated by County operations and County-owned facilities, such as the Jailhouse building, and is, therefore, the most applicable local plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Consistency with AB 32 and the CAP are discussed below. ARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan as a framework for achieving AB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Some reductions will need to come in the form of changes pertaining to vehicle emissions and mileage standards. Some will come from changes pertaining to sources of electricity and increased energy efficiency at existing facilities. The remainder will need to come from plans, policies, or regulations that will require new facilities to have lower carbon intensities than they have under business as usual conditions. The CAP estimates current (2013) and future (2020 and 2035) GHG emissions generated by County activities. The CAP specifies aggressive 2020 and 2035 emission reduction goals and identifies a list of mitigation measures recommended to achieve these goals. As discussed above, construction emissions would cease once construction is complete, they are considered short-term. In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project incorporates feasible BMPs, including using alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet, using at least 10 percent local building materials, and meeting a goal of recycling 50 percent of construction waste. Furthermore, the new parking lot would serve some of the existing demand from existing County employees of the adjacent County buildings and so is not anticipated to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. The Project does not include any other land uses that could generate new vehicle trips. As a April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1313 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-24 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 result, the Project would result in no net increase in emissions and no long-term impacts on GHGs. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not conflict with AB 32 or the CAP. The impact would be less than significant. Impact EGY-1: Result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, including transportation energy use (less than significant) As described under Impact GHG-2, the Project would be consistent with AB 32 and the County’s MCAP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with state and local energy policies and would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of energy. This impact would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1314 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.2 Cultural Resources This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for cultural resources. It also describes impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for significant impacts, where feasible and appropriate. 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting This section describes relevant federal and state regulations applicable to the Project. 3.2.1.1 Federal National Historic Preservation Act Federal regulations for cultural resources are primarily governed by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, which applies to actions taken by federal agencies. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The council’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The NRHP criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying with NHPA Section 106. Those criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: a. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; c. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory. 3.2.1.2 State California Public Resources Code Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (refer to PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [a] and [b]). The term embraces any resource listed in or April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1315 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR criteria and guidelines are modeled after NRHP. The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. As in the NRHP, significant historical resources over 50 years of age can be listed on the CRHR when they meet the eligibility criteria. However, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional significance or are contributors to a historic district can also be included on the CRHR. The primary difference between the NRHP and the CRHR is in the interpretation of historic integrity and the special considerations and criteria considerations of the two registries. CRHR eligibility considerations follow guidance in PRC Section 5024(b) and application of National Register Bulletin No. 15 guidance, as instructed by the California Office of Historic Preservation for interpreting CRHR criteria. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1; California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR. In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially affected by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts on historical resources (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). In general, a historical resource, under this approach, is defined as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that: a. is historically or archeologically significant; or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and b. meets any of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact unique archaeological resources. Although CEQA does not define a unique paleontological resource or site, PRC Section 21083.2 (g) states that unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1316 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2 (g)). With only slight modification, this definition is equally applicable to recognizing a unique paleontological resource or site. Additional guidance is provided in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D), which indicates “generally, a resource shall be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” Under PRC Section 21083.2, options on how to treat such resources include activities that preserve the resources in place in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under PRC Section 21083.2 include excavation and curation or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one or more of the criteria for defining a unique archaeological resource). Section 7050.5 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered. The code states: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency is required to consult with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC and direct the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Assembly Bill 52 Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (new PRC Section 21084.2). Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether or not a proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that this consideration be made separately from cultural and paleontological resources. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1317 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 PRC Section 21073 defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. PRC Section 21074(a) provides the following definition of Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA. 1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes [geographically defined in terms of the size and scope], sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Because criteria A and B also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a Tribal Cultural Resource may also require additional consideration as a Historical Resource. Tribal Cultural Resources may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators. Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies carry out consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify Tribal Cultural Resources. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Consultation is concluded when either the lead agency and tribes agree to appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or when a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (PRC Section 21080.3.2[b]), whereby the lead agency uses its best judgement in requiring mitigation measures that avoid or minimize impact to the greatest extent feasible 3.2.1.3 Local City of Martinez Downtown Historic Overlay District Under the City of Martinez Code of Ordinances (Zoning Code), Chapter 22. 27, the purpose of the Downtown Historic Overlay District is to “promote the preservation and rehabilitation of historic commercial, civic and mixed-use buildings in the Downtown Core and Civic Districts, and to provide for new infill construction consistent with the historic character of the district, consistent with the City of Martinez Downtown Specific Plan.” In addition, the Historic Overlay District has three specific purposes. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1318 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 A. To establish mandatory provisions for the preservation of buildings individually listed on the National and/or State Register of Historic Places (referred to below as listed buildings), or buildings which become so listed in the future; B. To establish advisory design review guidelines for the rehabilitation of structures and new infill construction in the historic overlay district with particular focus on the 1982 City Historic Resource Inventory; and C. To provide a voluntary option to owners of qualified properties—the more flexible provisions of the State Historical Building Code. The presence of a local historic district also creates the possibility for the City to establish a Mills Act program, which could provide property tax relief for owners who restore and maintain historic properties. Although the Jailhouse building is a contributing feature to the Downtown Martinez Historic District, as a County-owned building, it is not subject to the City of Martinez Code of Ordinances. 3.2.1.4 Other The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, in response to a recognized need for standard guidance, published a set of standard guidelines for protecting paleontological resources from project impacts (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines 1995) that are now widely followed. The guidelines provide some standardization in evaluating a project area’s paleontological sensitivity. The guidelines also provide a working definition for significance as applied to paleontological resources. According to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, significant paleontological resources are those that fulfill one or more of the following criteria (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995).  Provides important information, shedding light on evolutionary trends and/or helping to relate living organisms to extinct organisms.  Provides important information regarding the development of biological communities.  Demonstrates unusual circumstances in the history of life.  Represents a rare taxon or a rare or unique occurrence (i.e., is in short supply and in danger of being destroyed or depleted).  Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available of its type.  Provides important information used to correlate strata for which it may be difficult to obtain other types of age dates. Significant paleontological resources may include vertebrate fossils and their associated taphonomic and environmental indicators, invertebrate fossils, and plant fossils. 3.2.2 Environmental Setting This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions, as well as relevant pre-historical and historical conditions, related to cultural resources on the Project site and in the Project vicinity. 3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions The Project site is located at 650 Pine Street in Downtown Martinez (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Project site is in Contra Costa County, which is located in west-central California. The parcel is April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1319 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 owned by Contra Costa County but lies within the city limits of Martinez. The county lies southeast of San Pablo Bay, south of Suisun Bay, and the north-central part of the county borders the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The northern portion of the county consists of the Diablo Range and its foothills. Martinez is located on level floodplains and rolling terraces. The rest of the county consists of strongly sloping to very steep uplands used for range. The dominant landmark of the county is Mount Diablo, with a height of 3,849 feet (Welch 1973). Numerous buried sites and site components have been identified in Contra Costa County. However, the majority of these sites are located southeast of Martinez, in the interior valleys of the Diablo Range, in the Walnut Creek-San Ramon Valley, and in the Kellogg Creek/Los Vaqueros Reservoir area (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007). The Jailhouse building shares a single parcel with the Contra Costa County Finance building (the former Contra Costa County Courthouse). The parcel occupies the entire block between Court, Escobar, Pine, and Main Streets. The Project site is included within the boundaries of the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan area and Historic Overlay District. “The Historic Overlay District includes several historic civic buildings that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places,” including the Jailhouse building as part of the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block. “In addition to these civic landmarks, the District has a high proportion of commercial buildings that still exhibit most of their historic character.” In the context of the historic urban landscape, “what is most significant about these structures is the way they collectively create a streetscape that is remarkably unchanged from the boom year of Downtown Martinez’s industrial expansion in the 1910s and 1920s” (Calthorpe Associates 2006: 6-1, 6-2). 3.2.2.2 Soils and Geology Contra Costa County consists of four general physiographic regions: the highland of the Coast Range, the intermountain valleys, the San Francisco Bay depression, and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Martinez lies at the foot of the intermountain valley, near a drainage into the Suisun Bay. Most of the land surface in this general vicinity lies at, just above, or below sea level (Welch 1973). The Project site is located entirely in soils that consist of BaA, Botella Clay Loam (Holocene). This soil is part of alluvial fans and flood plains, usually located at the toeslope (US Soils Web 2015). The presence of Holocene alluvial fan deposits suggests that the Project site may be sensitive for buried prehistoric resources. (Witter et al. 2006). 3.2.2.3 Paleontological Context Paleontologically, Martinez and the surrounding, areas are quite active. UCMP locality V-71131, a vertebrate fossil site that is Pleistocene (Rancholabrean) in age (approximately 1.6 million years ago), occurs directly in Downtown Martinez (City of Martinez 2005). Downtown Martinez is located on Intertidal deposits that are not paleontologically significant. However, many of the rock formations that surround Martinez (e.g., Great Valley Sequence, Chico Formation, Martinez Formation, Domengine Sandstone and Markley Sandstone, and Monterey Group and San Pablo Group) contain or may contain fossils. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1320 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.2.2.4 Prehistoric Context The Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) in Appendix C evaluates the potential for the Project to affect archaeological resources that could be considered historic for the purposes of CEQA. The following information is based on the ASR. Milliken et al. (2007) present a series of culture changes in the San Francisco Bay Area. The period of occupation during the 11,500 to 8000 cal B.C. time frame, when Clovis big-game hunters, then initial Holocene gatherers, presumably lived in the area, lacks evidence, presumably because it has been washed away by stream action, buried under more recent alluvium, or submerged on the continental shelf (Rosenthal and Meyer 2004:1). There is evidence, however, for an in-place forager economic pattern beginning around 8000 cal B.C., followed by a series of five cycles of change that began at approximately 3500 cal B.C. During the Early Holocene (Lower Archaic, cal 8000 and 3500 B.C.), the Bay Area appears to have been occupied by a widespread but sparse population of hunter-gatherers. The millingslab and handstone, as well as a variety of large, wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points, all emerged during this period (Milliken et al. 2007:114). The Early Period (Middle Archaic), 3500-500 cal BP, saw several technological and social developments that characterize this period in the Bay Area. Rectangular Haliotis and Olivella shell beads, the markers of the Early Period bead horizon, continued in use until at least 2,800 years ago (Ingram 1998; Wallace and Lathrop 1975:19). The mortar and pestle were first documented in the Bay Area shortly after 4000 B.C., and by 1500 cal B.C. (Wiberg 1996:373). During the Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic), 500 cal BP to cal AD 430, rectangular shell beads disappeared from the Bay Area, Central Valley, and portions of Southern California and a whole new suite of decorative and presumed religious objects appeared during the Early Period-Middle Period Transition (Elsasser 1978). Around 430 A.D., during the Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic), cal AD 430 to 1050, the Olivella saucer bead trade network collapsed, and more than half of known bead horizon M1 sites were abandoned, while the remaining sites saw a large increase in sea otter bones. Additionally, the Meganos extended burial mortuary pattern began to spread in the interior East Bay (Bennyhoff 1994a, 1994c). During the Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent), cal AD 1050 to 1550, the appearance of a new level of sedentism, status ascription, and ceremonial integration in lowland central California (Fredrickson 1973). Through the Middle/Late Transition Period, burial objects became much more elaborate, and initial markers of the Augustine Pattern appeared in the form of multiperforated and bar-scored Haliotis ornaments, fully shaped show mortars, and new Olivella bead types (Bennyhoff 1994c). The Stockton serrated series, the first arrow-sized projectile point in the Bay Area, also appeared after A.D. 1250. The Stockton serrated series was a unique central California type (Bennyhoff 1994b: 54; Hylkema 2002; Justice 2002: 352). Changes in artifact types and mortuary objects characterized the Terminal Late Period, cal A.D. 1500–1650. The signature Olivella sequin and cup beads of the central California L1 Bead Horizon abruptly disappeared, and clamshell disk beads, markers of the L2 Bead Horizon, spread across the North Bay (Milliken and Bennyhoff 1993:392). The earliest date for clam disks south of the Carquinez Strait, obtained from a charcoal lens at CCO-309, is cal A.D. 1670 (Fredrickson 1968). Indications are that another upward cycle of regional integration was commencing when it was interrupted by Spanish settlement in the Bay Area beginning in 1776 (Milliken et al. 2007:118). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1321 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.2.2.5 Ethnography The Project site is situated in territory once occupied by Costanoan (also commonly referred to as Ohlone) language groups. Eight Ohlone languages were spoken in the area from the southern edge of the Carquinez Strait to portions of the Big Sur and Salinas Rivers south of Monterey Bay and approximately 50 miles inland from the coast. The Project site is near the approximate ethnolinguistic boundary of the Karkin language. Karkin was only spoken in a single, slightly isolated tribelet located on the very northern boundary of the Ohlone ethnographic boundary. This language is thought to have only been spoken by approximately 90 individuals (Levy 1978:485). Ohlone territories were composed of one or more land-holding groups that anthropologists refer to as “tribelets.” The tribelet consisted of a principal village occupied year-round, with a series of smaller hamlets and resource gathering and processing locations occupied intermittently or seasonally (Kroeber 1955: 303–314). Seven Spanish missions were founded in Ohlone territory between 1776 and 1797. While living within the mission system, the Ohlone commingled with other groups, including the Yokuts, Miwok, and Patwin. Mission life was devastating to the Ohlone population (Milliken 1995). When the first mission was established in Ohlone territory in 1776, the Ohlone population was estimated at 10,000. By 1832, the Ohlones numbered less than 2,000 as a result of introduced disease, harsh living conditions, and reduced birth rates (Cook 1943a, 1943b in Levy 1978:486). Ohlone recognition and assertion began to move to the forefront during the early twentieth century, enforced by legal suits brought against the United States government by Indians of California (1928-1964) for reparation due them for the loss of traditional lands. The Ohlone participated in the formation of political advocacy groups, which brought focus upon the community and reevaluation of rights due its members (Bean 1994:xxiv). In recent years, the Ohlone have become increasingly organized as a political unit and have developed an active interest in preserving their ancestral heritage. Many Ohlones are active in maintaining their traditions and advocating for Native American issues. 3.2.2.6 Historic Context The Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) in Appendix D identifies and evaluates the historical significance of the Jailhouse building to recommend whether the property is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA. The following information regarding the existing Jailhouse building, which consists of the original structure, completed in 1903, and the annex built in 1944, is based on the HRER. Contra Costa County was one of the original counties in the state of California, and Martinez has always served as the seat of county government. During the late 19th and early 20th century, the city was well-served by rail and water transportation, which helped its agricultural and industrial economies flourish. However, Martinez was not centrally located, and by 1900 it was being challenged by rival cities with growing populations and more central locations within the county. The County’s original courthouse was condemned following the earthquake of 1898, and the crumbling brick jail was the scene of several escapes. Construction of the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block, including the Jailhouse building, curbing, and Courthouse building, began in 1901 and was completed in 1903 (McDevitt 2001: 146). A dedication ceremony for the project was conducted on May 29, 1903 (Contra Costa County Gazette: 1). The 19th century structures were April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1322 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 replaced by the existing district – Courthouse building, Jailhouse building, and granite curbing – recognized by the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block NRHP listing. The original portion of the Jailhouse building was designed by the architecture firm William Mooser & Sons of San Francisco, while Haven and Toepke of Sacramento designed the Courthouse.1 The original portion of the Jailhouse building and the Courthouse building were constructed by the Pacific Construction Company.2 The 1903 portion of the Jailhouse is approximately square in plan, while the 1944 addition is rectangular and oriented perpendicularly to the 1903 section. The 1944 annex, which is not recognized as a contributing resource in the 1989 NRHP listing, was built during World War II to expand the jail’s capacity by an additional 132 inmates (The Sheriff’s Review 1965), reflecting the county’s population growth. Although the 1944 annex was not considered a contributing element when the NRHP listing was written in 1989, it has become eligible for consideration now that is more than 50 years old. The 1944 annex is rectangular and oriented perpendicularly to the 1903 portion of the building. The 1944 annex is poured, board-formed, concrete and steel. The Jailhouse building held prisoners until all were removed from both the 1903 portion of the building and 1944 annex when a new correctional facility was completed in 1981 (National Register of Historic Places 1989: 4, 8). The Jailhouse building was closed in 1986, and over the past 30 years, the building has fallen into disrepair, laying vacant with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage. The Jailhouse has been owned by Contra Costa County throughout the extent of its history. The Courthouse building became the Contra Costa County Finance building in 1966 and the county courts were moved to a new courthouse directly across Main Street to the southeast. Like the Finance building, the Jailhouse building was built in the Classical Revival or Neoclassical Style (1895-1950), a favored style for governmental and particularly judicial system buildings. Both buildings are clad in rusticated light gray granite, which entails squared off stones with a rough outer surface. Symmetrically placed windows and doors, relieved granite blocks forming the top of the basement windows and the sills of the second story windows, a classically proportioned entablature, and two projecting stone belt courses express the uncluttered architectural style of formalism. Formalism, primarily used for institutional and civic buildings in the United States, is marked by many Classic elements, including symmetry, columns, entablatures, and granite materials. Facing Pine Street, the east side of the building is centered by a Palladian window, composed of a large, arched central window section flanked by two narrower, shorter sections with square tops. On the north side of the building, adjacent to the 1944 annex, the Jailhouse entrance features an arched entrance that includes recessed double doors with upper half lights that appear to have been installed later than 1902. The semicircular area above the doors that is created by the arch’s voussoirs is filled with a panel which is painted to appear as a fanlight window. Further inspection is required to discover if the original window remains in situ. The stairs leading to the entrance are made of massive stones, including top rail stones of finished granite. Coping below the metal parapet features a pressed tin leaf and dart design. The south exterior wall also features a downspout placed just off-center, adjacent to the center windows. The upper section appears to be original but in poor condition. The lower section appears to have been replaced with a pipe that is 1 Although the current National Register of Historic Places Listing identifies the jailhouse architect as William S. Mosser, the designer was architect William Mooser, Jr. of William Mooser & Sons. 2 In “The Court Houses of Contra Costa County,” Collier writes: “When the Pacific Construction Company was nearly finished with the Court House, they were awarded the contract for the jail, to be built at a cost of $35,383. By April 6, 1903, the building was ready for the placement of the cells” (Collier 1967: 12). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1323 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 not a compatible style. Extant granite curbing is characterized by long rectangular spans of rough textured granite (approximately 9-foot sections), punctuated by square block posts with low profile pyramidal top (ranging in size from 1.5 feet to 2 feet). The Jailhouse’s and curbing’s physical relationship with the Courthouse building through adjacent siting on the parcel is essential to the integrity of each element, as well as to the significance of the three components collectively as a block. The historical function of the building as a jailhouse is made explicit by many unusually narrow windows and by exterior bars on all building openings except the front entrance. The large blocks of granite and their rough finish also reflect thick walls and permanence, attributes of a secure jail. The Jailhouse building is closely associated with the 40-year career of Sheriff R. R. Veale, whose extensive records of the County Seat’s early history have been preserved. 3.2.3 Impact Analysis 3.2.3.1 Methods Records Search A cultural resources records search was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, on December 4, 2015 (File No. 15-0820). The records search encompassed the Project site and a 0.25-mile radius around the Project site. The records search included reviews of the NWIC databases of archaeological sites and reports; the NRHP and the Directory of Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for California; the California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and Points of Historical Interest; the California Inventory of Historic Resources; and the Historic Property Date Files for Contra Costa County. The NWIC records search also included review of the General Land Office Plat Maps for Township 2 North, Range 2 West; 1864 map of the Rancho las Juntas and 1865 map of Pinole Rancho. The records search did not identify any cultural resources within the Project site. Five previously recorded cultural resources were within 0.25 mile of the Project site, all of which are built resources, are described below. These resources are described below. P-07-000521: The Martinez Railroad Station — a single-story, long rectangular plan railroad station built in the Craftsman style. Circa 1877. This building was found not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. P-07-000522: 330 Ferry Street — a concrete tilt-up warehouse with a double hipped-roof. Circa 1975. This building was found not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. P-07-000523: 350 Ferry Street — a single-story industrial building. Circa 1955. This building was found not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. P-07-002750: Sharkey Building/630 Court Street — a two-story, flat-roofed commercial brick/Italianate Renaissance Revival building. Circa 1926. This building was found eligible for the CRHR. P-07-003083: Contra Costa County Administration Building — a multi-level scored concrete, tile and glass government building. Circa 1957. This building was found not eligible for the NRHP. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1324 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 The NWIC records search did not identify any studies conducted within the Project site. However, 22 studies were recorded within a 0.25-mile of the Project site. These studies include a variety of regional overview, site-specific, and historic and archaeological surveys throughout Contra Costa County. A three-step process was followed to identify historic built resources and update existing evaluations: 1) undertake background research of previously recorded resources and completed reports within and adjacent to the study area, 2) develop approach and historic context for evaluation, and 3) conduct onsite fieldwork to inspect and record resources. Bibliographic references, were compiled through a records search at the Contra Costa County Historical Society on December 15, 2015, through data requests to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, and research of available online materials. Field Survey The Project site is located in highly urbanized Downtown Martinez. The Project site was inspected for indicators of human activity, such as; dark midden soils, dietary shell and bone, stone or bone artifacts, and historic artifacts. The area was also examined for any larger, earthen features such as mounds or depressions. The area has been completely developed. The majority of the Project site is paved. Any visible ground surface has been disturbed and/or covered in fill and gravel. All visible ground surfaces appear to have been graded, landscaped, or developed. The vicinity of the Project site includes a mixture of administrative and residential uses. The Jailhouse building is located on the west edge of Downtown Martinez, with a residential area to the west and administrative and commercial buildings to the east. The vicinity of the Project site has been completely urbanized and there are very few open space areas. No original ground surfaces were visible or evident during the field survey, and no archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. In order to evaluate cultural resources at the Project site, a site survey was conducted on December 22, 2015. Photographic documentation was compiled during this site survey. The interior of the Jailhouse building was not surveyed. The exterior of the Jailhouse building, including curbing and surrounding parking lots, were surveyed. Summary of Native American Consultation AB 52 applies to the Project. To date, no Native American tribes have contacted Contra Costa County Public Works Department for consultation regarding the Project, but letters to the five tribes in the area are being issued regarding the consultation for dthis project. 3.2.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below.  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1325 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 3.2.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (significant and unavoidable) The demolition of the Jailhouse building, which is eligible for listing on the CRHR, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource, on the limited historic resources within the Martinez Historic Overlay District, and on the NRHP-listed Contra Costa County Courthouse Block (NRIS Reference #89002113, listed 1989), which includes the Jailhouse and former County Courthouse (i.e., current Finance building). Demolition of an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 prevents the resource from conveying its historical significance and justification for inclusion in the NRHP and eligibility for CRHR. This impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would serve to reduce the impact to some extent but not to a less than significant impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Record the Building’s History and Architecture following Historic American Building Survey Guidelines and Prepare Materials for Public Interpretation The County will record the Jailhouse building following National Park Service Guidelines for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. This will include large-format black and white or digitized photography, captions, and thorough written documentation of the historic context and description of the building for submission to local historical repositories including the Contra Costa County Library in Martinez. Public interpretation based on information from the HABS documentation will be used to convey the historical significance of the building in formats that may include street-side sign panel(s) and exhibits in nearby County or historical society venues. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Plan for Reuse of Salvaged Components of the Building in Public Spaces To the extent feasible, the County will plan to reuse materials from the building in public parks and facilities in the Martinez area. A Salvage Plan will be prepared to identify building components that would be appropriate for use in public spaces, including public park(s). Building components for consideration will include the granite cladding, granite curbs, and possibly interior architecture, as appropriate. Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource (less than significant with mitigation) No cultural resources were identified either through the NWIC records search or during the field survey, and all ground-disturbing construction activities would be in previously disturbed contexts. However, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered resources to be encountered during demolition and construction. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. This April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1326 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-13 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 impact would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, this impact would be a less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources are Encountered During Ground-disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. All work within 100 feet of the find will be stopped until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. Impact CUL-3: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (less than significant with mitigation) Demolition and grading could unearth and damage previously unknown paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features. This impact would be potentially significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, this impact would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Stop Work if Paleontological or Unique Geologic Features are Encountered During Ground-disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if substantial fossil remains are discovered during Project demolition or construction. All work will stop until a registered professional geologist or qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The County or the appropriate agency will be responsible for ensuring that recommendations regarding treatment and reporting are implemented. Impact CUL-4: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (less than significant with mitigation) Although no cultural resources were identified either through the background records search or during the Project site survey, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be encountered during Project demolition or construction. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. This impact would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5, this impact would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Stop Work if Human Remains are Encountered During Ground-Disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction or demolition. There will be no further excavation April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1327 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Cultural Resources Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-14 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Contra Costa County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner will re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1328 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for hazards and hazardous materials. It also describes impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for significant impacts, where feasible and appropriate. A hazardous material is any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical properties, may pose a hazard to human health and the environment. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: 1) toxicity, 2) ignitability, 3) corrosiveness, and 4) reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, and Article 3). A hazardous material is defined in CCR, Title 22 as: [a] substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (CCR, Title 22, Section 66260.10). Hazardous materials in various forms can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, and damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Hazards to human health and the environment can occur during production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting This section describes relevant federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the Project. 3.3.1.1 Federal Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-administered program to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the cradle to grave system of regulating hazardous wastes. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establishes a trust April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1329 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acton October 17, 1986. Occupational Safety and Health Administration The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mission is to ensure the safety and health of workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. The OSHA staff establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in 29 CFR 1910. Toxic Substances Control Act The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) came into law on October 11, 1976. TSCA authorized EPA to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances, as well as to control any of the substances that were determined to cause unreasonable risk to public health or the environment. The current polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) regulations, CFR at 40 CFR 761, were published pursuant to the TCSA, and include the following list of CFR Sections that are applicable to the Project.  Section 761.60 Disposal requirements.  Section 761.61 PCB remediation waste cleanup and disposal options.  Section 761.77 Coordination with the EPA Regional Administrator.  Section 761.79 Decontamination standards and procedures.  Section 761.97 Export requirements for disposal.  Section 761.125 Requirements for PCB spill cleanup.  Section 761.130 Sampling requirements.  Section 761.180 Records and monitoring. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100–185) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials regulations cover all aspects of hazardous materials packaging, handling, and transportation. Parts 107 (Hazard Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), 173 (Packaging Requirements), 174 (Rail Transportation), 176 (Vessel Transportation), 177 (Highway Transportation), 178 (Packaging Specifications), and 180 (Packaging Maintenance) would all apply to the Project and surrounding uses. Enforcement of these DOT regulations is shared by each of the following agencies under delegations from the Secretary of the DOT. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1330 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  Research and Special Programs Administration is responsible for container manufacturers, reconditioners, and retesters and shares authority over shippers of hazardous materials.  Federal Highway Administration enforces all regulations pertaining to motor carriers.  Federal Railroad Administration enforces all regulations pertaining to rail carriers.  Federal Aviation Administration enforces all regulations pertaining to air carriers.  Coast Guard enforces all regulations pertaining to shipments by water. Asbestos Regulations and Requirements Regulatory oversight for the management, removal, and disposal of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) is provided by federal, state, and local agencies. The federal OSHA and the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) regulate asbestos as a worker health and safety issue through the Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry (ASCI). EPA regulations concerning the identification, handling, management, and abatement of ACMs, as found in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA] and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), are implemented locally by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2. The transportation and disposal of asbestos-containing wastes are overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). OSHA, EPA, DTSC, and BAAQMD define ACMs as materials containing more than 1 percent asbestos. These regulations are described below. For renovation/demolition projects, before a renovation/demolition permit is issued, AB 2791 requires that notification be sent to the respective air management district (BAAQMD for the proposed Project) for any renovation/demolition project, even when no ACMs are present, and any demolition project where the amount of friable (easily crumbled) ACM is equal to or greater than 160 square feet or 260 linear feet. Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry The ASCI (29 CFR 1926.1101; 8 CCR 1529), administered by OSHA and Cal-OSHA, regulates asbestos exposure in the work place, including persons working in a building containing ACMs and abatement workers/contractors. The ASCI contains the following provisions for abatement workers and contractors.  Specifies how workers and the public are to be protected during the removal.  Provides medical surveillance requirements for workers.  Provides detailed requirements for how asbestos is to be removed.  Defines training requirements for abatement personnel. Building materials containing at least 1 percent asbestos are considered ACMs and should be managed accordingly. However, Cal-OSHA defines asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCMs) as any building material that contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight. In addition, building materials presumed or known to contain at least trace amounts (less than 1 percent) of asbestos should be considered ACCMs and should be managed according to Cal-OSHA regulations (8 CCR 1529). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1331 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act The AHERA (40 CFR 763), as implemented by EPA, primarily pertains to the assessment and management of ACMs in K–12 nonprofit schools. However, many of the procedures, training requirements, and certifications defined by AHERA have become the industry standard for all other facilities. The asbestos survey prepared for the existing Jailhouse building satisfies the applicable requirements of the AHERA (see Section 3.3.2.2, Asbestos). National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants The NESHAP (40 CFR 61) is an asbestos standard that protects the general public from asbestos exposure from demolition or demolition activities. The NESHAP requires surveys for suspect materials, notification of intent to renovate or demolish, removal of regulated ACMs before demolition or demolition activities, and proper management of asbestos-containing wastes. The NESHAP contains three definitions of regulated ACM.  Any friable ACM.  A Category I nonfriable ACM (e.g., floor tiles and asphalt roofing products) that has become friable or will be subject to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading during demolition or demolition activities.  A Category II nonfriable ACM (all other nonfriable ACMs) that has a high probability of becoming friable during demolition or demolition activities. The NESHAP requires that demolition activities be conducted with no visible emissions using wet methods. It should be noted that although the NESHAP regulates demolition activities, it does not protect individual workers conducting asbestos abatement or provide instructions for how asbestos abatement projects should be conducted. Lead-Based Paint Regulations and Requirements The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the California Department of Health Services (DHS), and EPA define lead-based paints (LBPs) as paints containing greater than 0.5 percent lead by weight, or 5,000 ppm or 1.0 milligrams per centimeter squared total lead. OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulations (Lead Construction Standard) do not provide a definition for LBPs, but refer to the EPA, HUD, and DHS definition. Cal-OSHA is primarily concerned with worker protection and, therefore, regulates any amount of lead contained within painted building components. Cal-OSHA also provides a Permissible Exposure Limit for worker exposure to airborne lead particulates of 50 μg/m3 for an 8-hour time-weighted average. The OSHA Lead Construction Standard also lists an Action Level of 30 μg/m3 for an 8-hour time-weighted average. Therefore, demolition or demolition activities that include materials with lead in any concentration could, under certain circumstances, trigger OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulations. The concentrations of airborne lead generated by disturbing the LBPs at the site would vary based on several factors, including the type of activity including “trigger tasks” and the severity of disturbance to the building materials. Determination of airborne lead concentrations would require air monitoring by a trained lead professional during building material disturbance. The results of the LBP survey should be provided to contractors and subcontractors performing work at the site that may disturb painted components. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1332 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Regulations and Requirements In the past, oil containing PCBs was used in electrical equipment, such as transformers and light ballasts, as a dielectric insulating fluid for heat dissipation. Manufacture of PCBs was banned in 1976; therefore, equipment manufactured after this time should not contain PCBs. EPA requires that insulating oils containing PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 milligrams per liter be disposed of properly by a California-licensed hazardous waste hauler. It is also common for fluorescent light tubes and electrical thermostats to contain mercury vapor or fluid. If PCBs and mercury are known or presumed to be present within light ballasts, associated fluorescent tubes, and thermostats, these features should be disposed of properly by a California-licensed hazardous waste hauler. 3.3.1.2 State California Environmental Protection Agency The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991. It unified California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and brought the California Air Resource Board (ARB), State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards), the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), DTSC, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation, under one agency. These agencies were placed within the CalEPA umbrella for the protection of human health and the environment to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC, a department of CalEPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5–10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. U.S.C. Section 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, DHS lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the State Water Board as having underground storage tank leaks or a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste or material. Hazardous Waste Control Act DTSC is responsible for the enforcement of the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), which creates the framework under which hazardous wastes are managed in California. The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA cradle-to-grave waste management system in California. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous waste and development of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1333 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985 The Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, also known as the Business Plan Act, requires businesses that use hazardous materials to prepare a plan that describes their facilities, inventories, emergency response plans, and training programs. Hazardous materials are defined as unsafe raw or unused materials that are part of a process or manufacturing step. They are not considered hazardous waste. Health concerns pertaining to the release of hazardous materials, however, are similar to those pertaining to hazardous waste. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404–25404.9) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the environmental and emergency response programs and provides authority to the Certified Unified Program Agency. The hazardous materials programs in the Unified Program are: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, Underground Storage Tank Program, Aboveground Storage Tank Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, and Hazardous Waste Tiered-Permitting Program. California Code of Regulations, Title 8—Industrial Relations Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. Cal-OSHA and the federal OSHA are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety in the workplace. Cal-OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. These standards would be applicable to both construction and operation of the Project. California Labor Code (Division 5; Parts 1 and 7.5) The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations that includes the regulation of the workplace to assure appropriate training on the use and handling of hazardous materials and the operation of equipment and machines that use, store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials. Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 2.5 ensures employees who are in charge of the handling of hazardous materials are appropriately trained on, and informed of, the materials they are handling. Division 5, Part 7 ensures employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted in appropriate safety gear and clothing. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Safety Zones In accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 4201–4204 and Government Code Section 51175–51189, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas of significant wildland fire hazards based on fuels, weather, topography, and other factors. These fire hazard severity zones represent relative risks associated with wildland fires. State regulations as specified in Public Resources Code Sections 4290–4291 and Title 14 require that specific vegetation management requirements be adhered to within very high severity hazard risk zones in order to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1334 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.3.1.3 Local Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) tracks evolving hazards and develops strategies to minimize risk exposure in Bay Area communities. The goal of the ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to “maintain and enhance a disaster-resistant region by reducing the potential for loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disaster, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters” (Association of Bay Area Governments 2010). Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The nearest public airport to the Project site is Buchanan Field Airport, which is located 4.5 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is not located in the Airport Influence Area or within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Shutt Moen Associates 2000). Contra Costa County The following goals from the Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update related to hazards and hazardous materials are applicable to the proposed Project. Goal 1. Save (or protect) lives and reduce injury. Goal 2. Increase resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities. Goal 3. Avoid (minimize, or reduce) damage to property. Goal 4. Encourage the development and implementation of long-term, cost-effective and environmentally sound mitigation projects. Goal 5. Build and support capacity to enable local government and the public to prepare for, respond to and recover from the impact of natural hazards. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting 3.3.2.1 Historical and Current Land Uses The existing Jailhouse building consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex built in 1944. The Jailhouse building is currently vacant with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage. The Jailhouse building is owned by County of Contra Costa but lies within the city limits of Martinez. 3.3.2.2 Asbestos An asbestos survey prepared for the existing Jailhouse building consisted of analyzing 195 samples to identify asbestos using polarized light microscopy (Bureau Veritas 2014). Samples were taken from different features within the building (e.g., a white/gray window, orange and brown ceramic April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1335 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 tile, and gray grout). The results of the analysis indicate that asbestos (i.e., chrysotile or amosite) was detected in some of the samples. 3.3.2.3 Lead-Based Paint Because of the building’s age, the Jailhouse building is assumed to contain LBP. 3.3.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls The Jailhouse building is assumed to contain PCBs because transformers and light ballasts, which used oil containing PCBs in the past, may be located within the building. 3.3.2.5 Hazardous Materials According to the EnviroStor database of DTSC, which tracks hazardous waste cleanup sites and hazardous waste facilities, the Project site is not located on a hazardous waste storage site, hazardous waste site, or clean-up site (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2015). According to EnviroMapper (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015), which lists generators appearing on hazardous waste manifests, and includes onsite and offsite hazardous waste disposal activities or other releases, as reported through the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, the Project site is not a generator of toxic waste. According to Geotracker (State Water Resources Control Board 2015), which includes a list of sites that are contaminated as a result of a leaking underground storage tank, there are five contaminated sites within 1,000 feet of the Project site. All of these cases are closed (State Water Resources Control Board 2015). 3.3.2.6 Wildland Fire The CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map designates the Project site as being in a “Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2009). 3.3.3 Impact Analysis 3.3.3.1 Methods The following project-level analysis evaluates the Project’s direct and indirect impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials using the thresholds of significance provided below. 3.3.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below.  Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.  Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.  Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1336 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.  Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.  Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.  Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 3.3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (less than significant) The Project would involve demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a surface parking lot. During demolition and construction, the Project would involve the use, transportation, storage, and disposal of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials required for demolition and construction. Any transportation of hazardous materials would comply with all California Department of Transportation, CalEPA, DTSC, California Highway Patrol, and California State Fire Marshal regulations. In addition, handling and disposal of hazardous materials would be in accordance with all other federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Typical construction erosion control best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and may include the following provisions.  Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather.  Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points.  No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles onsite, except in a designated area where washwater is contained and treated.  Properly store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes to prevent contact with stormwater.  Contractor will train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors on construction BMPs.  Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulation and implementation of BMPs would ensure hazardous materials used during Project demolition and construction would not create any hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and this impact would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1337 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 During operation, vehicles at the surface parking lot could spill fuel or oil. Any fuel or oil spills would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Consequently, following demolition, the potential to transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials would be minimal, and this impact would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (less than significant with mitigation) The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials, including ACMs and LBP. During demolition of the Jailhouse building, workers and the public could be exposed to hazardous building materials if they were not abated prior to demolition. Before performing demolition activities at the Project site, the County Public Works Department would perform a comprehensive building materials survey for ACMs, LBP, electrical equipment containing PCBs, and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors and lights and identify the applicable construction worker health and safety regulations and materials removal. All disposal would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state standards, including the Cal-OSHA and BAAQMD regulations. The Project contractor would be required by the County to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an approved facility. Nonetheless, construction workers could be exposed to hazardous materials. This impact would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4, this would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prepare a Hazardous Materials Specification for the Abatement of Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs) Prior to Demolition A California-certified asbestos consultant and a California Department of Health Services-certified lead project designer shall prepare a hazardous materials specification for the abatement of the ACMs and LBPs. This specification should be the basis for selecting qualified contractors to perform the proposed asbestos and lead abatement work. The County has already identified areas of potential concern as a starting point for determining the hazardous materials that should be removed before demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Retain a State Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor to Perform Hazardous Materials Abatement Prior to Demolition The County or its assigned contractor will retain a California-licensed asbestos abatement contractor to perform the abatement of the ACMs, ACCMs, and LBPs deemed potentially hazardous. In addition, lamps used in fluorescent lights, ballasts, and electrical thermostats will be disposed of properly. Because all materials would be disturbed during demolition, all identified hazardous materials will need to be abated before demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Obtain Proper Building Permits and Follow Applicable Regulations Regarding the Handling of Hazardous Materials during Demolition The County or its assigned contractor will obtain a demolition permit from the County before proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials identified within the structure. Contractors performing work that disturbs LBPs in the building shall implement appropriate work practices in accordance with applicable Cal-OSHA worker exposure regulations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1338 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Ensure that Contractors and Designers Know the Exact Location of All Hazardous Materials Contractors shall be informed of the exact locations of all potentially hazardous materials in the building so that workers can properly handle, manage, and remove these materials according to the appropriate federal, state, and local requirements. The County and/or assigned contractor shall provide notification to contractors and subcontractors of the building to the presence, locations, and quantities of ACMs, ACCMs, and LBPs at the site within 15 days of receiving this information. Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (less than significant) Saint Catherine of Siena School, a private pre-kindergarten through 8th grade school, is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the Project site. The nearest public school is Martinez Junior High School, which is located 0.5 mile south of the Project site. During operation, there is the potential for fuel or oil spills from vehicles at the surface parking lot. Any fuel or oil spills would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Overall, the Project would not use or emit hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near a school, and this impact would be less than significant. Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (no impact) The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (also known as Cortese List). According to DTSC’s EnviroStor, the Project site is not located on a hazardous waste storage site, hazardous waste site, or clean-up site (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2015). According to EnviroMapper (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015), the Project site is not a generator of toxic waste. Therefore, the Project site would pose no hazard to the public or the environment. There would be no impact. Impact HAZ-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area (no impact) The nearest public airport is the Buchanan Field Airport, which is located 4.5 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is not located in the Buchanan Field Airport’s Airport Influence Area or within its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Shutt Moen Associates 2000), and is not within 2 miles of a public airport or a private airstrip. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with air traffic or create a safety hazard for people on the ground or for air traffic. There would be no impact. Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (no impact) The Project would not alter access around the Project site in any way that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1339 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Hazards and Hazardous Materials Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 evacuation plan. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) provides fire protection to the Project site and surrounding area. The City provides police protection to the Project site and surrounding area. Emergency response from the CCCFPD and the City for fire and police protection, respectively, would remain the same as under existing conditions because the response time and distance would remain the same. The Project site is located in Downtown Martinez, and so would be covered by the City of Martinez Emergency Response Plan and the established prearranged emergency response procedures, identified evacuation routes, and executed mutual aid agreements for emergency assistance. The Project would not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with implementation of the City of Martinez Emergency Response Plan or any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan for the Project vicinity. There would be no impact. Impact HAZ-7: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (no impact) The Project site is located in an urban area. The CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map designates the Project site as being in a “Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2009). The construction of a new parking lot would not place people at long-term risk from wildland fires because users would be transient and there would be no habitable structure associated with the parking lot. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not increase the risk from wildland fires to urbanized areas or residences, and standard measures would be implemented to reduce risk of fire during construction and operation of the Project. There would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1340 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.4 Noise This section defines common noise terminology and describes the regulatory and environmental setting for noise in the vicinity of the Project site. It also describes impacts related to noise that could result from implementation of the Project. 3.4.1 Noise Terminology The following are brief definitions of noise terminology used in this evaluation.  Sound. A vibratory disturbance transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air and capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A measure of sound based on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of actual sound pressure level to a reference sound pressure level (20 micropascals).  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). A measure of sound that is weighted to take into account the varying sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies of sound. The dBA scale is the most widely used for environmental noise assessments. Typical A-weighted noise levels for various types of sound sources are summarized in Table 3.4-1.  Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the monitoring period. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq 1h) is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period.  Maximum Sound Levels (Lmax). The maximum (Lmax) sound levels measured during a monitoring period.  Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Sound from multiple sources operating in the same area, such as multiple pieces of construction equipment, will result in a combined sound level that is greater than any individual source. The individual sound levels for different noise sources cannot be added directly to give the sound level for the combined noise sources. Rather, the combined noise level produced by multiple noise sources is calculated using logarithmic summation. For example, if one bulldozer produces a noise level of 80 dBA, then two bulldozers operating side by side would generate a combined noise level of 83 dBA (only 3 dBA louder than the single bulldozer). Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable; a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable; and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise; in practice, for example, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway typically needs to double to result in a noticeable increase in noise. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1341 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.4-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Common Outdoor Activities Sound Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck at 50 mph at 50 feet Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawnmower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Large business office Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural area, nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) Rustling of leaves 20 Broadcast/recording studio 10 0 Source: California Department of Transportation 2013. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from isolated point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the noise source. When the noise source is a continuous line, such as vehicle traffic on a highway, sound levels decrease by about 3 dB for every doubling of distance. Noise levels can also be affected by several factors other than the distance from the noise source. Topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves can affect the reduction of noise levels. Atmospheric conditions (wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) and the presence of dense vegetation can also affect the degree of sound attenuation. 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting This section describes relevant federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the Project. 3.4.2.1 Federal and State No federal or state noise regulations are relevant to the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1342 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.4.2.2 Local The Project would be located on County land within the City of Martinez. Both Contra Costa County and Martinez noise standards are described below. Contra Costa County General Plan The following goals and policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005) related to noise are relevant to the Project. Goal 11-A. To improve the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful levels of noise for existing and future residents and for all land uses. Goal 11-B. To maintain appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the County. Goal 11-C. To ensure that new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. Policy 11-1. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in Figure 11-6 (Figure 3.4-1 in this document). These guidelines, along with the future noise levels shown in the future noise contours maps, should be used by the county as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of “noise sensitive” projects in potentially noisy areas. Policy 11-8. Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods. Noise Ordinance Contra Costa County does not have an ordinance specifically addressing noise. Noise complaints within unincorporated areas are addressed through application of peace disturbance sections of the County Code and application of generic nuisance ordinances of the County Code. City of Martinez General Plan The Noise and Air Element of the Martinez 2035 General Plan (2016) identifies land use compatibility standards for various land uses (Figure 3.4-2). The Martinez 2035 General Plan also specifies maximum permissible noise levels for new uses affected by non-transportation sources. Table 3.4-2 summarizes these maximum noise levels. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1343 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.4-2. City of Martinez Maximum Noise Levels for New Uses Affected by Non-Transportation Noise New Land Use Outdoor Activity Area – Leq Interior - Leq Notes Daytime Night-Time Day & Night All Residential 50 45 35 1, 2 ,7 Transient Lodging 55 -- 40 3 Hospitals & Nursing Homes 50 45 35 4 Theaters & Auditoriums -- -- 35 Churches, Meeting Halls, Schools, Libraries, etc. 55 -- 40 Office Buildings 55 -- 45 5, 6 Commercial Buildings 55 -- 45 5, 6 Playgrounds, Parks, etc. 65 -- -- 6 Light Industry 65 65 50 5 Source: City of Martinez 2016. Notes: 1 Outdoor activity areas for single-family residential uses are defined as backyards. For large parcels or residences with no clearly defined outdoor activity area, the standard shall be applicable within a 100-foot radius of the residence. 2 For multi-family residential uses, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied at the common outdoor recreation area, such as at pools, play areas or tennis courts. Where such areas are not provided, the standards shall be applied at individual patios and balconies of the development. 3 Outdoor activity areas of transient lodging facilities include swimming pool and picnic areas, and are not commonly used during nighttime hours. 4 Hospitals are often noise-generating uses. The exterior noise level standards for hospitals are applicable only at clearly identified areas designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients. 5 Only the exterior spaces of these uses designated for employee or customer relaxation have any degree of sensitivity to noise. 6 The outdoor activity areas of office, commercial and park uses are not typically utilized during nighttime hours. 7 It may not be possible to achieve compliance with this standard at residential uses Municipal Code Section 8.34 of the City’s Municipal Code identifies acceptable noise levels. A day-night noise level (Ldn) of 45 dB is the standard for interior noise levels. An Ldn of 45 dBA is achieved by an allowable interior noise level of 35 dBA between 10 p.m. — 7 a.m. and 45 dBA between 7 a.m. — 10 p.m. A day-night level (Ldn) of 60 dB is the standard for exterior noise. An Ldn of 60 dBA is a maximum noise level of 50 dBA between 10 p.m. — 7 a.m. and 60 dBA between 7 a.m. — 10 p.m. The code prohibits the following activities and use of any of the following equipment from 7:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays, and from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and state, federal, or local holidays. A hammer or any other device or implement used to repeatedly pound or strike an object. An impact wrench, or other tool or equipment powered by compressed air. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1344 Figure 3.4-1 Contra Costa Land Use Compatibility StandardsGraphics … 00413.15 (1-8-2016)Source: Contra Costa General Plan 2005. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1345 Figure 3.4-2 City of Martinez Land Use Compatibility StandardsGraphics … 00413.15 (1-8-2016)Source: City of Martinez General Plan 2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1346 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack leaf blower, and lawn mower. Except as specifically included in this Chapter, motor vehicles, powered by an internal-combustion engine and subject to the State of California Vehicle Code, are excluded from this prohibition. Any electrically or battery powered tool or piece of equipment used for cutting drilling, or shaping wood, plastic, metal or other materials or objects, such as but not limited to a saw, drill, lathe or router. Any of the following: the operation and/or loading or unloading of heavy equipment (such as but not limited to bulldozer, road grader, back hoe), ground drilling and boring equipment, hydraulic crane and boom equipment, portable power generator or pump, pavement equipment (such as but not limited to pneumatic hammer, pavement breaker, tamper, compacting equipment), pile-driving equipment, vibrating roller, sand blaster, gunite machine, trencher, concrete truck, and hot kettle pump and the like. Construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration or repair activity. Noise related to construction activity is exempt from the numeric noise level limits in the code during the hours when construction is allowed (i.e., between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and state, federal and local holidays). 3.4.3 Environmental Setting The Project site is located at 650 Pine Street in Downtown Martinez (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2) The area is bordered by a parking lot to the north, and county government buildings to the east, south, and west. The Union Pacific Railroad train tracks are located less than 0.1 mile north of the Project site. The nearest residence is located approximately 200 feet northeast of the Project site. The large multistory building located to the east of the Project site provides substantial visual and acoustical shielding to the nearest residences. The majority of noise in the Project vicinity comes from motor vehicle traffic, railroad operations, and the existing government facilities. Given that the Project site is surrounded by developed land, ambient noise levels in the area are expected to be in the range of 50 to 60 dBA Ldn, which is typical for an urban setting such as this. 3.4.4 Impact Analysis 3.4.4.1 Methods Potential noise impacts that could result from demolition, construction and Project operation are assessed by estimating potential construction and operational noise levels and then comparing those noise levels with applicable standards. Specific prediction methods are discussed under each impact. 3.4.4.2 Thresholds of Significance City of Martinez and Contra Costa County land use compatibility standards are generally the same. The exception is that the County identifies 70 Ldn as the compatibility standard for office buildings, whereas the City identifies 65 Ldn as the standard. Contra Costa does not have a noise ordinance whereas the City of Martinez Municipal Code specifies a standard for exterior noise of 60 Ldn. The code equates this to 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and 60 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Because potentially affected receivers are located in Martinez, the Martinez Municipal Code noise standards are applicable. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1347 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 A noise impact would be considered significant if the Project would result in any of the following conditions.  Demolition and construction noise that exceeds City of Martinez Municipal Code noise standards.  Construction vibration that would be perceptible at nearby residential or office uses.  Operational noise that exceeds City of Martinez land use compatibility noise standards. 3.4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies (less than significant) Construction As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, demolition is anticipated to begin in fall 2016 and continue for approximately 4 months. Demolition, excavation, and construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. High noise-producing construction activities would be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Table 3.4-3 summarizes equipment that is anticipated to be used for each phase of construction. Table 3.4-3. Project Equipment by Phase Phase Activity Durationa Construction Equipment 1 Abatement, demolition 10 weeks 2-Cranes 1-Caterpillar 345 excavator 1-Cat 3300 loader 2–Bobcat skid-steer loaders 2-Backhoes 3-Dump trucks (end dump) 2 Site preparation, grubbing, excavation 2-4 weeks 1-Grader 2-Backhoes 2-Dump trucks (end dump) 3 Site grading 2 weeks 1-Grader 1-Compactor 1-Backhoe 1-Dump truck (end dump) 4 Paving 2-4 weeks 1-Pavers 1-Stripers 2-Backhoes 1-Dump truck (end dump) 1-Roller 1-Tractor loader a The duration of phases are noted above with no periods of overlap for each phase April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1348 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 3.4-4 lists equipment that is expected to be used and the equipment’s typical noise levels reported in the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006). Lmax sound levels at 50 feet are shown along with the typical acoustical use factors. The acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is assumed to be operating at full power (i.e., its noisiest condition) during construction and is used to estimate Leq values from Lmax values. For example, the Leq value for a piece of equipment that operates at full power 50 percent of the time (acoustical use factor of 50) is 3 dB less than the Lmax value for that piece of equipment. Table 3.4-4. Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels Equipment Typical Lmax noise level (dBA) at 50 feet Acoustical use factor (%) Leq noise level at 50 feet (dBA) Crane 81 16 73 Dump truck 76 40 72 Excavator 81 40 77 Backhoe 78 40 74 Compactor 83 20 76 Grader 85 40 81 Paver 77 50 74 Loader 79 40 75 Roller 80 20 73 Tractor 84 40 80 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006. dBA= A-weighted decibel Leq = equivalent sound level Lmax = maximum sound levels Table 3.4-5 summarizes predicted construction noise levels by each phase of the Project and at various distances. Table 3.4-5. Project Noise Levels by Phase Cumulative Noise Level (dBA-Leq) Phase Activity At 50 feet (reference distance) At 30 feet (nearest office) At 100 feet At 200 feet (nearest residences) At 400 feet At 800 feet 1 Abatement, demolition 84 84 78 72 66 60 2 Site preparation, grubbing, excavation 83 83 77 71 65 59 3 Site grading 83 83 77 71 65 59 4 Paving 83 83 77 71 65 59 dBA= A-weighted decibel Leq = equivalent sound level April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1349 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Project demolition and construction activities would be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, which are the hours that noise from construction is exempt from municipal noise standards. Consequently, noise from demolition and construction activities is not expected to exceed applicable noise standards. Employees in the surrounding buildings could potentially be exposed to excessive construction noise. However, because employees are normally located within existing buildings which will provide substantial noise attenuation from outside noise sources, no significant construction noise effects on employees are anticipated. Because noise from demolition and construction activities is not expected to exceed applicable noise standards, this impact would be less than significant. During construction, there would be increased traffic on nearby roadways that provide primary access to the Project site as a result of material delivery and worker trips. However, this increased traffic would be a very small percentage of the existing traffic volumes and is therefore expected to result in an increase in noise that is less than 3 dB (i.e., less than perceptible). Operation There are currently two parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building (12 total parking spaces). Under the Project, the County Public Works Department would construct a parking lot that provides a total of 25 to 30 parking spaces including the two existing parking lots on the Project site, one with seven spaces adjacent to the south side of the Jailhouse building, and one with five spaces adjacent to the north side of the Jailhouse building. Adding up to 18 parking spaces may slightly increase noise on the Project site from additional vehicles accessing the site, but because of the very slight increase in activity in the parking lot resulting from this small increase, the resulting increase in noise would be less than 3 dB (i.e. less than perceptible). Therefore, the noise impact resulting from additional parking spaces on the Project site would be less than significant. Impact NOI-2: Expose persons to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project (less than significant) As indicated in Table 3.4-5, construction noise could be as high as approximately 84 dBA Leq at the nearest offices and 72 dBA Leq the nearest residences. Although construction noise at these levels would likely be greater than existing ambient noise levels, the noise levels would not exceed the applicable municipal code noise standards because daytime construction is exempt from the numeric noise standards in the code and construction would not occur during non-exempt hours. The temporary increase in noise associated with construction would not be substantial and this impact would be less than significant. Impact NOI-3: Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (less than significant with mitigation) Construction The operation of heavy construction equipment can generate localized groundborne vibration at buildings adjacent to the construction site, especially during the operation of high-impact equipment, such as pile drivers. Vibration from non-impact construction activity and truck traffic is April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1350 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Noise Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 typically less than the threshold of residential annoyance when the activity is more than approximately 50 feet from the vibration-sensitive land uses (Federal Transit Administration 2006). The demolition and construction methods for the Project would be similar to other projects set in a busy urban setting and would not involve explosives, a wrecking ball, or other highly dynamic equipment. Consequently, operation of demolition and construction equipment is not expected to result in perceptible groundborne vibration at adjacent buildings. There would be, however, potential for perceptible groundborne vibration to be generated when building debris falls or is dropped from one or more building stories above the ground. If this occurs on a sustained basis over several days, substantial annoyance of nearby office building occupants could result (Buehler 2015). Therefore, this impact would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, this would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation by limiting the elevation from which building debris is dropped. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Implement Vibration-Reducing Demolition Practices In order to minimize groundborne vibration generated by falling building debris, the construction contractor will conduct demolition activities such that building debris does not fall more than 5 feet and is not dropped more than 5 feet. Operation After the Project is completed, the site would contain a parking lot with up to 30 parking spaces. There are currently 12 spaces on the lot. There is no vibration impact associated with parking lot activities. Therefore, there would be no impact related to groundborne vibration and noise associated with Project operation. Impact NOI-4: Expose persons to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project (less than significant) After the Project is completed, the site would contain a parking lot with up to 30 parking spaces. There are currently 12 spaces on the lot. The potential increase in traffic noise associated with these additional 18 spaces would be less than 3 dB. There would, therefore, be no substantial permanent increase in noise associated with operation of the Project. This impact would be less than significant. Impact NOI-5: Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (no impact) The closest airport to the Project site is the Buchanan Field Airport, which is located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the Project site. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site. Because the Project would not expose employees, visitors, or construction workers to excessive noise levels related to aircraft overflight there would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1351 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.5 Transportation and Traffic This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting for transportation and traffic in the vicinity of the Project site. It also describes impacts related to transportation and traffic that could result from implementation of the Project. This section is based on qualitative analysis of potential transportation and traffic impacts. 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting This section describes relevant local regulations applicable to the Project. 3.5.1.1 Federal and State No federal transportation regulations are relevant to the Project. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for operating and maintaining the state highway system. Interstate 680 (I-680) is the state highway closest to the Project site. Because the Project would not generate any traffic on I-680, no state highway regulations are applicable to the Project. 3.5.1.2 Local Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which includes Contra Costa County. MTC adopted the Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Transportation 2035 Plan) in 2009, focused on supporting a prosperous and globally competitive Bay Area economy, providing for a healthy and safe environment, and promoting equitable mobility opportunity for all residents. The Transportation 2035 Plan provides incentives for cities and counties to promote growth near transit in urbanized areas. The Transportation 2035 Plan also launched a Transportation Climate Action Campaign to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Contra Costa Transportation Authority The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) adopted the most recent version of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) in 2009 and released a draft update of the CTP in August 2014. The CTP is “intended to reduce the impact of new development on freeways, arterials, transit, and major trails.” The Plan is intended to aid local jurisdictions in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2015b). The CTP designates routes of regional significance, which include I-680, Alhambra Avenue, State Route (SR) 4, and Pacheco Boulevard in the Project vicinity. The CTP identifies needed improvements for automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on these routes of regional significance. The CTP also establishes appropriate level of service (LOS) for routes of regional significance. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1352 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Contra Costa County The following goals and policies from the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005) related to transportation are relevant to the Project. Goal 5-E. To permit development only in locations of the County where appropriate traffic level of service standards are ensured. Goal 5-H. To ensure the mutual compatibility of major transportation facilities with adjacent land uses. Policy 5-2. Appropriately planned circulation system components shall be provided to accommodate development compatible with policies identified in the Land Use Element. Policy 5-4. Development shall be allowed only when transportation performance criteria are met and necessary facilities and/or programs are in place or committed to be developed within a specified period of time. Policy 5-14. Physical conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall be considered. Policy 5-15. Adequate lighting shall be provided for pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular, safety, consistent with neighborhood desires. Policy 5-16. Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas. Policy 5-17. Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development project design. 3.5.2 Environmental Setting The Project site is located at 650 Pine Street in Downtown Martinez (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The entire northern side of the Project site is a driveway providing access to the north parking lot and a sunken garage. A driveway from Main Street on the southwest corner of the Project site provides access to the south parking lot. Existing Roadway Network The Project site is situated approximately 1 mile west of I-680, which provides regional access to the Project vicinity. From the Project site, access to I-680 is provided by Marina Vista Avenue. The roadway system in the area is composed of a grid network of one-way and two-way streets (City of Martinez 2005). Most streets in Downtown Martinez are two-way, while several of the major streets operate as one-way pairs. Escobar Street, Pine Street, and Main Street provide local access to the Project site. I-680 is the main freeway that directly serves the City. I-680 is primarily a north-south eight-lane freeway and is a major link in the state highway system providing regional access to the cities between San Jose, Walnut Creek, Martinez, Benicia, and Fairfield. The I-680 interchange at Marina Vista Avenue provides regional access to the Project vicinity. According to the CCTA, the I-680 is a Route of Regional Significance, which means it is critical to regional transportation in the County and connectivity to neighboring counties (City of Martinez 2015). East of Berrellesa Street, Marina Vista Avenue extends in an east-west direction from Berrellesa Street to I-680. From I-680 west, Marina Vista Avenue is a divided two-lane arterial street providing access to industrial areas before extending into Downtown Martinez. West of Miller Street, Marina Vista Avenue becomes a westbound one-way couplet (with Escobar Street) as it extends into Downtown Martinez along the waterfront as well as a main link to and from the I-680 interchange at April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1353 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Marina Vista Avenue to the east. Marina Vista Avenue was designated as the extension of the Carquinez Scenic Drive with the adoption of the Martinez General Plan in 1973. The Carquinez Scenic Drive runs from Crockett to Downtown Martinez along the Carquinez Strait. Escobar Street is an east-west roadway that connects residential areas west of Berrellesa Street east to Downtown and nearby principal arterials. Located one block south of Marina Vista Avenue, Escobar Street extends through Downtown as a two-lane, two-way street. East of Berrellesa Street, Escobar Street forms a partial eastbound couplet with Marina Vista Avenue. East of Court Street, Escobar Street becomes one-way and eastbound until it merges with Marina Vista Avenue south of Miller Street. Its location to the north of Main Street makes it an access road for the downtown core, a commercial district with restaurants, retail, and offices. Pine Street is a one-lane, one way street that runs north on the east side of the Project site. Main Street is a two-lane, two-way street that turns into a one-way street that runs west immediately south of the Project site. Main Street forms the center of the downtown. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle facilities are designated by class. Class I bikeways provide for two-way bicycle travel on bike paths that are physically separated from the travel way for motor vehicles. Class II bikeways are bike lanes on roadways and are marked by striping and signage. Class III bikeways are routes that have only signage to guide bicyclists and indicate to motorists that bicyclists may be on the roadway. According to the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, bicycle facilities in Downtown Martinez include both Class II and Class III facilities (City of Martinez 2005). Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street have bicycle lanes east of Pine Street. The bicycle lane on Marina Vista is westbound and the lane on Escobar Street is eastbound. Within the vicinity of the Project site, Court Street is designated as a Class I bikeway/pedestrian path and Escobar Street is designated as a Class II bikeway (City of Martinez 2015). The Project vicinity has a number of pedestrian facilities. Many roadways have sidewalks, which are supplemented with marked crosswalks. A majority of the crossing locations are at least partially marked with crosswalks. There are sidewalks on the south, north, and east sides of the Project site. There is also a pedestrian walkway leading to the rear entrance of the adjacent Finance building on the west side of the Jailhouse building. Existing Transit Service The Project site is situated approximately 0.3 mile east of the Martinez train station. Regularly scheduled Capitol Corridor trains provide access as far north as Auburn, including Sacramento and Davis Amtrak stations, and as far south to the San Jose Diridon station, including stations along the East Bay. Trains run every 40 to 60 minutes on weekdays and every 60 to 140 minutes on weekends (Capitol Corridor 2015). Regularly scheduled Zephyr trains provide access as far west as Emeryville and as far east as Chicago. Trains run daily (Amtrak 2014). Regularly scheduled Coast Starlight trains provide access as far north as Vancouver, British Columbia and as far south as Los Angeles. Trains run daily (Amtrak 2016). County Connection operates bus service on several routes in the Project vicinity. A County Connection bus stop is located on the corner of Marina Vista Avenue and Court Street, one block the northwest of the Project site. Regularly scheduled bus services are provided by bus lines 316, 16, 18, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1354 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 19, 28, 98x, which provide service to Bay Area Rapid Transit stations in Pleasant Hill, Concord, North Concord, and Walnut Creek. These routes generally operate on headways ranging from 30 to 150 minutes. The Western Contra Costa Transit Authority also provides service to the Project vicinity with a line connecting Martinez to West Contra Costa County (WestCAT Route 30Z). Tri-Delta Transit operates one route to East County (bus line 200) (County Connection 2010). Existing Levels of Service LOS is a quantitative description of operations conditions that are ranked from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which indicates jammed conditions with excessive delay. Roadway segments in the City generally operate at acceptable conditions during the evening peak hour (City of Martinez 2015).1 The roadway operations for the only major roadway segments in the vicinity of the Project site, Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue, are provided below (City of Martinez 2015):  Marina Vista Avenue west of Shell Avenue has an LOS of C or lower and a PM peak hour volume of 812; and  Escobar Street east of Alhambra Avenue has an LOS of C or lower, and a PM peak hour volume of 188. 3.5.3 Impact Analysis 3.5.3.1 Methods This transportation and traffic analysis was conducted by qualitative examination of published information from various transportation agencies. This analysis does not consider potential changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, Regulatory Setting, the state has not yet adopted CEQA guidelines for analyzing changes in VMT. Project Trip Generation & Assignment The transportation and traffic analysis identifies the roadway network, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit service, existing intersection lane configurations and traffic volumes, and existing intersection LOS discussed in Section 3.5.2, Environmental Setting. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the parking demand for the adjacent County buildings and, thus, is not expected to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. 3.5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below.  Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 1 The evening peak hour is the period during the evening that experiences the highest volume of traffic. The evening peak hour is from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1355 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including LOS standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.  Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.  Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency access.  Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 3.5.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact TRA-1: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit (less than significant) Demolition and construction activities would require use of construction vehicles for abatement and demolition; site preparation, grubbing, and excavation; site grading; and paving. Demolition and construction would also generate traffic from hauling demolition debris to the recycling facility and nearest landfill. Demolition and construction traffic would also include construction worker commute traffic. Construction vehicles and workers would access the Project site via Pine and Escobar Streets. Workers would park within the designated staging area on the Project site. Demolition and construction would temporarily increase the vehicular trips, including employee commute trips and hauling truck trips, in the Project vicinity for approximately 5 months. Table 3.5-1 shows the duration of each phase of demolition or construction, the maximum number of truck haul trips per day, and the maximum number of construction worker trips per day. Table 3.5-1. Maximum Number of Trips during Demolition and Construction Phase Maximum duration (weeks) Maximum Truck haul trips (per day) Maximum construction worker trips (one-way) Maximum total trips per day Abatement, demolition 12 40 20 60 Site preparation, grubbing, excavation 4 10 12 22 Site grading 2 32 20 52 Paving 4 20 20 40 Source: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 2016. During demolition and construction, the most trips would occur during the abatement and demolition phase. During this phase, which would last up to 12 weeks, up to 10 workers per day would travel to the site and up to 20 daily worker commute trips would be generated, 10 in the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1356 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 morning and 10 in the evening. An additional 40 truck-hauling trips would occur daily throughout the 12 weeks, resulting in a total of 60 vehicle trips per day for this phase. The morning peak hour is from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and the evening peak hour is from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. With construction starting at 7 a.m. and ending at 7 p.m., some of the construction worker commute trips would be generated prior to morning peak hour and after the evening peak hour. The temporary truck-hauling trips would also generate trips throughout the 12-hour work day. Given the existing LOS at existing intersections in the Project vicinity, the addition of up to approximately 10 worker trips (either to or from the Project site) and minimal truck trips during the peak hours would be a minor amount of additional traffic that would not lower existing LOS to an unacceptable level. Overall, impacts during demolition and construction would be temporary in nature, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the parking demand from County employees in the adjacent County buildings and, thus, is not expected to generate any additional traffic to the Project vicinity. There would be no impact during operation of the Project. Impact TRA-2: Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (no impact) CCTA, which serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa County, last updated its congestion management program (CMP) in 2013 (Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2015a). A draft CMP was released in 2015. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the demand from County employees in the adjacent County buildings. Therefore, the Project would not generate any new trips and a congestion management program analysis is not required. There would be no impact. Impact TRA-3: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (no impact) The nearest airport is the Buchanan Field Airport, which is located 4.5 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is not located within Buchanan Field Airport’s Airport Influence Area or within its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Shutt Moen Associates 2000). The Project would have no effect on air traffic patterns and would not introduce structures or uses that would generate a safety risk to air traffic patterns. There would be no impact. Impact TRA-4: Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature or incompatible uses (less than significant) During demolition and construction, trucks and heavy equipment would slow and turn upon entering the Project site, possibly creating a short-term hazard on the streets surrounding the Project site. However, truck and heavy equipment traffic on the streets surrounding the Project site as a result of the Project would not be unusual or incompatible. During operation, the Project would not change the nature or design of any roadways or intersections. The proposed driveways would be in the same location as the existing driveways. Therefore, the Project is not expected to increase April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1357 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Transportation and Traffic Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 traffic hazards from a design or incompatible use perspective. The impact would be less than significant. Impact TRA-5: Result in inadequate emergency access (less than significant) As discussed in Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would not alter the Project site in any way that would impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Emergency response from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the City for fire and police protection, respectively, would remain the same as under existing conditions because the response time and distance would remain the same. In the event of a countywide emergency, the state highways would serve as primary evacuation routes. The closest state highway is I-680, which is approximately 1 mile east of the Project site and would be unaffected by the Project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Impact TRA-6: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (less than significant) Regular bus service provided by County Connection would continue as usual throughout demolition and after the Project is completed. Additionally, Amtrak train service would not be affected by construction or operation of the Project. Although the environment may be less appealing for bicyclists and pedestrians at the Project site during demolition and construction, the Project would not directly obstruct the existing bicycle lane along Escobar Street. During demolition and construction, the sidewalks on the Project site would be closed. However, the Project would not directly obstruct roadways, sidewalks, or other public ways without a permit. With respect to the adjacent Finance building, the Project contractor would also provide barricades and covered walkways to all entrances and exits affected by Project demolition and construction. The Project would not conflict with any adopted programs or policies associated with alternative transportation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1358 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.6 Other Topics Pursuant to CEQA Section 15128, this section provides a brief explanation of potential impacts of the Project that were found to be less than significant. This section is based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) dated November 2, 2015, which identified the potentially significant impacts of the Project. Sections 3.1, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 3.2, Cultural Resources, 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.4, Noise, and 3.5, Transportation and Traffic, address in complete, detailed sections the topics where the Project could have the greatest potential environmental impact. Based on the comments received in response to the NOP, as well as subsequent analysis conducted as part of this Draft EIR, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts in all of the other environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For each of these topic areas, a brief setting and discussion of potential impacts are provided below. 3.6.1 Aesthetics 3.6.1.1 Project Setting The Project site is on County-owned property at 650 Pine Street in downtown Martinez. The site is approximately 0.3 acre and contains the existing Jailhouse building, which consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex, built in 1944. The exterior of the 1903 portion of the building is hand-chiseled granite and the exterior of the annex is textured concrete in neutral earth tones (Guzzetti 2015). The Project site also includes two small surface parking lots, one to the north of the Jailhouse, and one to the south of the Jailhouse. Existing conditions at the Project site are shown in Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description. The surrounding land uses are predominantly County government buildings to the west, east, and south, and parking lots to the north. The Contra Costa County Administration building and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office are to the east, directly across Pine Street from the Jailhouse building. To the south are various Contra Costa County courthouses. There are parking lots to the north of the Project site, across Escobar Street. To the west, sharing the same parcel as the Jailhouse building, is the Contra Costa County Finance building. The Project site is located within the Downtown Martinez Historic District. The Jailhouse building is approximately 300 feet south of Marina Vista Avenue, which is a one-lane, one-way roadway running west one block north of the Project site. The Project site is visible from Marina Vista Avenue, which was incorporated into the Carquinez Scenic Drive with the adoption of the Martinez General Plan in 1973. The Carquinez Scenic Drive runs from the City of Crockett to Downtown Martinez along the Carquinez Strait. The Project site is also approximately 1 mile west of Interstate 680 (I-680). I-680 is a State Scenic Highway from the Alameda County line to State Route (SR) 24, but is not a State Scenic Highway in the Project vicinity (California Department of Transportation 2013). There are street light fixtures on Pine Street and on Main Street near the corner of Pine Street. There is lighting on the exterior of the Jailhouse building. Existing onsite vegetation includes landscaping shrubs on the east side of the Jailhouse building. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1359 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.6.1.2 Analysis a. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? and c. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? There are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Project site. The Jailhouse building is visible from Martinez Waterfront Park and Marina Vista Avenue, which is part of the Carquinez Scenic Drive. Views from the park and Marina Vista Avenue are partially shielded by intervening vegetation. The facilities associated with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) train tracks also shield views of the Jailhouse building from the park. The Jailhouse building is shorter than and similar in color to the adjacent buildings and thus blends in with its surroundings. The Project would involve demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a surface parking lot. Thus, the Project would remove a potential obstruction, and would not produce a negative impact on scenic vistas. The visual character of the area surrounding the Project site includes government buildings and parking lots. The Jailhouse building is shorter than and has a similar façade and coloration as the adjacent government buildings in the area and is not a prominent feature in the existing visual character. Views of the Jailhouse building are limited to the immediate vicinity because of the two nearby larger buildings. The Jailhouse building can be seen only from Pine Street between Marina Vista Avenue and Ward Street (one block in either direction) and from Martinez Waterfront Park. Although the Jailhouse building is a contributing element to the Downtown Martinez Historic District, which comprises the historic context of the area, demolition of the Jailhouse building would result in a minimal change to the existing visual character. Additionally, the new parking lot would be designed to be visually similar to the other existing lots and, therefore, would not change the existing visual character of the area. The character of the Jailhouse building is important to the historic context of the area; the impact of the Project on the historical setting of the Project area is described in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources. Refer to Section 3.2 for an analysis of how the change in visual character could affect the existing historic context in the Project area. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on views from Martinez Waterfront Park, or on the existing visual character or scenic vistas. There would be a less-than-significant impact. b. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? Implementation of the Project would remove a historic building from view from Marina Vista Avenue, which is part of the Carquinez Scenic Drive. However, the Carquinez Scenic Drive is not designated as a State Scenic Highway. The Project would also not require any tree removal or damage to rock outcroppings. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. d. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Existing sources of light and glare near the Project site include the existing street lamps, which would be preserved under the Project. The existing light fixtures on the exterior of the Jailhouse building would be removed, so these sources of nighttime lighting would be eliminated. The Project April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1360 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 would not create any additional sources of light or glare. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. 3.6.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3.6.2.1 Project Setting The Project site is currently developed and is located on land designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2014). Surrounding areas consist of additional Urban and Built-Up Land and “Other Land.” Neither the Project site nor any adjacent lands are under a Williamson Act contract (California Department of Conservation 2015). There are no existing timber resources in Martinez, and neither the Project site nor adjacent land are zoned for any forestry use (City of Martinez 1973). 3.6.2.2 Analysis a. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? The Project site is County-owned property that has been previously graded and developed. Because the Project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there would be no impact. b. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act preserves are located on or in the vicinity of the Project site, which is located in the downtown of an established, historic city. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? and d. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1361 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” Timberland is defined as land “which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products.” There are no trees on the Project site. As such, no timber management activities occur on the Project site or in adjacent areas, and the site is not designated for timberland uses (City of Martinez 1973). Thus, there would be no impact. e. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project site does not contain any agricultural uses and there are no agricultural uses in the vicinity of the Project site. Thus, there would be no impact. 3.6.3 Biological Resources 3.6.3.1 Project Setting The Project site is completely developed with the exception of a small landscaped area. Existing onsite vegetation includes landscaping shrubs on the east side of the Jailhouse building. There are no trees on the Project site. The site has been entirely graded and does not contain habitat for sensitive plant or animal species. The Project site is surrounded by developed land. The Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, which includes coastal hills, grassland, wooded ravines, eucalyptus habitat, and river shoreline, is located approximately 0.6 mile west of the Project site. The Shoreline is home to many bird and other wildlife species (East Bay Regional Park District 2015a). Rankin Park, Martinez Regional Shoreline, and Martinez Waterfront Park are all located within 0.5 mile of the Project site and are primarily recreational, with sports field, picnic areas, ponds, and creeks (East Bay Regional Park District 2015b; City of Martinez 2015b). They also have marshland and shoreline habitat. The train tracks separate the Project site from Martinez Regional Shoreline and Martinez Waterfront Park. Because of the frequency of rail traffic (up to 40-minute intervals) and the noise generated by the trains, the rail lines limit the Project site’s suitability for nesting birds. Alhambra Creek is approximately 0.2 mile west of the Project site. The creek is suitable habitat for many native species and four protected species (species that are rare or face possible extinction): the California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, steelhead, and Alameda whipsnake. The creek serves as a critical connecting corridor for Alameda whipsnake, which lives in upland areas on both sides of the Creek (Contra Costa Resource Conservation District 2015). The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) covers the eastern portion of Contra Costa County and does not include the Project site (East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association 2006). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1362 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.6.3.2 Analysis a. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project site is currently developed with the existing Jailhouse building and, with the exception of a small landscaped area, is completely paved. Thus, the Project site does not provide any suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modification for any candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact. b. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities because none is located on the Project site. The Project would not alter or impact the nearest natural areas to the Project site, which include the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline to the west, the Martinez Regional Shoreline and Waterfront Park to the north, and Alhambra Creek to the west. The Project would have no impact. c. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No wetlands or other waters of the United States occur on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project would have no impact. d. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? There are no water bodies, documented migratory wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites on the Project site or in the vicinity of the Project site. Resident and migratory waterfowl would not be adversely affected by demolition of the Jailhouse building or construction of the parking lot because the site is already developed. However, because some of the windows in the Jailhouse building are missing or broken, the building could be used as roosting habitat by Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats. Thus, to reduce potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented. If demolition or construction were to begin during the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), demolition or construction activities could disturb active migratory bird nests in the Project vicinity. Thus, to reduce potential impacts on active nests, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented. No breeding, nesting, or foraging habitat for any other species exists on the Project site or in any area that would be affected by Project construction. Thus, with the possible exception of Townsend’s April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1363 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 big-eared bat or other roosting bats, movement patterns of migratory species and waterfowl behavior would remain unchanged. This would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Implement Protective Measures for Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat and Other Roosting Bats At least 2 months prior to the demolition of the Jailhouse building, qualified biologists will conduct an initial daytime survey to assess the building for potential bat roosting habitat, and to look for bats and bat sign. Qualified biologists will have knowledge of the natural history of the species that could occur and sufficient experience determining bat occupancy in buildings and bat survey techniques. The biologists will examine both the inside and outside of the building for potential roosting habitat, as well as routes of entry to the building. Locations of any roosting bats, signs of bat use, and entry and exit points will be noted and mapped on a drawing of the building. Roost sites will also be photographed as feasible. Depending on the results of the habitat assessment, the following steps will be taken as described below. If the building can be adequately assessed (i.e., all areas of the building can be examined) and no habitat or limited habitat for roosting bats is present and no signs of bat use are present, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building by qualified biologists will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. If moderate or high potential habitat is present but there are no signs of bat use, the County will implement measures under the guidance of a qualified bat biologist to exclude bats from using the building as a roost site, such as sealing off entry points. Prior to installing exclusion measures, qualified biologists will re-survey the building to ensure that no bats are present. Additionally, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition to confirm that no bats are present. If moderate or high potential habitat is present and bats or bat sign are observed, or if exclusion measures are not installed as described above, or the building provides suitable habitat but could not be adequately assessed, the following protective measures will be implemented.  Follow-up surveys will be conducted to determine if bats are still present. If species identification is required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), surveys using night vision goggles and active acoustic monitoring using full spectrum bat detectors will be used. A survey plan (number, timing, and type of surveys) will be determined in coordination with CDFW.  Based on the timing of demolition, the extent of bat sign or occupied habitat, and the species present (if determined), the qualified biologists will work with the County and CDFW to develop a plan to discourage or exclude bat use prior to demolition. The plan may include installing exclusion measures or using light or other means to deter bats from using the building to roost.  A preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. Depending on the species of bats present, size of the bat roost, and timing of the demolition, additional protective measures may be necessary. Appropriate measures will be determined in coordination with the CDFW and may include measures listed below. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1364 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15  To avoid impacts on maternity colonies or hibernating bats, the building will not be demolished while bats are present, generally between April 1 and September 15 (maternity season) and from October 30 to March 1 (hibernation).  Removal of roosting habitat will only occur only following the maternity season and prior to hibernation, generally between September 15 and October 30, unless exclusionary devices are first installed (as described below). Other measures, such as using lights to deter bat roosting, may be used if developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW.  Installation of exclusion devices will occur before maternity colonies establish or after they disperse, generally from March 1 –30 or September 15–October 30 to preclude bats from occupying a roost site during demolition. Exclusionary devices will only be installed by or under the supervision of an experienced bat biologist. CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for the loss of roosting habitat depending on the species present and size of the bat roost. Compensation, if required, will be determined in consultation with the CDFW, and may include the construction, installation, and monitoring of suitable replacement habitat onsite or near the Project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Demolition outside Nesting Season (September 1 to January 31) or Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey for Demolition during Nesting Season (February 1 to August 31) To the extent practicable, demolition and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If demolition or construction cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys to locate any active nests will be performed no more than 2 days prior to demolition activities as follows.  The Project sponsor will be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the Project site and surrounding 250 feet for active nests – with particular emphasis on the nests of migratory birds – if demolition will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31.  If active nests are observed on either the Project site or the surrounding area, the Project sponsor, in coordination with the qualified biologist, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size based on the bird species and in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active, the nesting season ends, or if a qualified biologist monitors the nest(s) during demolition activities and determines the demolition activities are not affecting nesting bird behavior. If demolition activities appear to affect nesting bird behavior as determined by the biologist, the activities within the buffer zone shall cease immediately. If demolition activities do not affect nesting bird behavior as determined by the biologist, then demolition activities can continue, provided their distance to the nest or sound/vibration intensity does not increase. If demolition ceases for 2 days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1365 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 e. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? and f. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The Project site does not contain any natural lands or trees. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Additionally, no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans apply to this part of Contra Costa County. The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP covers areas of the County approximately 15 miles east of the Project site (East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy 2006). The Project would not result in any conflicts with local policies or any adopted conservation plans. Thus, the Project would have no impact. 3.6.4 Geology and Soils 3.6.4.1 Project Setting The U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015a) classifies the primary soil at the Project site as Botella clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, which have a moderate potential for shrink-swell. The geology of the Project site is classified as Quaternary Alluvium, which is made up of consolidated and unconsolidated segments, expansive clays, hillside earthflows and unstable cut slopes (Contra Costa County 2005). The Project site is located in an area of high seismic activity. An active fault is defined as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (the last 11,000 years). Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (in the last 1.6 million years) (Bryant and Hart 2007). The nearest active fault is the Concord fault, which is approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project site. The nearest potentially active fault is the Southampton Fault, which is approximately 1.3 miles west of the Project site. The Hayward fault line is approximately 11 miles southwest of the Project site (U.S. Geological Survey 2015). The San Andreas fault is approximately 30 miles west of the Project site. These faults are the principal sources of seismic activity affecting the Project site. A major earthquake along any of these faults would produce strong ground shaking at the Project site. The Project site has a high susceptibility to liquefaction, and there is a very high susceptibility for liquefaction to the north of the Project site (U.S. Geological Survey 2014). The Project site is generally flat and is not located within a landslide zone as designated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Wentworth et al. 1997). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1366 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.6.4.2 Analysis a. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault The Project site is not located on a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation 2015). The nearest active fault identified by an Alquist-Priolo map is the Concord Fault approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project site. The Project would be located outside of the Alquist-Priolo zone and designed in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 and state earthquake codes. Additionally, the Project involves the demolition of an existing, old structure and no new structure would be built. Consequently, the Project would eliminate any potential risks from structural damage due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The construction of a new parking lot would not place people at long-term risk from exposure to rupture of a known earthquake fault because users would be transient and there would be no habitable structure associated with the parking lot. Because no new structure would be constructed, and any future buildings would be constructed in conformance with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations, there would be no impact. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Contra Costa County faults include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Franklin, Concord, Antioch and Greenville faults, which could have earthquakes of magnitude 5.0–8.5 on the Richter Scale (Contra Costa County 2005). Although the Project site is not located on a known earthquake fault, it is in the immediate vicinity of the Concord fa ult. A major earthquake on the nearest faults with slip rates higher than 5 1 (i.e., the Hayward and San Andreas faults) would cause strong seismic ground shaking. The Project would remove an existing, old structure, which would eliminate any potential risks from structural damage during seismic ground shaking. Because no new habitable structure would be constructed, and the users of the parking lot would be transient, the Project would not result in exposure of people or structures to seismic ground shaking. All demolition work associated with the Project would conform to the 2013 CBC and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations. The CBC requires the implementation of engineering solutions for constraints to urban development posed by slopes, soils, and geology. The CBC and the California Division of Mines and Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, include design and construction requirements for safety. The County Public Works Department oversees all buildings and facilities subject to the CBC. Additionally, Contra Costa County requires geologic, seismic, and soil studies as necessary in areas of potential ground shaking 1 Slip rate is the speed with which one side of the fault moves with respect to the other. Higher slip rates indicate higher relative “importance” of faults in an area, or the hazard those faults pose to residents. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1367 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 in order to evaluate proposed development (Contra Costa County 2005). Contra Costa County staff review all applications to ensure the latest seismic design criteria is met. These requirements reduce risks from seismic ground shaking on the Project site to levels considered acceptable for the state and region. Compliance with these existing standards, along with the demolition of the existing Jailhouse building without replacement, would ensure impacts of strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Seismic-Related Ground Failure Although the Project site has a high susceptibility to liquefaction, the Project would remove an existing structure and no new structure would be built, thus avoiding exposure of people or structures to adverse effects from liquefaction. Additionally, the construction of a new parking lot would not place people at long-term risk from liquefaction because users would be transient and there would be no habitable structure associated with the parking lot. Because no new structure would be constructed, and users of the parking lot would be transient, there would be no impact. Landslides The Project site is generally flat and is not located within a landslide zone as designated by the U.S. Geological Survey. Additionally, the Project would remove an existing structure and no new structure would be built, thus avoiding exposure of people or structures to adverse effects due to landslides. There would be no impact. b. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The Project site was previously graded. Nonetheless, the Project site would be graded to drain water. Project demolition would result in temporary loss of minimal topsoil. Construction activities such as clearing, grading, and site preparation, which could contribute to the loss of topsoil, would be minimal because much of this work was done when the Jailhouse building was originally constructed. The proposed parking lot would be completely paved with asphalt, resulting in no potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Because the Project is anticipated to impact less than 1 acre of land, the Project would not be required to obtain a State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) General Construction Permit that would require the County to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Instead, the Project would need to employ best management practices (BMPs) to comply with local municipal requirements. The Project site would be protected from erosion caused by flowing water and the Project would be required to comply with the County’s grading ordinance (Division 716 of the County’s Ordinance Code). Compliance with the County’s grading ordinance would prevent erosion and loss of topsoil. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. For a discussion of erosion potential as it relates to water quality, see Section 3.6.5, Hydrology and Water Quality. c. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The Project site is not subject to landslides or slope instability because the Project site is generally flat. Although there is a high susceptibility for liquefaction at the site, the Project would remove an existing structure and no new structure would be built. Subsidence, which could lead to soil collapse, April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1368 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 would also not occur with Project implementation because groundwater would not be withdrawn during Project operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Expansive soils shrink or swell depending upon water content and can cause damage to structures. Soils with a high clay content are more susceptible to swelling than sand or gravel soils. Soils with a linear extensibility of 3 percent to 5.9 percent have a moderate potential for shrink-swell (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015b). The soils at the Project site are Botella clay loam (0 to 3 inches) and Botella silty clay loam (3 to 68 inches), which are soils that have a shrink-swell potential of 4.5 percent. Potential effects from expansive soils would be minimized through compliance with the CBC and Contra Costa County building codes during design and construction. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. e. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Project would not require the use of septic tanks or wastewater disposal. Municipal sewer is available in the vicinity of the Project site for any future development, and the proposed parking lot would not require sewer. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.6.5.1 Project Setting The Jailhouse building is located in a developed area within the Alhambra Valley, east of Alhambra Creek, and approximately 0.5 mile south of Carquinez Strait. The existing hydrology and water quality setting relevant to the Project is described below. Climate and Topography Martinez has a typical Mediterranean climate (warm dry summer and cool wet winter) of the coastal areas of Central California. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 18 inches, more than 95 percent of which falls during the cool season, from October to April. Average daily temperature ranges from 36 to 89 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), but the extreme low and high temperatures have been 19°F and 115°F, respectively. The rainy season begins in November and ends in March (City of Martinez 2015). The surface topography of the Project site is relatively flat. The Project site is currently developed and, with the exception of a small landscaped area, is completely impervious. Regional Hydrology The Project site is in the Alhambra Creek Watershed, which covers the middle region of north Contra Costa County, including portions of Martinez. The watershed covers approximately 17 square miles and collects runoff in branches that flow through Briones Valley. The watershed includes open space, wildlife habitat, residential and commercial areas. Alhambra Creek flows through Downtown Martinez, which is an urban area. The watershed then discharges into the Carquinez Strait through a April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1369 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 tidal wetland at the Martinez Regional Shoreline. The mouth of Alhambra Creek at the Carquinez Strait is 0.2 mile west of the Project site (Alhambra Creek Watershed Planning Group 2001). Site Hydrology There are no streams or creeks within the Project site. All onsite surface water consists of stormwater runoff flowing to the City storm drainage system. The City owns and operates most of the smaller storm drainage systems within the City. Runoff from the Project site is collected in the catch basins on the northeast corner of the Project site. The water then travels through the City of Martinez pipe system and is transferred into an open ditch which drains into Alhambra Creek (Yowakim, pers. comm.). Groundwater The nearest groundwater basin to the Project site is the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin located east of I-680. The approximately 15,900-acre basin is in northern Contra Costa County bounded by Suisun Bay to the north, I-680 and Taylor Road to the west, the Concord Fault to the east, and the city of Walnut Creek to the south. Walnut and Grayson Creeks and Mokelumne Aqueduct pass through the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin. There are no major groundwater basins underlying Martinez. There are thick alluvial deposits covering a faulted and folded complex of consolidated Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks that lie under the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin. Aquifers in the basin are hydrologically connected to the Sacramento River. The main water supply is contained by Unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium and Semi-Consolidated Tertiary-Quaternary deposits with interbedded lenses of clays, sands, and gravels. The northern portion of the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin, along the Suisun Bay shoreline, consists of modern alluvial sediments are characterized by soft, water-saturated muds, peat, and loose sands. Groundwater levels in the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin have declined gradually over the period of record, information for which was last updated in 2004. Well depths in the basin range from 35 to 330 feet for municipal or irrigation wells, and 60 to 400 feet for domestic wells, yielding an average of 200 gallons per minute (California Department of Water Resources 2004). Despite the reported decline in groundwater levels, the California Department of Water Resources has designated the Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin as a low priority basin according to the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act (California Department of Water Resources 2014).2 Water Quality Surface Water Quality The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Water Board). The San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Region designates beneficial uses for all water body segments in the San Francisco Water Board’s jurisdictions and then sets criteria necessary to protect these uses. Consequently, the water quality objectives developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use. The San Francisco Water Board has set numeric and 2 In 2014, the state adopted the Groundwater Sustainability Management Act, which provides new direction for groundwater regulation. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1370 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-13 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 narrative water quality objectives for several substances and parameters in numerous surface waters in its region. For those waters that do not have specific beneficial uses or water quality objectives, the tributary rule applies to streams. The Project site is 0.25 mile east of Alhambra Creek and 0.5 mile from the Carquinez Strait. Table 3.6-1 describes the designated beneficial uses that apply to Alhambra Creek and the Carquinez Strait. To identify candidate water bodies for total maximum daily load analysis, a list of water quality–impaired segments, referred to as a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (303(d) list), is generated by the State Water Board. Alhambra Creek does not have any 303(d)-listed impairments. However, the Carquinez Strait (the downstream water body) is listed as impaired for Diazinon, trash, Chlordane, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Dieldrin, dioxin compounds, furan compounds, invasive species, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and selenium (State Water Resources Control Board 2015). Table 3.6-1. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters in the Project Vicinity Drainage Feature IND COMM COLD EST NAV MIGR RARE SPWN WARM WILD REC-1 REC-2 NAV Alhambra Creek X X X X X X X X Carquinez Strait X X X X X X X X X X X Source: State Water Resources Control Board 2015 IND= industrial service supply COMM=commercial and sport fishing COLD=cold fresh water habitat EST= estuarine habitat NAV=navigation MIGR=migration RARE=rare, threatened or endangered species SPAWN=spawning, reproduction and/or early development WARM=warm fresh water habitat WILD=wildlife habitat REC-1=water contract recreation REC-2=non-contact water recreation Groundwater Quality The Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin did contain radiological or nitrate contaminants based on one well sample. No wells were sampled to test for inorganics primary, inorganics secondary, pesticides, or volatile organic compounds contaminants, and no data is available for groundwater quality (California Department of Water Resources 2004). Because of a lack of groundwater monitoring data, the California Department of Water Resources report (2004) does not identify natural, applied, and artificial recharge and outflows, including urban and agricultural extraction. Flood Hazards Rivers and Streams Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the Project site is not located within 100-year flood hazard boundaries (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2009). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1371 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-14 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Dams The closest dams to the Project site are the Martinez Dam and Lafayette Dam, approximately 1.7 and 5 miles away, respectively. While portions of Martinez are within the dam inundation area associated with the Martinez Dam, the Contra Costa County Hazards Mitigation Plan Update (2011) identifies the Project site as outside of the dam inundation zone (Contra Costa County 2011). Tsunami Areas that are very susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be low-lying coastal areas, such as tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled. Tsunamis entering San Francisco Bay through the relatively narrow Golden Gate would tend to dissipate as the energy of the wave spreads out as the bay becomes wider and shallower. The California Emergency Management Agency has developed detailed tsunami inundation maps. According to the maps for Contra Costa County, the Project site is located outside of the tsunami hazard zone (California Emergency Management Agency 2009). Sea Level Rise The current warming trend of Earth’s atmosphere has resulted in, and is expected to continue to cause, sea level rise. In the San Francisco Bay Area, a sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100 has been predicted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The Project site is outside of the area predicted to be inundated by the 2100 increase in sea level rise (California Energy Commission 2015). Seiche A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors. Seiches can be triggered in an otherwise still body of water by strong winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, earthquakes, tsunami, or tides. A seiche could occur in the Carquinez Strait or Suisun Bay (City of Martinez 2015). 3.6.5.2 Analysis a. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? and f. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The Project would be located within the area covered by the MS4 Phase I San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit) (Order R2-2015-0049), of which Contra Costa County and the City of Martinez are designated permitees. As a result, the County implements the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and has developed a Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (Contra Costa Clean Water Program 2012). Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit requires all projects creating or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface to develop a Stormwater Control Plan and incorporate stormwater management (treatment) facilities. Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit is for new development and redevelopment projects and requires authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1372 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-15 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. The following requirements apply to certain projects based on project size and location:  Post-construction stormwater treatment measures, such as Low Impact Development (LID) measures, are required for most projects that create or replace at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface.3  Post-construction stormwater quantity (flow-peak, volume, and duration) controls are required for projects in certain locations with 1 acre or more of impervious surface, in accordance with local Hydromodification Management Plans.4 The Project site is currently developed and, with the exception of a small landscaped area, is completely impervious. The County Public Works Department proposes to redevelop the 0.3-acre (14,881-square-foot) Project site; therefore, the Project is a Regulated Project required to incorporate stormwater treatment measures into Project design. The Project would replace the majority of impervious surface at the Project site. The Project would not create or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface; therefore, hydromodification requirements for stormwater quantity controls do not apply. However, the Project stormwater treatment measures would help provide for infiltration and other features that help reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff from the Project site. Therefore, the County would ensure the Project is designed consistent with the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit requirements to incorporate post-construction stormwater treatment measures. The County would further ensure that the runoff from impervious areas is captured and used, or treated using bioretention, by implementing LID standards. The proposed parking lot would result in an increase in vehicles at the Project site, which would potentially degrade water quality due to increased quantities of fuels, gasoline, and other substances from vehicles. Because the Project is anticipated to impact less than 1 acre of land, the County Public Works Department would not be required to comply with the State Water Board General Construction Permit that would require the County to implement a SWPPP. Instead, the County Public Works Department would need to develop a Stormwater Control Plan, employ BMPs to comply with local municipal requirements (e.g., directing runoff from driveways and uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas), and incorporate stormwater management facilities, including vegetated bioswales and drought-tolerant landscaping, pursuant to Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES permit. The Project site would be protected from erosion caused by flowing water and the Project would be required to comply with the County’s grading ordinance (Division 716 of the 3 The Project falls within the “Other Redevelopment Projects” of the Regulated Projects category within the C.3 Provision, which is defined as “any land-disturbing activity that results in the creation, addition, or replacement of exterior impervious surface area on a site on which some past development has occurred.” These projects include redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single-family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions, condominiums, and apartments), mixed-use, and public projects. 4 Hydromodification requirements apply to a project that creates or replaces at least 1 acre of impervious surface except if 1) the post-project impervious surface area is less than, or the same as, the pre-project impervious surface area; 2) the project is located in a catchment that drains to a hardened (e.g., continuously lined with concrete) engineered channel or channels or enclosed pipes that extend continuously to the Bay, Delta, or flow-controlled reservoir, or drains to channels that are tidally influenced; 3) the project is located in a catchment or subwatershed that is highly developed (i.e., that is 70 percent or more impervious). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1373 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-16 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 County’s Ordinance Code). Compliance with the County’s grading ordinance would prevent erosion and loss of topsoil. Because the Project site is less than 1 acre and the Project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, there would be a less-than-significant impact. b. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? There is no groundwater basin under the Project site. During construction of the Project, some water would be required to wash construction equipment and mist soil surfaces to reduce dust. Potable water would be obtained by connecting to the City water system. However, the contractor would use reclaimed water for dust control, and any exceptions would be approved by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Additionally, Project landscaping would be drought-tolerant and meet the Provision C.3 requirements of the County’s NPDES permit; no irrigation would be needed. Consequently, the water that would be used during the 4-month construction period would not have a large impact on groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Project would not result in a net deficit of aquifer volume or the lowering of the local groundwater table. Because of impervious area coverage, the Project site is not an area of high groundwater recharge. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. c. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? and d. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? and e. Would the Project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The Project may change drainage patterns due to the removal of a large structure that may have previously blocked flows. However, the proposed demolition and construction would occur on previously graded, impervious surfaces within the Project site. There would be minimal conversion of pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces. The Project would involve demolishing the Jailhouse building and constructing a surface parking lot of approximately 13,068 square feet (0.3 acre), which is greater than the 10,000 square feet of redevelopment area trigger for stormwater treatment measures under the San Francisco Bay MS4 permit. To meet the Provision C.3 requirements of the County’s NPDES permit, projects must include April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1374 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-17 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 appropriate site design measures, pollutant source controls and treatment control measures. The Project would include drought-tolerant landscaping and vegetated bioswales that are compatible with the Provision C.3 requirements. The County would ensure the Project site is designed consistent with the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit requirements to incorporate stormwater management measures into the Project design. The County would further ensure that the runoff from impervious areas is captured and used, or treated using bioretention by implementing LID standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. g. Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? and h. Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? and i. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The County Public Works Department would not construct any structures or housing, and, therefore, would not place any people or structures in a flood hazard area. The Project site is not located within a FEMA 100-year floodplain and is designated as Zone X (unshaded) - Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year (0.2 percent annual chance ) flood level (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2009). The Project site is not located within the California Department of Water Resources Levee Flood Protection Zones (California Department of Water Resources 2015). These zones represent the maximum area that would be prone to flooding, should the levees on the San Joaquin or Sacramento Rivers fail while water elevation is at the top of levees. The Project site is not located in a designated 100-year floodplain, a dam inundation area, or an area protected by a levee and, therefore, is not susceptible to flooding. Therefore, there would be no impact. j. Would the Project contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The Project site is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Carquinez Strait, which has the potential to cause a seiche, but is well to the south of the potential inundation area. The Project site is not within the California Department of Conservation tsunami inundation area and is not at risk of inundation by tsunami (California Emergency Management Agency 2009). The Project site is located on generally flat ground and not bordered by steep slopes and is not at risk of mudflows. Therefore, there would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1375 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-18 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 3.6.6 Land Use and Planning 3.6.6.1 Project Setting Land Uses The Project site is on County-owned property but within the limits of the City of Martinez. The Project site is currently developed with the Jailhouse building, which is vacant with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage. The site also includes one surface parking lot to the south of the building, one to the north of the building, and a sunken garage that provides basement access on the north end of the west side of the building. To the west, sharing the same parcel as the Jailhouse building, is the Contra Costa County Finance building. The surrounding land uses are predominantly County government buildings to the west, east, and south, and parking lots to the north. The Contra Costa County Administration building and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office are to the east, directly across Pine Street from the Jailhouse building. To the south are various Contra Costa County courthouses. There are parking lots to the north of the Project site across Escobar Street. Farther west is the downtown core, a commercial district with restaurants, retail, and offices. There is a residential neighborhood containing single-family homes located approximately 200 feet east of the Project site. The Project site is located approximately 0.2 mile from the Martinez Regional Shoreline and approximately 0.1 mile from Martinez Waterfront Park. Land Use Plans The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the Project site as Public/Semi-Public, which includes properties owned by public governmental agencies. A wide variety of public and private uses are allowed in this designation, but construction of private residences, private commercial uses, and subdivision of the land is prohibited (Contra Costa County 2005). The Project site is not zoned by the County, but the City zoned the site for Civic uses, and the Martinez General Plan’s designation for the site is Government (G), both of which allow for the site’s existing use as an unused historic jailhouse (City of Martinez 2011). The site is located within the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan Downtown Core area, the Central Martinez Plan area, and the Downtown Historic Overlay District. However, as described in Section 2.1.1, because the Project site is on County-owned property, the Project would not be required to comply with the City’s policies and regulations. Surrounding lands are designated for Commercial, Retail and Services (C-R&S) and Governmental (G) uses, and zoned as Central Commercial District (CC) and Civic (C) by the City (City of Martinez 2011). 3.6.6.2 Analysis a. Would the Project physically divide an established community? The County Public Works Department proposes removing an existing structure. There are no residences located on the Project site, although there is a residential neighborhood located approximately 200 feet northeast of the Project site. The land uses around the Project site consist of a community comprised of civic uses, including County government buildings to the west, east, and south, and parking lots to the north. Nonetheless, demolition of the existing Jailhouse building and construction of a new surface parking lot would not physically divide an established community. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1376 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-19 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Rather, the Project would result in removal of a structure within an established community of civic uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Project site is on County-owned property and the Project would not be required to comply with the City’s land use policies and regulations. The County’s general plan designated the site as Public/Semi-Public, which applies to properties owned by public governmental agencies. With implementation of the Project, the Project site would continue to be County-owned property and would provide parking for surrounding County government buildings. The Project is consistent with the existing land use designations and zoning, and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact. c. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As described in Section 3.6.3.2 Biological Resources, the area covered by the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP is approximately 15 miles east of the Project site. There are no HCP/NCCPs applicable to the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.7 Mineral Resources 3.6.7.1 Project Setting The Project site is not located in any of the aggregate resource or other mineral resource areas identified by the California Geological Survey. However, it is located approximately 2.5 miles across the Carquinez Strait from the Valero Benicia Refinery, which is identified as a mineral resource area by the California Geological Survey (California Department of Conservation 2012). Approximately 70 percent of the Refinery’s production is California Air Resource Board (CARB) gasoline, California’s clean-burning fuel. The refinery also produces 35 percent of the asphalt supply in northern California (Valero 2015). 3.6.7.2 Analysis a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? and b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The Project site is located 2.5 miles from the Valero Benicia Refinery, which is identified as a mineral resource area by the California Geological Survey. However, due to the distance between the site and the refinery as well as the separation of the Project site from the refinery by the Carquinez Strait, the Project site is not located in an area of high likelihood of known significant aggregate or mineral April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1377 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-20 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 resources (California Department of Conservation 2012). Additionally, the Project would not limit the use of other mineral resources near the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.8 Population and Housing 3.6.8.1 Project Setting Contra Costa County’s and the City of Martinez’s population has grown steadily over the last decade. The City has historically grown at a slower pace than the County but the City’s growth rate is expected to increase over the next 25 years. The City’s and County’s current population and population growth projections from 2015 to 2040 are shown in Table 3.6-2. As of 2015, the City’s population was 37,384 and it is expected to reach approximately 40,800 by 2040 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2013). The City’s population is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2015 to 2030 and 0.5 percent from 2030 to 2040. As of 2015, the County’s population was approximately 1.1 million and it is expected to reach approximately 1.3 million by 2040. The County’s population is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent from 2015 to 2030 and 0.9 percent from 2030 to 2040. Table 3.6-2. Martinez and Contra Costa County Population Growth Forecast 2015–2040 Jurisdiction 2015a 2030 2040 Annual Growth Rate 2015- 2030 Annual Growth Rate 2030- 2040 City of Martinez 37,384 38,800 40,800 0.3% 0.5% Contra Costa County 1,102,871 1,224,400 1,338,400 0.7% 0.9% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2013 a Population estimates for 2015 provided by the California Department of Finance (2015). The City’s and County’s current number of households and household growth projections from 2015 to 2040 are shown in Table 3.6-3. Table 3.6-3. Martinez and Contra Costa County Household Growth Forecast 2015–2040 Jurisdiction 2015a 2030 2040 Annual Growth Rate 2015 - 2030 Annual Growth Rate 2030- 2040 City of Martinez 14,455 15,230 15,690 0.4% 0.3% Contra Costa County 383,124 432,430 464,150 0.9% 0.9% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2013 a Household estimates for 2015 provided by the California Department of Finance (2015). 3.6.8.2 Analysis a. Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Project would involve demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a parking lot to accommodate existing parking demand. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce any population growth in the area. The Project would not include construction of any new homes or April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1378 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-21 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 businesses that would attract new residents. Additionally, the Project site is adequately served by existing infrastructure and the Project would not require any road or infrastructure improvements that would indirectly induce growth. Temporary construction jobs generated by the implementation of the Project are not expected to produce permanent increases in jobs or residents in the City or County. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact. b. Would the Project displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? and c. Would the Project displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? There are no residences on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not result in the displacement of any people or existing housing units necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.9 Public Services 3.6.9.1 Project Setting The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) provides fire protection to the Project site and surrounding area. The City provides police protection to the Project site and surrounding area. The Project site is located in the Martinez Unified School District. Martinez Waterfront Park, Martinez Regional Shoreline, and Carquinez Straight Regional Shoreline are located in the Project vicinity. Recreational facilities in the Project area and the analysis of potential impacts from the Project on recreational facilities are described in more detail in Section 3.6.10, Recreation. 3.6.9.2 Analysis a. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Fire Protection The Project site located within the CCCFPD boundaries. Fire protection for the Project site is provided by CCCFPD Station #16, which is approximately 0.6 road mile away from the Project site, and Station #14, which is approximately 2.1 road miles away from the Project site (Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2014). The Project involves the demolition of an existing structure and would not result in any permanent structures that would generate the need for additional fire protection services. Additionally, by removing an old structure, the Project would remove an existing risk and decrease potential demand on fire protection services. The Project would not adversely affect the CCCFPD’s response times or ability to provide fire protection services to the Project vicinity. Therefore, there would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1379 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-22 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Police Protection Police protection services for the Project site are provided by the City of Martinez Police Department (City of Martinez 2015c). The Project would not result in any new permanent structures that would generate the need for additional police protection services. The Project would not cause any adverse impacts on existing police protection services. Therefore, there would be no impact. Schools The Project site is within the Martinez Unified School District (City of Martinez 2015c). The Project would not result in any new permanent structures that would generate additional students in the Martinez Unified School District. Therefore, there would be no impact. Parks and Other Public Facilities The Project involves the demolition of an existing structure and would not result in an increase in population growth in the City or County. Additionally, the Project involves construction of a parking lot that would accommodate existing parking demand, rather than provide additional access to recreation facilities. Therefore, there would be no new or increased demand for parks and other public facilities, including nearby Martinez Waterfront Park, Martinez Regional Shoreline, or Carquinez Straight Regional Shoreline. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.10 Recreation 3.6.10.1 Project Setting Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline is located approximately 0.6 mile west of the Project site, and is home to coastal hills, river shoreline, and habitat for eucalyptus, and bird and other wildlife species. Park facilities include a scenic drive, as well as hiking and biking trails (East Bay Regional Park District 2015a). Rankin Park is approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project site, just east of the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Rankin Park includes a swimming and diving complex, picnic areas, horseshow pits, a lighted softball field, playground area and a gazebo (City of Martinez 2015a). Martinez Regional Shoreline is approximately 0.2 mile northwest of the Project site and Martinez Waterfront Park is approximately 0.1 mile north of the Project site. Martinez Regional Shoreline and Martinez Waterfront Park include sports fields, picnic areas, ponds, and creeks (East Bay Regional Park District 2015b; City of Martinez 2015b). There are no parks or recreational facilities on the Project site. 3.6.10.2 Analysis a. Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The Project would not result in an increase in population that would demand increased use of, or need to expand, existing recreational facilities. The Project would not affect or displace any recreational facilities, requiring expansion of existing or new recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1380 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-23 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 b. Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Project would not include recreational facilities. The Project would not result in the need to expand existing recreation structures or construct new recreation structures that may affect the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.6.11 Utilities 3.6.11.1 Project Setting Water Supply The Project site is supplied with water by the City of Martinez Water Department (City of Martinez 2015c). The City’s surface water supply is from the San Joaquin River Delta. The City purchases untreated water from the CCWD. The untreated water from CCWD is conveyed to the City through the Contra Costa Canal. The City withdraws the water from the Martinez Reservoir, which has an estimated storage capacity of 79.6 million gallons, and provides treatment and distribution services for residential, commercial, industrial, public and irrigation customers, as well as for fire protection. The City’s contract with CCWD allows for a maximum delivery of 195,000 acre-feet per year, with delivery reductions based on water shortages and regulatory restrictions. Local water supply is around 6,152 acre-feet per year in both normal and dry conditions (Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission 2008). Wastewater Wastewater service is provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD), which collects the water and sends it to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Treatment Plant located northeast of the I-680/State Route 4 interchange (City of Martinez 2005). Storm Drainage The Project site is in the Alhambra Creek Watershed, which covers the middle region of north Contra Costa County, including portions of Martinez. The watershed covers approximately 17 square miles and collects runoff in branches that flow through Briones Valley. The watershed includes open space, wildlife habitat, residential and commercial areas. Alhambra Creek runs through Downtown Martinez, which is an urban area. The watershed then discharges into the Carquinez Strait through a tidal wetland at the Martinez Regional Shoreline. The City owns and operates most of the smaller storm drainage systems within the City. Solid Waste and Landfills Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), the Integrated Waste Management Act, was passed in 1989 to address the increasing state waste stream and decreasing landfill capacity. AB 939 mandates that jurisdictions meet a 50 percent diversion goal. After Senate Bill 1016 passed in 2008, the 50 percent diversion rate was amended to be calculated as a per capita disposal rate equivalent. The California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) (2015e) has set the following targets for the City of Martinez. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1381 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-24 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 • Per Resident Disposal Rate Target: 6.1 pounds/person/day (PPD) • Per Employee Disposal Rate Target: 11.2 PPD In 2014, the City reported an annual per capita disposal rate of 5.4 PPD per resident, and 10.0 PPD per employee. The City has implemented 43 programs to implement the disposal rate targets, including composting, public education, recycling, and policy incentives (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2015e). In 2006, the City adopted the Construction and Demolition Ordinance, which requires construction and remodeling projects to reuse or recycle their construction debris. In 2014, the Ordinance was amended to comply with CALGreen, California’s statewide mandatory green building code 2014 updates. Projects must reuse or recycle 50 percent or more of generated debris (City of Martinez 2015f). Republic Services (formerly Allied Waste) is responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste and recyclable items for Martinez. Republic Services operates the Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (CCT&RS). Waste from the Project site would be transported from Martinez to the CCT&RS, and then to the Keller Canyon Landfill for disposal (LSA Associates 2003). CCT&RS is located approximately 3 miles east of the Project site. Keller Canyon Landfill is located approximately 10.5 miles east of the Project site. CCT&RS has a maximum permitted throughput of 1,900 tons per day, and data on the maximum and remaining capacity is not available (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2015b). Keller Canyon Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 3,500 tons per day, and a maximum capacity of 75,018,280 cubic yards. The remaining capacity of the landfill is 63,408,410 cubic yards (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2015c). The CCT&RS and Keller Canyon Landfill accept construction material and debris. Hazardous waste is not accepted at Keller Canyon Landfill. The nearest landfill that accepts asbestos contaminated materials is Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill in Livermore. Vasco Road Landfill is located approximately 40 miles southeast of the Project site (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2014). The nearest landfill that accepts lead-based paint is Kettleman Hills Facility in Kettleman City, which is approximately 205 miles south of the Project site (Troy Hommerding, pers. comm.). Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,518 tons per day. The landfill has a maximum capacity of 32,970,000 cubic yards, and there are 7,959,079 cubic yards of remaining capacity (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2015d). Kettleman Hills has a maximum permitted throughput of 8,000 tons per day. The landfill has a maximum capacity of 10,700,000 cubic yards and there is 6,000,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2015c). 3.6.11.2 Analysis a. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Construction and operation of the Project would not generate wastewater. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements. There would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1382 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-25 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 b. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project would not result in any permanent structures, and the Project does not include the introduction of any new population that would require domestic water or wastewater disposal services. Thus, the Project would not require the expansion or construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. There would be no impact. c. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Project site is currently developed and, with the exception of a small landscaped area, is completely impervious. The Project would result in a similar amount of impervious surface at the Project site. As described in Section 3.6.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, the County Public Works Department would need to incorporate stormwater management facilities pursuant to Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES permit. The County would ensure the Project site is designed consistent with the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit requirements to incorporate stormwater management measures into the Project design. The County would further ensure that the runoff from impervious areas is captured and used, or treated using bioretention by implementing LID standards. The existing stormwater drainage facilities have the capacity to accommodate any increase in stormwater drainage or runoff related to the Project. Runoff from the Project site is collected in the catch basins on the northeast corner of the Project site. The water then travels through the City of Martinez pipe system and is transferred into an open ditch which drains into Alhambra Creek (Yowakim, pers. comm.). Because runoff and drainage are anticipated to be similar to existing conditions, the existing systems would have the capacity for the stormwater runoff. No new drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? Construction of the Project would require minimal water use that could be accommodated by the City’s existing water supply. Reclaimed water would be used for soil compaction and dust control during construction, which would reduce the amount of potable water required. Operation of the Project would not increase demand on water supply because it would not result in any permanent structures or generate additional population requiring water services. Project landscaping would be drought-tolerant and meet Provision C.3 requirements of the County’s NPDES permit; no irrigation would be required. The landscaping features would not require any additional water supply. Therefore, no new or expanded water entitlements are needed for the Project. There would be no impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1383 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-26 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 e. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The Project would not increase demand for wastewater disposal and treatment services because it would not generate additional population. Thus, the Project would not create any service demand above existing commitments. There would be no impact. f. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? Demolition waste from the Project would increase the use of landfill services and production of solid waste because the Project would involve the demolition of the Jailhouse building, including the sunken garage and the surrounding granite curb. The Project site is currently served by CCT&RS and Keller Canyon Landfill. CCT&RS has recycling services for construction and demolition materials, green materials services, and a garbage/mixed waste disposal facility. Keller Canyon Landfill has recycling services for construction and demolition materials and green materials. Construction contractors would comply with all applicable statues and regulations during construction. Specifically, the Project would comply with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 239–259 (regulations for solid waste), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards, and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 92-105. Additionally, the Project contractor would submit a Demolition Plan, a Debris Recovery Plan, a Waste Management and Recycling Plan, and a Debris Recovery Report to comply with local and state ordinances related to solid waste. Demolition would be performed in a manner that maximizes salvage and recycling of materials. A minimum of 50 percent by weight of the solid waste generated to be diverted from landfill disposal through re-use and recycling as required by the California Green Building Standard Code 2013. Materials to be recycled or re-used would be stored onsite in noncombustible containers. All demolition materials, waste, and debris that are not designated to be salvaged would become the Project contractor’s property and would be removed and disposed of in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations. The Project would not result in any new permanent structures that would generate solid waste. Because the remaining capacity of Keller Canyon Landfill is 63,408,410 cubic yards, it is anticipated that the landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the Project. It is anticipated that the landfills that could receive the hazardous wastes generated by the Project have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the hazardous waste disposal needs of the Project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. g. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The Project would comply with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 239–259 (regulations for solid waste), California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards, and Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 92-105. Construction contractors would comply with all applicable statues and regulations during construction. Hazardous materials associated with demolition activities would be disposed of in an approved facility. The Project would not result in any permanent structure that would general solid April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1384 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Impact Analysis– Other Topics Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-27 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 waste. Project operations would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1385 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 4 Alternatives 4.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria According to Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of a project do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Additionally, the State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of a No Project Alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of project approval with the impacts of not approving the project. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative. An EIR is not required to present the alternatives analysis at the same level of detail as the assessment of the project, and it is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making. Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below. The discussion of alternatives will focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are feasible, meet most or all of the project objectives, and would substantially reduce one or more of the project’s significant effects. The range of alternatives must include the No Project Alternative. The no project analysis will discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The No Project Alternative is not required to be feasible, meet any of the project objectives, or reduce the project’s expected impacts to any degree. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason; therefore, the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to analyze every conceivable alternative to a project. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained, whose implementation is remote and speculative, or that would not achieve the basic project objectives. 4.1.1 Screening Criteria A range of potential alternatives was subjected to screening criteria to eliminate those potential alternatives that do not qualify as alternatives under CEQA. There was no attempt to include every conceivable alternative in this range. Rather, the County selected a number of representative alternatives to consider based on the following screening criteria. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1386 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 • Does the alternative meet most or all of the Project objectives? • Is the alternative potentially feasible? • Would the alternative substantially reduce one or more of the significant effects associated with the Project? 4.1.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the primary Project objective is to help the County form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The specific Project objectives are listed below. • Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. • Meet near-term parking needs in the area. • Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez. • Facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses. • Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. 4.1.3 Impact Avoidance The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historic architectural resources. This EIR did not identify any feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.1.4 Feasibility Feasible is defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). CEQA does not require that an EIR determine the ultimate feasibility of a selected alternative but rather that it is probably feasible. Accordingly, no economic studies have been prepared regarding the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives. 4.2 Alternatives Considered The following alternatives were considered and subjected to the screening process described above. 4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would not be demolished. Because the Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos, those materials would continue to contaminate the Project site. No parking lot would be constructed. The County would not be able to reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, meet near-term parking needs in the area, implement the Martinez General Plan and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and the Contra Costa April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1387 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 County General Plan for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez, facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses, or allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. 4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SIS).1 The SIS are guiding concepts for the design of alterations and new additions to a historic property, as well as for the maintenance and repairs and replacement of historic materials. The SIS for rehabilitation and reuse address design and construction decisions. Examples of decisions for adaptive reuse design of the entire Jailhouse building following the SIS would include the identification and retention of character-defining features of the original structure built in 1903, updated evaluation of the historical significance of the 1944 annex, identification of the annex’s character-defining features, and when to retain and repair rather than replicate deteriorated historic fabric. The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos. This alternative would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. There would be no demolition and no construction of a parking lot. The granite curb that separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk and the sunken garage would not be demolished. 4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the County would demolish the 13,089-gross-square-foot (gsf) 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the 5,919-gsf original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. A parking lot with approximately 15 spaces would be developed in the current location of the annex. This alternative would add a driveway off Pine Street. The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos. This alternative would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. The granite curb that separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk and the sunken garage would be demolished. 4.2.4 Off-Site Alternative An Off-Site Alternative was suggested by a public speaker at the public scoping meeting conducted for the Project. Under the Off-Site Alternative, the 12-story Contra Costa County Administration building (referred to by the public speaker as the Cigarette Machine building) located at 651 Pine Street, across Pine Street from the Project site, would be demolished and a parking lot with approximately 33 spaces would be constructed in its place. The Administration building is not 1 The purpose of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is to retain the values of historic buildings to the maximum extent feasible while allowing for alternative use. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1388 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 vacant and is currently used for County government administrative and public uses, including public meeting and hearing rooms. 4.2.5 Relocation Alternative In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), a Relocation Alternative was suggested by a commenter, although the commenter did not suggest a site to which the building should be relocated. 4.2.6 Alternatives Dismissed from Analysis 4.2.6.1 Alternatives that Do Not Meet the Project Objectives Alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the Project or that do not meet the Project objectives do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Only some of the alternatives that were screened would meet portions of Project objectives. Those alternatives would reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, implement the Martinez General Plan and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez, facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses, and allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. One alternative, the Off-Site Alternative, was dismissed from the alternatives analysis, because it was found not to meet any of the Project objectives. The Off-Site Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives because it would not reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, it would reduce the amount of space for County government administrative uses, and it would replace a compatible and functional structure with a parking lot in the civic center area. Additionally, the Off-Site Alternative is not viable because the Contra Costa County Administration building is not vacant and is currently being used for a wide variety of County government administrative and public uses. 4.2.6.2 Infeasible Alternatives Based on the following analysis, the Relocation Alternative would be infeasible. Relocation is most feasible when configuration of a structure allows it to maintain its structural integrity when lifted from the existing location and its size allows it to be easily moved to the alternative location without dismantling or providing custom shoring to stabilize the structure. Also, a nearby site must be available, with a path of travel for the structure that minimizes the need to lift aerial utility lines or remove light standards and traffic signals. When considering the foregoing, the Jailhouse building would be a difficult structure to move. The overall size of the Jailhouse building is too large to fit on adjacent streets without separating it into segments. The width of the Jailhouse building at its widest portion is approximately 50 feet. Streets in the vicinity of the Project site are approximately 35 feet wide. Due to the relative width of the building compared to the width of the nearby streets, the building would need to be temporarily shored and cut into portions to move the building within the confines of the widths of the nearby streets. Adding to the difficulty is the material used to construct the exterior of the 1903 portion of the building, which is hand-chiseled granite, an extremely heavy material. The massive granite walls of the 1903 portion of the building are prone to separation and cracking and present tremendous weight. It is not feasible that the Jailhouse building could be moved as a complete structural unit. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1389 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Additionally, a nearby site that could accommodate a building the size of the Jailhouse building must be available. There are currently no nearby vacant County-owned parcels available. Relocation would not avoid the impacts of the Project related to historic resources. The Relocation Alternative would have a negative impact on the building’s integrity of location. Even if modifications to the Jailhouse building are conducted in compliance with the SIS, the building would most likely no longer be able to convey its significance as a cultural resource in a new location, per guidance provided by the National Park Service.2 It appears that the building would be able to retain its overall integrity only if a new relocation site were selected that is compatible with the current location of the Jailhouse building (i.e., as a contributing building of the NRHP listed Contra Costa County Courthouse block). Furthermore, the loss of materials caused by dismantling, relocating, and reinstalling the building would be detrimental, most likely requiring reconstruction measures that would not be considered favorable as a preservation approach. 4.3 Alternatives Analysis 4.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Project 4.3.1.1 Aesthetics Under the No Project Alternative, there would be neither a temporary nor any permanent change to current views, visual character, daytime glare, or nighttime lighting. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to aesthetics when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources The Project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use, does not contain any agricultural uses, and is not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is also not designated for timberland uses. Therefore, there would be no impact on agricultural and forest resources under the No Project Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.1.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions No demolition or construction would occur with the No Project Alternative. As a result, none of the short-term construction-related emissions resulting from the Project would occur under this alternative. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 are identified in this EIR to reduce potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The No Project Alternative would not require mitigation to reduce this impact. The No Project Alternative would not result in any operational air quality or GHG emissions impacts because the Jailhouse building would continue to be vacant. The operational air quality or GHG emissions impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project, which would include the operation of a parking lot to accommodate existing parking demand, Therefore, overall, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to air quality and GHG emissions when compared with the Project. 2 As explained in National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, moved properties constitute a category for which historic register eligibility is in most cases not possible April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1390 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.1.4 Biological Resources Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no demolition or construction. As a result, none of the potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats due to the demolition of the Jailhouse building under the Project would occur under this alternative. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the Townsend’s big-eared bat, other roosting bats and nesting birds during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The No Project Alternative has no need for such measures. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact on biological resources when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.5 Cultural Resources The No Project Alternative would not include the demolition of a historic resource or ground-disturbing activities. Consequently, unlike the Project, this alternative would not have the potential to impact historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to cultural resources when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.6 Geology and Soils No demolition or construction would occur with the No Project Alternative. Consequently, none of the geology or soils impacts associated with the Project would result. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to geology and soils when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under the No Project Alternative, the Jailhouse building would not be demolished and it would continue to be contaminated with hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead-based paint. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential for construction workers to be exposed to hazardous materials during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The No Project Alternative has no need for such measures. Unlike the Project, the No Project Alternative would not include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. This alternative would have no impact relative to baseline conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to hazards and hazardous materials when compared with the Project because no one would have authorized access to contaminated areas, and the contaminated materials would not be disturbed by demolition as under the Project. 4.3.1.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no alteration to the current drainage pattern on the Project site. Stormwater would continue to flow over the surface of the site at its current rate, flowing to the City storm drainage system. This alternative would have no impact relative to baseline conditions. The amount of existing impervious surface at the site would be similar to the amount of impervious surface under the Project, resulting in a similar amount of stormwater entering the drainage system. However, the impact on water quality would be greater under this alternative because the Project would incorporate stormwater management (treatment) facilities. Therefore, overall, the No Project Alternative would have a greater impact related to hydrology and water quality when compared with the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1391 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.1.9 Land Use and Planning Similar to the Project, the No Project Alternative would not physically divide an established community. Land use would remain in compliance with the County’s general plan, which designates the site as Public/Semi-Public. Therefore, the No Project Alternative and the Project would have a similar impact related to land use and planning because both uses are consistent with the County’s general plan. 4.3.1.10 Mineral Resources The Project site is not located in an area of high likelihood of known significant aggregate or mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no impact on mineral resources under the No Project Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.1.11 Noise Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no short-term construction noise impacts. As a result, none of the short-term construction-related noise impacts resulting from the Project would occur under this alternative. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is identified in this EIR to reduce potential noise impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The No Project Alternative would not require mitigation to reduce this impact. In the long-term, this alternative would result in a continuation of existing uses on the Project site and existing noise levels would not change. Both this alternative and the Project would result in noise levels that would be within the City’s threshold. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer noise impacts compared with the Project. 4.3.1.12 Population and Housing The No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing uses on the Project site. This alternative would not generate temporary construction jobs. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to population and housing when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.13 Public Services Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change in demand on public service providers. Therefore, there would be no impact on public services under the No Project Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.1.14 Recreation Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no new use of the Project site and thus no change in demand on recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact on recreation under the No Project Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.1.15 Transportation and Traffic The No Project Alternative would result in the continuation of existing uses on the Project site. Unlike during demolition and construction of the Project, this alternative would not temporarily increase the vehicular trips in the Project vicinity. Similar to the Project, the existing parking spaces on the Project site serve some of the parking demand for the adjacent County buildings and, thus, do not generate any additional traffic in the Project vicinity. Both this alternative and the Project would April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1392 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 result in acceptable level of service (LOS) on roadways in the Project vicinity. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in a lower level of traffic impacts when compared with the Project. 4.3.1.16 Utilities Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change in demand on utilities and service systems. Additionally, no debris would be produced that could exceed permitted capacities at surrounding landfills because this alternative would not include any demolition or construction. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have less impact related to utilities when compared with the Project. 4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative 4.3.2.1 Aesthetics Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be no change to the current views, visual character, and daytime glare. The County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications in compliance with the SIS, which would ensure the design would retain character-defining features of the original structure. The Adaptive Reuse alternative would not involve demolition of the existing Jailhouse building, and would thus leave views unchanged. However, this alternative could create an increased source of light that could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, as it could introduce lighted walkways, parking areas, and security lighting throughout the Project site. This could increase the amount of ambient light radiating into the night sky from the Project site because there would be additional light sources associated with this alternative. Therefore, the impacts on aesthetics under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would be greater than under the Project. 4.3.2.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources The Project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use, does not contain any agricultural uses, and is not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is also not designated for timberland uses. Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be no impact on agricultural and forest resources, similar to the Project. 4.3.2.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The rehabilitation activities under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would generate some short-term construction-related emissions. However, the rehabilitation of the Jailhouse building under this alternative would generate fewer construction related emissions than the demolition of the Jailhouse building under the Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 are identified in this EIR to reduce potential air quality and GHG impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would also require mitigation to reduce this impact. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use. Consequently, unlike under the Project, the vacant building would be used for government offices. This use would generate vehicle trips and require the use of utilities, both of which would produce emissions during operation. Therefore, the Adaptive Reuse of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1393 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Entire Building Alternative would result in fewer construction impacts, but greater operation impacts on air quality and GHG emissions when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.4 Biological Resources Rehabilitation of the Jailhouse building would result in potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat, other roosting bats, and nesting birds similar to impacts under the Project. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat, other roosting bats, and nesting birds during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. Under this alternative, the County would be required to implement mitigation measures similar to those required for the Project. Therefore, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and the Project would have similar impacts on biological resources. 4.3.2.5 Cultural Resources The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would not involve ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to impact archaeological or paleontological resources. Under this alternative, the Jailhouse building (a historic resource) would be rehabilitated for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS, whereas the Project would result in demolition of the Jailhouse building. Therefore, the impacts related to cultural resources under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would be less than under the Project. 4.3.2.6 Geology and Soils The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in a new population at the Project site, because new employees and visitors would be more likely to be at the Project site. Although the County would not demolish the sunken garage, impacts related to geologic hazards (e.g., rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic-related ground failure) would be more likely under this alternative than under the Project because employees and visitors in the Jailhouse building would be exposed to long-term risk from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Standard mitigation measures could reduce this alternative’s potential geology and soils impacts to a less-than-significant level. As with the Project, all demolition work and construction associated with this alternative would conform to the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations. Overall, the impacts related to geology and soils under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would be greater than under the Project. 4.3.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would require similar construction activities as the Project, including the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. This alternative would have the same associated risks with the accidental release of hazardous materials as the Project. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential for construction workers to be exposed to hazardous materials during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. Under this alternative, the County would be required to implement mitigation measures similar to those required for the Project. Therefore, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and the Project would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1394 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.2.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be no alteration to the current drainage pattern on the Project site. Stormwater would continue to flow over the surface of the site at its current rate, flowing to the City storm drainage system. This alternative would have no impact relative to baseline conditions. The amount of existing impervious surface at the site would be similar to the amount of impervious surface under the Project, resulting in a similar amount of stormwater entering the drainage system. However, the impact on water quality would be greater under this alternative than under the Project because the Project would incorporate stormwater management (treatment) facilities. This alternative would not be required to incorporate treatment facilities because it would not create or redevelop at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Therefore, overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would have a greater impact related to hydrology and water quality when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.9 Land Use and Planning Similar to the Project, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would not physically divide an established community. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use. Land use would remain in compliance with the County’s general plan, which designates the site as Public/Semi-Public. Therefore, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and the Project would have a similar impact related to land use and planning because both uses are consistent with the County’s general plan. 4.3.2.10 Mineral Resources The Project site is not located in an area of high likelihood of known significant aggregate or mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no impact on mineral resources under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.2.11 Noise Both the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and the Project would temporarily increase noise in the Project vicinity during construction. However, this alternative would not generate as much noise during construction because it would not require demolition activities that could generate groundborne vibration generated by falling building debris. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is identified in this EIR to reduce potential noise impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would not require mitigation to reduce this impact. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, implementation of this alternative would result in long-term noise associated with traffic and stationary uses associated with the use of the site for government offices. Both this alternative and the Project would result in noise levels that would be within the City’s municipal code noise standards. Overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in fewer construction noise impacts, but greater operational noise impacts when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.12 Population and Housing Similar to the Project, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would generate temporary construction jobs, but those jobs are not expected to produce permanent increases in jobs or April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1395 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 residents in the City or County. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, this alternative could indirectly induce population growth in the area because it would provide for increased government office use at the site. Therefore, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on population and housing when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.13 Public Services Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be an increase in demand on public service providers. This alternative would result in a greater demand for public services than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. Similar to the Project, this alternative would not adversely affect Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s (CCCFPD) response times or ability to provide fire protection services to the Project vicinity. Overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on public services when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.14 Recreation Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be an increase in population that would demand increased use of, or need to expand, existing recreational facilities. This alternative would have a greater demand for recreational facilities than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. Employees at the Project site may use recreational facilities in the Project vicinity. Overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on recreation when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.15 Transportation and Traffic Both the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and the Project would temporarily increase the vehicular trips, including employee commute trips and hauling truck trips, in the Project vicinity during construction. However, this alternative would not require as many construction trips as the Project because it would not generate as much demolition material. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, this alternative is expected to generate additional traffic in the Project vicinity during operation. Both this alternative and the Project would result in acceptable LOS on roadways in the Project vicinity. Overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in fewer construction traffic impacts, but greater operational traffic impacts when compared with the Project. 4.3.2.16 Utilities Under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, there would be an increase in demand on utilities and service systems. This alternative would produce less solid waste than would the Project during construction. However, this alternative would cause a greater demand for utilities than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. It is assumed that the demand could be met by the existing infrastructure and capacities of utility service providers. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1396 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Overall, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on utilities when compared with the Project. 4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative 4.3.3.1 Aesthetics Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the County would demolish the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the original 1903 structure for government office use, compliant with SIS. Overall, the impacts to visual character under this alternative would be less than under the Project, as the remaining building would continue to be a contributing element to the Downtown Historic Overlay District, which comprises the historic context of the area. However, this alternative could create an increased source of light that could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, as it could introduce lighted walkways, parking areas, and security lighting throughout the Project site. This could increase the amount of ambient light radiating into the night sky from the Project site because there would be additional light sources associated with this alternative. Overall, the impacts on aesthetics under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would be less than under the Project. 4.3.3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources The Project site is not located on any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use, does not contain any agricultural uses, and is not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is also not designated for timberland uses. Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, there would be no impact on agricultural and forest resources, similar to the Project. 4.3.3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The abatement and demolition activities under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would generate some short-term construction-related emissions. However, the rehabilitation of the original structure and demolition of the annex would generate fewer construction related emissions than the demolition of the Jailhouse building under the Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GHG-1 are identified in this EIR to reduce potential air quality and GHG impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would also require this mitigation to reduce this impact. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, a portion of the previously vacant building would be used for government offices. This use would generate vehicle trips and require the use of utilities, both of which would produce emissions during operation. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in similar, but less construction impacts, but greater operation impacts on air quality and GHG emissions when compared with the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1397 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-13 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.3.4 Biological Resources Similar potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats as well as nesting birds due to the demolition of the Jailhouse building under the Project would occur under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, which would involve the rehabilitation of the original structure and demolition of the annex. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to the Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats as well as nesting birds during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. This alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures similar to those required for the Project. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and the Project would have similar impacts on biological resources. 4.3.3.5 Cultural Resources The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities associated with the demolition of the annex and the sunken garage, and the construction of a parking lot in their place. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains during ground-disturbing activities to a less-than-significant level. Under this alternative, the County would be required to implement mitigation measures similar to those required for the Project. Under this alternative, the original 1903 structure (a historic resource) would be rehabilitated for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS, whereas the Project would result in the demolition of the entire Jailhouse building. Therefore, the impacts related to cultural resources under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would be less than significant, and would have less impact compared with the Project. 4.3.3.6 Geology and Soils The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in a new population at the Project site, as the original structure would be used for government office uses. Although this alternative would not demolish the sunken garage, impacts related to geologic hazard (e.g., rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic-related ground failure) would be more likely to result under this alternative than under the Project because Jailhouse building employees and visitors would be exposed to long-term risk from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Standard mitigation measures could reduce this alternative’s potential geology and soils impacts to a less-than-significant level. As with the Project, all demolition work and construction associated with this alternative would conform to the 2013 CBC and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations. Overall, the impacts related to geology and soils under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would be greater than under the Project. 4.3.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would require similar construction activities as the Project, including the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. This EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the potential for construction workers to be exposed to hazardous materials during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. Under this alternative, the County would be required to implement mitigation measures similar to those required for the Project. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1398 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-14 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and the Project would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. 4.3.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would alter the current drainage pattern on the Project site to a lesser extent than would the Project. The amount of existing impervious surface at the site would be similar to the amount of impervious surface under the Project, resulting in a similar amount of stormwater entering the drainage system. However, the impact on water quality would be greater under this alternative than under the Project because the Project would incorporate stormwater management (treatment) facilities. This alternative would not be required to incorporate treatment facilities because it would not create or redevelop at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Therefore, overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would have a greater impact related to hydrology and water quality when compared with the Project. 4.3.3.9 Land Use and Planning Similar to the Project, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would not physically divide an established community. Under this alternative, the County would demolish a portion of the Jailhouse building and rehabilitate the remaining building for government office use. Land use would remain in compliance with the County’s general plan, which designates the site as Public/Semi-Public. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and the Project would have a similar impact related to land use and planning because both uses are consistent with the County’s general plan. 4.3.3.10 Mineral Resources The Project site is not located in an area of high likelihood of known significant aggregate or mineral resources. Therefore, there would be no impact on mineral resources under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, similar to the Project. 4.3.3.11 Noise Both the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and the Project would temporarily increase noise in the Project vicinity during demolition and construction. However, this alternative would not generate as much noise during construction because it would not require as much demolition or construction as the Project. Consequently, there would be less impact from groundborne vibration generated by falling building debris from demolition. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is identified in this EIR to reduce potential noise impacts during Project construction to a less-than-significant level. The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would also require this mitigation to reduce this impact. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, implementation of this alternative in the long term would result in noise from traffic and stationary uses associated with the use of the site for government offices. Both this alternative and the Project would result in noise levels that would be within the City’s municipal code noise standards. Overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in fewer construction noise impacts, but greater operational noise impacts when compared with the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1399 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-15 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.3.12 Population and Housing Similar to the Project, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would generate temporary construction jobs, but those jobs are not expected to produce permanent increases in jobs or residents in the City or County. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, this alternative could indirectly induce population growth in the area because it would provide for increased government office use at the site. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on population and housing when compared with the Project. 4.3.3.13 Public Services Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, there would be an increase in demand on public service providers. This alternative would create a greater demand for public services and recreation than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. Similar to the Project, this alternative would not adversely affect CCCFPD’s response times or ability to provide fire protection services to the Project vicinity. Overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on public services when compared with the Project. 4.3.3.14 Recreation Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, there would be an increase in population that would demand increased use of, or need to expand, existing recreational facilities. This alternative would create a greater demand for recreational facilities than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. Employees at the Project site may use recreational facilities in the Project vicinity. Overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on recreation when compared with the Project. 4.3.3.15 Transportation and Traffic Both the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and the Project would temporarily increase the vehicular trips, including employee commute trips and hauling truck trips, in the Project vicinity during construction. However, this alternative would not require as many construction trips as the Project because it would not generate as much demolition material. Under this alternative, the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use. Consequently, unlike the Project, this alternative is expected to generate additional traffic in the Project vicinity during operation. Both this alternative and the Project would result in acceptable LOS on roadways in the Project vicinity. Overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in fewer construction traffic impacts, but greater operational traffic impacts when compared with the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1400 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-16 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 4.3.3.16 Utilities Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, there would be an increase in demand on utilities and service systems. This alternative would produce less solid waste than would the Project during construction. However, this alternative would have a greater demand for utilities than would the Project because the County would rehabilitate the original structure for government office use rather than demolish the Jailhouse building and construct a parking lot. It is assumed that the demand could be met by the existing infrastructure and capacities of utility service providers. Overall, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on utilities when compared with the Project. 4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be identified. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would avoid or substantially lessen, to the greatest extent, the environmental impacts associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the major project objectives. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is determined to be the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The identification of the environmentally superior alternative results from a comparison of the impacts associated with each alternative to those of the Project. Table 4-1 provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the No Project Alternative, Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, and Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative compared with the Project by resource topic. The No Project Alternative would have the least impacts because no demolition or construction would be involved. Specifically, the No Project impact would have less or similar impact on most resource topics and greater impact on hydrology and water quality. The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would have less of an impact than would the Project on air quality during construction, cultural resources, noise during construction, and transportation and traffic during construction, but would have a greater impact on aesthetics, air quality and GHG emissions during operation, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise during operation, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic during operation, and utilities. The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would have less of an impact than would the Project on aesthetics, air quality during construction, cultural resources, noise during construction, and transportation and traffic during construction, but would have a greater impact on air quality and GHG emissions during operation, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise during operation, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic during operation, and utilities. The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior of the three alternatives because it would result in less impact overall. As required by CEQA, if the alternative with the least environmental impact is determined to be the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative and Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would both result in fewer construction impacts but greater operational impacts. Compared with each other, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on cultural resources than the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, which would include the removal of the 1944 annex. The removal of the 1944 Jailhouse April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1401 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-17 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 annex, which does not contribute to the historical significance of the Jailhouse building, would allow for the rehabilitation of the 1903 Jailhouse building’s northwest elevation wall. The 1903 Jailhouse building is an historical resource. The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would result in greater impacts on air quality and GHG emissions during operation, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise during operation, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic during operation, and utilities because it would result in more space used for government office uses compared with the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative and, thus, greater activity on the Project site. Therefore, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1402 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Alternatives Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-18 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Table 4-1. Comparison of Alternatives’ Impacts Environmental Topic Area Level of Project Impact Impact Compared with the Project No Project Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Aesthetics Less than significant Less Greater Less Agricultural and Forest Resources No impact Similar Similar Similar Air Quality and GHG (Construction) Less than significant with mitigation Less Less Similar, but less Air Quality and GHG (Operation) Less than significant Similar Greater Greater Biological Resources Less than significant with mitigation Less Similar Similar Cultural Resources Significant and unavoidable Less Less Less Geology and Soils Less than significant Less Greater Greater Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant with mitigation Less Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant Greater Greater Greater Land Use and Planning Less than significant Similar Similar Similar Mineral Resources No impact Similar Similar Similar Noise (Construction) Less than significant with mitigation Less Less Similar, but less Noise (Operation) Less than significant Similar Greater Greater Population and Housing Less than significant Les Greater Greater Public Services No impact Similar Greater Greater Recreation No impact Similar Greater Greater Transportation and Traffic (Construction) Less than significant Less Less Less April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1403 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter contains the following discussions and analyses required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  Cumulative impacts.  Growth-inducing impacts.  Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15127, a discussion of significant irreversible impacts is not required because this is a site-specific project and not the adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency. 5.1 Cumulative Impacts 5.1.1 Legal Requirements State CEQA Guidelines require that the cumulative impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR when the cumulative impacts are expected to be significant and when the project’s incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[a]). Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]). Such impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide as much detail as the discussion of effects attributable to the project alone. The level of detail should be guided by what is practical and reasonable. 5.1.2 Methodology According to the State CEQA Guidelines, an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts should contain the following discussions.  An analysis of related future projects or planned development that would affect resources in the project area similar to those affected by the project.  A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects, with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available.  A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR must examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1404 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA recommends one of the following two methods. 1. Projects to consider in the cumulative analysis include any past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects outside the control of the lead agency (i.e., project list approach). 2. The cumulative analysis would consider projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or would use a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified for such a plan (i.e., plan approach). The Project site is located within the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan boundaries. The Martinez Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in 2006 by the Martinez City Council to support revitalization of Downtown Martinez. The plan area covers approximately 220 acres in Downtown Martinez, generally extending in a north-south direction from the Martinez Regional Shoreline and Waterfront Park to Susana Street and in the east-west direction by the hillsides. The purpose of the specific plan is to guide future development and infrastructure projects that would benefit downtown in multiple ways.  Strengthen Downtown Martinez as a shopping and dining destination for Martinez residents and visitors.  Capitalize on past investments in amenities such as the waterfront, Alhambra Creek, and Intermodal Station.  Create new housing opportunities for a variety of household types.  Preserve and enhance downtown’s historic small-town character while revitalizing its economy. Buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated to result in the development of approximately 1,000 new dwelling units and a small amount of new commercial office space. This analysis is based on the plan/projections approach using the buildout of the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan (City of Martinez 2006) and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan EIR (City of Martinez 2005). The spatial boundary for the study of a cumulative impact varies depending on the resource of concern. For example, impacts related to geology and archeological resources are generally site-specific, while air and noise impacts can encompass larger areas. Most of the Project impacts are site-specific and limited in terms of geography, and do not have the ability to compound impacts from past, existing or future projects beyond the project area. In these circumstances, CEQA directs that it is not necessary to address in detail the impacts from other projects: “[w]here a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines, Section15130, subdivision [a]). And “An EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 subd. [a][1]). Additionally, the cumulative background may differ for each resource (water projects for effects related to fish may differ from transportation projects for effects related to traffic, air, and noise). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1405 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 5.1.3 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts The following analysis describes the potential for the Project, in combination with the cumulative projects, to result in cumulatively significant environmental impacts. The analysis of each resource considers the cumulative setting of the potential impacts. The evaluations identify whether the cumulative impact would be significant, and whether the Project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact would be considerable. The Project would involve demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a surface parking lot. As described in Section 3.6, Other Topics, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources, mineral resources, public services, or recreation. Because the Project would have no impact on these resources, the Project could not contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources. Therefore, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts on these resources is not evaluated further. 5.1.3.1 Aesthetics The cumulative setting for aesthetics consists of any proposed development allowed by the Downtown Specific Plan within the same viewshed as the Project. The surrounding land uses along Pine, Escobar, and Main Street is the Project area viewshed. This area is developed with existing government buildings and parking lots. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan would not result in any significant impacts related to visual resources (City of Martinez 2005). Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics and the Project would not make a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 5.1.3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cumulative impacts associated with air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are described in Section 3.1, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 5.1.3.3 Biological Resources The cumulative setting for biological resources is the city of Martinez. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan would not result in any significant impacts on biological resources (City of Martinez 2005). Thus, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources. As described in Section 3.6.3, Biological Resources, the Project site is completely developed with the Jailhouse building and parking areas, with the exception of a small landscaped area. Because some of the windows in the Jailhouse building are missing or broken, the building could potentially be used as roosting habitat by Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats. Thus, to reduce potential impacts on Townsend’s big-eared bat or other roosting bats, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented and Project impacts would be less than significant. This mitigation measure will ensure that the Jailhouse building does not contain a substantial bat roost or, if Townsend’s big-eared bats are detected, avoidance and minimizations measures may be necessary. As such, this mitigation measure will ensure that the Project’s contribution to regional impacts on roosting bats would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1406 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 5.1.3.4 Cultural Resources The cumulative setting for cultural resources consists of the planned developments within Martinez that could potentially affect archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in potentially significant impacts on archaeological deposits, paleontological resources, and human remains in archaeological sites (City of Martinez 2005). Buildout of the specific plan was found not to result in any significant impacts related to historical resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1, CULT-2, and CULT-3 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources and the Project would not result in a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 5.1.3.5 Geology and Soils Geological hazards related to future development in the Project area are generally site-specific and relate to the type of building and building foundation proposed, as well as the soil composition and slope on the site. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in potentially significant impacts related to seismic hazards, as well as shrink-swell potential and settlement (City of Martinez 2005). Buildout would not result in any significant impacts related to known earthquake faults, landslides, erosion, unstable geologic unit, or expansive soil. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the specific plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils. Thus, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to geology and soils. As described in Section 3.6.4, Geology and Soils, all demolition work associated with the Project would conform with the 2013 California Building Code and all applicable local (including the Contra Costa Building Code), state, and federal regulations. Additionally, because no new structure would be constructed and, and any future buildings would be constructed to meet the 2013 California Building Code and the Contra Costa Building Code, the Project would not pose an unacceptable risk to human life and, therefore, would not make a considerable contribution to the potential risks related to seismic hazards or shrink-swell potential and settlement. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 5.1.3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials issues are generally site-specific and relate to the prior history of land uses on the site or adjacent sites. Except in cases where there is a major hazardous site nearby (e.g., a Superfund site), these impacts are site-specific because they generally only affect conditions within a single site. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in potentially significant impacts related to exposure to hazardous materials present in soils and groundwater, and demolition or renovation of any buildings containing lead-based paint and asbestos-containing building materials (City of Martinez 2005). Buildout would not result in any significant impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; emissions within one-quarter mile of a school; hazardous materials sites; airport land use plan area; a private airstrip; interference with an adopted emergency response plan; or wildland fires. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the specific plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1407 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 hazardous materials. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and the Project would not result in a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. 5.1.3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in potentially significant impacts related to degradation of water quality in the Carquinez Strait, placement of housing in areas subject to storm-related flooding, and low-lying portions of the Plan area that could be impacted by coastal flooding (City of Martinez 2005). Buildout would not result in any significant impacts related to groundwater or stormwater drainage. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-2, and HYD-3 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the specific plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality and the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. 5.1.3.8 Land Use and Planning The cumulative setting for land use and planning consists of development anticipated under the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in a potentially significant impact related to land use conflicts between existing industrial uses and new residential uses (City of Martinez 2005). Buildout would not result in any significant impacts related to the physical division of an established community nor conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the specific plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use and planning. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to land use and the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use. 5.1.3.9 Noise The cumulative setting for noise consists of development in the Project vicinity that could also contribute to the ambient noise environment at the existing sensitive receptors affected by noise generated as a result of the Project. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan could result in potentially significant impacts related to excessive construction noise or groundborne vibration, train-related noise, and train-related groundborne vibration (City of Martinez 2005). With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1, NOISE-2, and NOISE-3 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the specific plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to noise. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR also noted that new development could expose existing and new residences to noise from stationary sources, but this noise exposure would not be excessive and would not be considered significant. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure NOISE-4 in the Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR would ensure this impact would remain less than significant. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to noise and the Project would not result in a substantial contribution to a significant cumulative impact. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1408 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 5.1.3.10 Population and Housing The cumulative setting for population and housing consists of development in Martinez. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan would not result in any significant impacts related to population and housing (City of Martinez 2005). As described in Section 3.6.8, Population and Housing, the County Public Works Department would not construct any structures or housing, or demolish any housing. Additionally, the Project would not generate any new long-term employment opportunities. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to population and housing and the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. 5.1.3.11 Transportation and Traffic The cumulative setting for traffic includes development in the Project vicinity that would involve construction activities concurrently with those of the Project and that would result in traffic on the same roadways, creating the potential to cumulatively degrade the traffic operation, bicycle facilities, and safety condition on the local access roads in the vicinity of the Project. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan would not result in any significant impacts related to transportation and circulation (City of Martinez 2005). Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic and the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. 5.1.3.12 Utilities The cumulative setting for utilities consists of Martinez. The Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR noted that buildout of the specific plan would not result in any significant impacts related to utilities (City of Martinez 2005). As described in Section 3.6.11, Utilities, the Project would have no impact related to the exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements, the need for new water or wastewater treatment facilities, new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, water supply, or wastewater treatment capacity. Demolition waste from the Project would increase the use of landfill services and production of solid waste because the Project would involve the demolition of the Jailhouse building, including the sunken garage and the surrounding granite curb. The Project would not result in any new permanent structures that would generate solid waste. It is anticipated that Keller Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs of the Project. Additionally, Project operations would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative impacts related to utilities. 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts Section 21100(b)(5) of CEQA requires an EIR to discuss how a project, if implemented, may induce growth and the impacts of that induced growth (see also State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126). CEQA requires the EIR to discuss specifically “the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state that growth in any area is not “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” CEQA does not require separate mitigation for growth inducement because it is assumed that these impacts are April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1409 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 already captured in the analysis of environmental impacts (see Chapter 3, Impact Analysis). Furthermore, the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR “discuss the ways” a project could be growth-inducing and to “discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.” According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have potential to induce growth if it would result in either of the following conditions.  Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., through the expansion of public services into an area that does not currently receive these services), or through the provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or General Plan land use designation.  Result in economic expansion and population growth through employment opportunities and/or construction of new housing. In general, a project could be considered growth-inducing if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145). 5.2.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth or Provide New Access The Project is demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a new surface parking lot on the site. The existing driveways on the north and south sides of the Jailhouse building would be maintained. There is existing demand for parking in Downtown Martinez and the proposed parking lot would serve some of this demand. The Project would not result in any new roads or infrastructure. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce any population growth in the area. The Contra Costa County General Plan designates the site as Public/Semi-Public, and the City of Martinez zoned the site for Civic uses and designates it for Government use in the Martinez General Plan (County of Contra Costa 2005; City of Martinez 2011). No changes to the zoning or land use designation for the Project site would be required as part of the Project. Based on the analysis above, the Project would not be expected to indirectly or directly induce population growth. 5.2.2 Economic, Population, and Housing Growth Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if the project fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments. The County Public Works Department does not propose to demolish or construct any housing. Thus, the Project would not have a direct impact on population or housing growth. Project construction would result in a short-term increase in construction-related job opportunities in the Contra Costa County region. However, construction workers would likely be drawn from the existing construction employment labor force. Therefore, opportunities provided by Project construction would not likely result in the relocation of construction workers to the Project area. Therefore, the employment opportunities provided by Project construction are not anticipated to induce indirect growth in the region. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1410 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Other CEQA Considerations Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 The Project would not generate any new long-term employment opportunities. Therefore, Project operation is not anticipated to induce indirect or direct growth in the region. 5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15126(b) and 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less-than-significant level. Furthermore, where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should also be described. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historic architectural resources. Demolition of the building is proposed in order to achieve the project objectives described in Chapter 2¸ Project Description. Contra Costa County has over 200 facilities to operate and maintain. The Public Works Department is responsible for operating and maintaining these facilities. As part of the administration of the County facility portfolio, Public Works is responsible for identifying and highlighting vacant or underutilized County-owned buildings for potential disposition. Because this building has been long-vacant, contains hazardous materials including lead and asbestos, is no longer used or needed for the purpose it was constructed, and would not be viable for an alternate use, the building has been recommended for demolition rather than future County use. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1411 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 6 References 6.1 Chapter 1, Introduction None. 6.2 Chapter 2, Project Description Contra Costa County Department of Public Works. 2016. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18, 2005. Guzzetti, D. 2015. ‘Old Jail’ in Martinez may be history. Contra Costa Times. September 16. http://www.contracostatimes.com/martinez/ci_28823239/contra-costa-old-jail-martinez-may-be-history. Accessed: September 17, 2015. National Park Service. 1989. National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet. Contra Costa County Courthouse Block. NRIS Reference Number 89002113. Available: http://focus.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/nrhp/text/89002113.pdf. Accessed: October 15, 2015. 6.3 Section 3.1, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Updated: February 2010. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines%20May%202011.ashx?la=en. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Blasing, T. J. 2014. Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/atg.032. Updated February. Available: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html. Accessed: January 19, 2016. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed: January 19, 2016. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2011. Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles. December. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: January 19, 2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1412 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-2 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2016. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf>. Accessed: February 4, 2016. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015a. Area Designations Maps / State and National. Available: < http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>. Accessed: December 16, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015b. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. Available: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html>. Accessed: December 16, 2015. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2011. The Greenhouse Effect. Available: http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/basics. Accessed: January 19, 2016. City of Martinez. 2009. City of Martinez Climate Action Plan. June. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=10929. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Contra Costa County. 2015. Climate Action Plan. December. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/39791. Accessed: March 9, 2016. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Climate Change 1995: the Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J. T. Houghton, L. G. M. Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.). Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4_wg1_full_report.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2015. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, and H. Zhang. 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 659–740. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html. Accessed: January 19, 2016. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1413 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Last Revised: May 2014. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040.pdf>. Accessed: January 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Last revised: October 1, 2015. Available:<http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/index.html>. Accessed: October 15, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015b. Air Data: Monitor Values Report. Last Revised: September 11, 2015. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html>. Accessed: October 15, 2015. 6.4 Section 3.2, Cultural Resources Bean, L. J. 1994. The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region. Menlo Park, California: Ballena Press. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1994a. The Napa District and Wappo Prehistory. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, R. E. Hughes, ed., pp. 49-56. Berkeley, CA: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1994b. Central California Augustine: Implications for Northern California Archaeology. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, R. E. Hughes, ed., pp. 65-74. Berkeley, CA: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Bennyhoff, J. A. 1994c. A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, R. E. Hughes, ed., pp. 7-13. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley, CA. Calthorpe Associates. 2006. Downtown Specific Plan, City of Martinez, California. Electronic document, http://www.cityofmartinez.org/depts/planning/dsp2006.asp. Accessed December 18, 2015. City of Martinez. 2005. Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR. July. Collier, G. C. 1967. “The Courts of Contra Costa County.” (Un-published essay, Contra Costa County Historical Society Archives). Contra Costa County Gazette. 1903. “New Court House Is Dedicated.” Contra Costa County Gazette, May 30. Cook, S. F. 1943a. The Conflict between the California Indians and White Civilization, I: The Indian Versus the Spanish Mission. Ibero-Americana 21, Berkeley, CA. Cook, S. F. 1943b. The Conflict between the California Indians and White Civilization, II: The Physical and Demographic Reaction of the Non-mission Indians in Colonial and Provincial California. Ibero-Americana 22, Berkeley, CA. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1414 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-4 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Elsasser, A. B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, R. F. Heizer, ed., pp. 37-57. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Fredrickson, V. M. 1968. Tice Valley: 500 Years of Human History [CA-Cco-309]. Privately published, Walnut Creek, California. Copies available from Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. Historic Record Co. 1926. History of Contra Costa County, California. Historic Record Co., Los Angeles, California. Hylkema, M. G. 2002. Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones, eds., pp. 233-262. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Ingram, B. L. 1998. Differences in Radiocarbon Age Between Shell and Charcoal from a Holocene Shellmound in Northern California. Quaternary Research 49:102–110. Justice, N. D. 2002. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. Kroeber, A. L. 1955. Nature of the Land-Holding Group. Ethnohistory 2:303–314. Levy, R. 1978. Eastern Miwok. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 398–413. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. McDevitt, R. 2001. Courthouses of California: an illustrated history. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California. Meyer, J. and J. S. Rosenthal. 2007. Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Prepared for: California Department of Transportation, District 4. Milliken, R. T. and J. A. Bennyhoff. 1993. Temporal Changes in Beads as Prehistoric California Grave Goods. There Grows a Green Tree: Papers in Honor of David A. Fredrickson, G. White et al., eds., pp. 381-395. Davis, CA: Center for Archeological Research at Davis no. 11. Milliken, R., R. T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S. Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A. Fredrickson. 2007. Chapter 8: Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, eds. Pp. 99-123. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD. Milliken. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of the Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area, 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 43, series editor Thomas C. Blackburn, Novato, CA. R. R. Veale. Available online at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/82/RR-Veale. Accessed [12/21/2015]. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1415 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Rosenthal, J. S. and J. Meyer. 2004. Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication no. 14. University of California, Davis. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee. 1995. Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 163:22–27. Available: <http://www.vertpaleo.org/ConformableImpactMitigationGuidelinesCommittee.htm>. The Office of the Sheriff. 1965. “Why a New Jail?” The Sheriff’s Review, 1965. The Deputies Inc., Martinez, California. U.S. Soil Survey web. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [12/07/2015]. Wallace, W. J. and Lathrop, D. W. 1975. West Berkeley (CA-ALA-307): A Culturally Stratified Shellmound on the East Shore of San Francisco Bay. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility no. 29. Welch, L. 1973. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. Electronic document, http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/manuscripts/CA013/0/contracosta.pdf., accessed December 19, 2012. Welch, L. 1973. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. Electronic document, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/california/CA013/0/contracosta.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2015. Wiberg, R. S. 1996. Archaeological Excavation and Burial Removal at Sites CA-ALA-483, CA-ALA-483 extension, and CA-ALA-555, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California. Holman & Associates, San Francisco, California. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. Witter, R. C., K. L. Knudsen, J. M. Sowers, C. M. Wentworth, R. D. Koehler, and C. E. Randolph. 2006. Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037, Version 1.1. 6.5 Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Association of Bay Area Governments. 2010. Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Available: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/ThePlan-Chapters-Intro.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Bureau Veritas. 2014. Bureau Veritas Work Order No. A1410392. November 14, 2014. CALFIRE. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/contra_costa/Martinez.pdf. January 7, 2009. Accessed: September 17, 2015. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=6&cmd=search&business_name=& April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1416 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-6 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type=CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST&reporttype=CORTESE&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&ocieerp=False&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&orderby=county. Accessed: September 17, 2015. City of Martinez. 2011. Community View. Available: http://maps.digitalmapcentral.com/production/vecommunityview/cities/Martinez/index.aspx. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. January 18. Contra Costa County. 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. May 2011. Shutt Moen Associates. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. December 13, 2000. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4307/Airport-Land-Use-Commission-ALUC. Accessed: February 4, 2016. State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). GeoTracker: 650 Pine St, Martinez, California 94553. Available: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=650+pine+street%2C+martinez%2C+ca. Accessed: October 16, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. EnvrioMapper: 650 Pine St, Martinez, California 94553. Available: http://www2.epa.gov/myem/efmap/index.html?ve=15,38.01914133131504,-122.13386178016663&pText=650%20Pine%20St,%20Martinez,%20CA%2094553. Accessed: October 16, 2015. 6.6 Section 3.4, Noise Buehler, David. 2015. The effect of a large demolition project on adjacent buildings. Presentation at the Transportation Research Board 2015 ADC40 Subcommittee Meeting. San Francisco, CA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical noise supplement to the Caltrans traffic noise analysis protocol. Sacramento, CA. City of Martinez. 2016. General Plan – Noise and Air Element. Adopted 2016. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Washington, D.C. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1417 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 6.7 Section 3.5, Transportation and Traffic Amtrak. 2014. Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area: California Zephyr. Available: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/112/487/California-Zephyr-Schedule-060914.pdf. Accessed: December 17, 2015. Amtrak. 2016. Coast Starlight: Seattle and Los Angeles. Available: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/421/523/Coast-Starlight-Schedule-071115.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2016. Capitol Corridor. 2015. Maps & Schedules. Available: http://www.capitolcorridor.org/route_and_schedules/. Accessed: September 18, 2015. City of Martinez. 2005. Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR. July. City of Martinez. 2015. City of Martinez 2035 Draft General Plan. September 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. January 18. Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2015a. Congestion Management. Available: http://www.ccta.net/planning/view/160/1. Accessed: December 17, 2015. Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2015b. Transportation Plan: Action Plans. Available: http://www.ccta.net/planning/view/158/4. Accessed: December 17, 2015. County Connection. 2010. Maps & Schedules. Available: http://countyconnection.com/maps-schedules/. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Hillary Heard, Planner. 15 Dec 2015. Pers. Comm. Latest data needs request and air quality [sic] information. E-mail to Elizabeth Antin, ICF International. Shutt Moen Associates. 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. December 13. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4307/Airport-Land-Use-Commission-ALUC. Accessed: February 4, 2016. 6.8 Section 3.6, Other Topics 6.8.1 Section 3.6.1, Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. 2013. California Scenic Highway Program. Last Revised: May 5, 2014. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Guzzetti, Dana. 2015. ‘Old Jail’ in Martinez may be history. Contra Costa Times. September 16, 2015. http://www.contracostatimes.com/martinez/ci_28823239/contra-costa-old-jail-martinez-may-be-history. Accessed: September 17, 2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1418 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-8 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 6.8.2 Section 3.6.2, Agricultural and Forest Resources California Department of Conservation. 2014. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed: September 17, 2015. California Department of Conservation. 2015. The California Land Conservation Act 2014 Status Report: The Williamson Act. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Documents/2014%20LCA%20Status%20Report_March_2015.pdf. Accessed: December 4, 2015. City of Martinez. 1973. Martinez General Plan. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=7569. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18. 6.8.3 Section 3.6.3, Biological Resources City of Martinez. 2015a. Rankin Park. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/depts/recreation/parks/rankin.asp. Accessed: September 17, 2015. City of Martinez. 2015b. Waterfront Park. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/depts/recreation/parks/waterfront.asp. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Contra Costa Resource Conservation District. 2015. Alhambra Creek Watershed. Available: http://www.ccrcd.org/alhambra.html. Accessed: September 17, 2015. East Bay Regional Park District. 2015a. Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/carquinez. Accessed: September 17, 2015. East Bay Regional Park District. 2015b. Martinez Regional Shoreline. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/martinez.htm. Accessed: September 17, 2015. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006. Available: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/hcp/archive/final-hcp-rev/final_hcp_nccp.html. Accessed: October 22, 2015. Gruver, J. C. and D. A. Keinath 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181908.pdf. Accessed: November 30, 2015. Pierson, E. D., M. C. Wackenhut, J. S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. L. Genter, C. E. Harris, B. L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo, J. M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/teams/zoology/cbwg/pdfs/Townsend_Big-Eared_Bat.pdf. Accessed: November 30, 2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1419 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 6.8.4 Section 3.6.4, Geology and Soils Bryant, William A. and Hart, Earl W. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey. California Department of Conservation. 2015. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Available: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed September 17, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18. U. S. Geological Survey. 2015. Interactive Fault Map. Available: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/. Accessed: September 18, 2015. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015a. Custom Soil Resource Report for Contra Costa County, California: 650 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. September 18, 2015. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015b. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National soil survey handbook, Part 618 (Subpart A). Available http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242. Accessed: September 17, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Liquefaction Susceptibility KML Layer. Last Revised: July 23, 2014. Available: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/bayarea/liquefaction.php. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Wentworth, Carl M., Graham, Scott E., Pike, Richard J., Beuekelman, Gregg S., Ramsey, David W., and Barron, Andrew D. 1997. Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in Contra Costa County, California. U.S. Geological Survey. 6.8.5 Section 3.6.5, Hydrology and Water Quality Alhambra Creek Watershed Planning Group. 2001. Alhambra Creek Watershed Management Plan: A Users Manual. First Edition. April 2001. California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118: Ygnacio Valley Groundwater Basin. Last updated February 27, 2004. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/2-6.pdf. Accessed: October 30, 2015. California Department of Water Resources. 2014. CASGEM Groundwater Basin Prioritization Results. May 26. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/pdfs/CASGEM_Basin_Prioritization_Brochure.pdf. Accessed: December 3, 2015. California Department of Water Resources. 2015. Levee Flood Protection Zone Maps. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/levee_protection_zones/LFPZ_maps.cfm. Accessed: September 17, 2015. California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Benicia Quadrangle. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/ContraCosta/Pages/ContraCosta.aspx. July 31, 2009. Accessed: September 17, 2015. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1420 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-10 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 California Energy Commission. 2015. Sea Level Rise: Threatened Areas Map. CalAdapt. Available: http://cal-adapt.org/sealevel/. Accessed: December 10, 2015. City of Martinez. 2015. City of Martinez 2035 Draft General Plan. September 2015. Contra Costa Clean Water Program. 2012. Stormwater C.3 Guidebook - Stormwater Quality Requirements for Development Application. 6th Edition. February 15. Available: http://www.cccleanwater.org/Publications/Guidebook/Stormwater_C3_Guidebook_6th_Edition.pdf. Accessed: December 18, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2011. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Volume 1: Planning- Area-Wide Elements. Available: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6024. May. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Map Service Center, Contra Costa County Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas. Last Revised June 16, 2009. Available: http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=99648982&IFIT=1. Accessed September 17, 2015. State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. 2012 California Integrated Report Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 303(b). April 8, 2015. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/ir_staffreport_final.pdf. Accessed: October 30, 2015. Yowakim, Khalil. Personal Communication. Associate Civil Engineer. City of Martinez Engineering Department. E-mails to Liza Farr, ICF International. February 4, and February 5, 2015. 6.8.6 Section 3.6.6, Land Use and Planning City of Martinez. 2011. Community View. Available: http://maps.digitalmapcentral.com/production/vecommunityview/cities/Martinez/index.aspx. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18. 6.8.7 Section 3.6.7, Mineral Resources California Department of Conservation. 2012. Aggregate Sustainability in California. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/Documents/MS_52_2012.pdf. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Valero. 2015. Benicia: Overview. Available: http://www.valero.com/ourbusiness/ourlocations/refineries/pages/benicia.aspx. Accessed: September 17, 2015. 6.8.8 Section 3.6.8, Population and Housing Association of Bay Area Governments. 2013. ABAG Projections. California Department of Finance. 2015. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011–2015, with 2010 Benchmark. May. Available: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1421 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/documents/E-5_2015_InternetVersion.xls. Accessed: October 30, 2015. 6.8.9 Section 3.6.9, Public Services City of Martinez. 2015c. List of Services. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/services/. Accessed: September 18, 2015. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2014. Station Address. Available: http://www.cccfpd.org/station-address.php. Accessed: November 2, 2015. 6.8.10 Section 3.6.10, Recreation City of Martinez. 2015a. Rankin Park. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/depts/recreation/parks/rankin.asp. Accessed: September 17, 2015. City of Martinez. 2015b. Waterfront Park. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/depts/recreation/parks/waterfront.asp. Accessed: September 17, 2015. East Bay Regional Park District. 2015a. Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/carquinez. Accessed: September 17, 2015. East Bay Regional Park District. 2015b. Martinez Regional Shoreline. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/martinez.htm. Accessed: September 17, 2015. 6.8.11 Section 3.6.11, Utilities California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015a. Facility/Site Summary Details: Contra Costa TS and Recovery (07-AA-0027). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/07-AA-0027/Detail/. Accessed: October 30, 2015. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015b. Facility/Site Summary Details: Keller Canyon Landfill (07-AA-0032). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/07-AA-0032/Detail/. Accessed: October 30, 2015. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015c. Facility/Site Summary Details: Kettleman Hills - B18 Nonhaz Codisposal (16-AA-0023). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA-0023/Detail/. Accessed: December 17, 2015. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015d. Facility/Site Summary Details: Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill (01-AA-0010). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0010/Detail/. Accessed: December 17, 2015. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015e. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disporal Rate Summary (2007–Current). Available: April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1422 Contra Costa County Public Works Department References Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-12 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/diversionprogram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006.aspx/. Accessed: October 22, 2015. City of Martinez. 2005. Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR. July. City of Martinez. 2015c. List of Services. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/services/. Accessed: September 18, 2015. City of Martinez. 2015f. Construction & Demolition Waste Ordinance. Available: http://www.cityofmartinez.org/services/recycling/waste_ordinance.asp. Accessed: October 30, 2015. Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission. 2008. Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review for Central Contra Costa County. April 9, 2008. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2014. San Francisco Bay RWQCB (2)-Waste Acceptance List. August 4, 2012. Available: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/docs/wal_r2.pdf>. Accessed: December 17, 2015. Troy Hommerding, Environmental Health Officer. County of Kings Environmental Health Services. Phone Call to Liza Farr, ICF International. December 17, 2015. 6.9 Chapter 4, Alternatives None. 6.10 Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations City of Martinez. 2005. Downtown Martinez Specific Plan EIR. July. City of Martinez. 2006. Martinez Downtown Specific Plan. July 24, 2006. Available: http://www.mainstreetmartinez.org/cityPlan-downtown. Accessed: September 17, 2015. City of Martinez. 2011. Community View. Available: http://maps.digitalmapcentral.com/production/vecommunityview/cities/Martinez/index.aspx. Accessed: September 17, 2015. Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020. January 18. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1423 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1 March 2016 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 7 List of Preparers 7.1 Contra Costa County  Hillary Heard—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Project Manager  Leigh Chavez—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Division Manager  Lashun Cross—Department of Conservation and Development, Principal Planner 7.2 ICF International  Sally Zeff, AICP—Project Director, document review  Elizabeth Antin—Project Manager, document review  Ed Yarborough, AIA—Project Manager, Cultural Resources (Historic Resources Evaluation Report)  Jessica Viramontes—Project Coordinator, document review¸ Other CEQA, Alternatives  Liza Farr—Section Preparer, project coordination, Transportation and Traffic, Hazardous Materials, Other Topics  Alisa Reynolds, RPA—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report)  Joanne Grant, RPA—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report)  January Tavel—Cultural Resources (Historic Resources Evaluation Report)  Lily Henry Roberts—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report)  Dave Buehler, P.E.—Noise  Shannon Hatcher—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Dave Earnst—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Jennifer Haire—Biological Resources  Leila Harris—Biological Resources  Donna Maniscalco—Biological Resources  Paul Shigley—Editor  Tim Messick—Graphics  Deborah Jew—Publications Specialist April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1424     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Exhibit A   Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project  Written Findings of Significant Effects  In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, the following findings and supporting facts address each significant environmental effect that has been changed (including adoption of mitigation measures) to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the effect, as identified in the Final EIR. The findings described below are organized by resource issue, in the same order as the effects are discussed in the EIR. The County’s findings regarding the project alternatives follow the individual effect findings. The findings reference the Final EIR (part of the record upon which the County bases its decision) and mitigation measures in support of the findings. For specific resource mitigation measures, the section and page number where the full text of the mitigation measure occurs is noted in the finding. Introduction  The Project site is the Downtown Martinez Jailhouse building located at 650 Pine Street in Downtown Martinez, California. The Project site includes a vacant three‐story Jailhouse building (approximately 19,008 gross square feet), two parking lots with a total of 12 spaces, a granite curb separating the existing parking from the sidewalk, a sunken garage that provides basement access to the west side of the Jailhouse building, and driveways on the north and south sides of the building. The Jailhouse building includes the original structure, completed in 1903, and an annex built in 1944, and is on the National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service 1989). The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead‐based paint. Since issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project in 2015, the Project sponsor (Contra Costa County Public Works) has developed conceptual approaches to constructing a new government center complex. Recently, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an appropriate reuse be found for the structure. Hazardous materials would be abated and disposed of in an appropriate facility. The existing driveways on the north and south sides of the Jailhouse building would be maintained. If the Jailhouse building were removed, the Project site could potentially be used in the future as the site for construction and operation of new structures for County administrative functions, although no plans or designs for such a use at the project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at the project site. At the time such potential future uses and structures are proposed, additional evaluation under CEQA would be required. The County plans to adopt the proposed Project as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and proposes to demolish the 1944 annex but temporarily delay the demolition of the 1903 Jailhouse building for a period of approximately two years. During that time, interested parties will determine if there is sufficient interest in rehabilitating the original structure. The County will April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1425 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐2 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   consider economically viable proposals from interested private parties. Demolishing the 1944 annex and reusing the 1903 Jailhouse building is analyzed as Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building. If no appropriate reuse is identified for the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, then it would be necessary to demolish the structure in order to avoid the health and social impacts of the structure remaining in a vacant and hazardous state, and not contributing to the achievement of the County and the City’s goals for a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, the primary project objective is to help form a well‐ planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The specific project objectives are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near‐term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record   The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the approval of the Project are based comprises the items listed below.  The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.  All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by County staff to the Board of Supervisors relating to the EIR, the approvals, and the Project.  All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the Board of Supervisors by the environmental consultants who prepared the EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the Board of Supervisors.  All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the County from other public agencies related to the Project or the EIR.  All letters, testimony, and presentations relating to the Project.  All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any County hearing related to the Project and the EIR.  All City‐adopted, City‐prepared, County‐adopted and County‐prepared land use plans, ordinances, including without limitation general plans, specific plans, and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documents relevant to land use within the area.  The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1426 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐3 April 2017 ICF 00413.15    All other documents composing the record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the County’s decisions are based is Hillary Heard, Project Manager or her designee. Such documents and other material are located at 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553. Consideration and Certification of the EIR   In accordance with CEQA, the Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed the record and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and approving the Project. By these findings, the Board of Supervisors confirms, ratifies, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these findings. The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the County and the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substance of the information it contains. The Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the action that is the subject of the Resolution to which these CEQA findings are attached. The Board of Supervisors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the Project described in the EIR and each component and phase of the Project described in the EIR. Absence of Significant New Information   The Board of Supervisors recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the Final EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information. The Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the Project sponsor declines to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required. The Board of Supervisors finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 or Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Severability   If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the County. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1427 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐4 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant  and Unavoidable Impacts  Cultural Resources  Impact CUL‐1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (significant and unavoidable) Potential Impact: The Jailhouse building and Courthouse Block are historical resources under CEQA that would be affected by the Project. The demolition of the Jailhouse building would result in a substantial adverse change to the Jailhouse building as an individually eligible property, and the NRHP‐listed Contra Costa County Courthouse Block (NRIS Reference #89002113, listed 1989), which is a district that includes the Jailhouse and former County Courthouse (i.e., current Finance building). Demolition of an historical resource prevents the resource from conveying its historical significance. Therefore, demolition would undermine justification for inclusion of the Jailhouse building in the NRHP and of eligibility for CRHR by destroying all of the character‐defining features that express the building’s historical associations. Demolition of the Jailhouse building would also disrupt the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block by removing one of the components of that multi‐ component district. Because the Project would demolish the Jailhouse building and impair the Courthouse Block, it would result in a significant impact. The demolition is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Should an appropriate reuse be found for the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, which was analyzed in the EIR as Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 on page 3.2‐ 12 of the Draft EIR, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL‐1: Record the Building’s History and Architecture following Historic American Building Survey Guidelines and Prepare Materials for Public Interpretation Mitigation Measure CUL‐2: Plan for Reuse of Salvaged Components of the Building in Public Spaces Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following: Effects of Mitigation: Implementation of the Mitigation CUL‐1 and CUL‐2 would reduce the effects of the Project on historic resources but would not mitigate this impact to a less‐than‐ significant level. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure CUL‐1: Record the Building’s History and Architecture following Historic American Building Survey Guidelines and Prepare Materials for Public Interpretation The County will record the Jailhouse building following National Park Service Guidelines for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. This will include large‐format black and white or digitized photography, captions, and thorough written documentation of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1428 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐5 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   historic context and description of the building for submission to local historical repositories including the Contra Costa County Library in Martinez. Public interpretation based on information from the HABS documentation will be used to convey the historical significance of the building in formats that may include street‐side sign panel(s) and exhibits in nearby County or historical society venues. Mitigation Measure CUL‐2: Plan for Reuse of Salvaged Components of the Building in Public Spaces To the extent feasible, the County will plan to reuse materials from the building in public parks and facilities in the Martinez area. A Salvage Plan will be prepared to identify building components that would be appropriate for use in public spaces, including public park(s). Building components for consideration will include the granite cladding, granite curbs, and possibly interior architecture, as appropriate. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with historical resources would be significant and unavoidable. Statement of Overriding Considerations State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the Board of Supervisors “to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region‐wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable”. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historical resources. If no appropriate reuse is found for the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, then it would be necessary to demolish the structure in order to avoid the health impacts of the structure remaining in a vacant and hazardous state. The health benefits of the Project if demolition is found to be necessary include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. With respect to the social benefits of the Project if demolition is found to be necessary, the Project would contribute to the achievement of the County and the City’s goals for a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. With respect to the economic benefits of the Project if demolition is found to be necessary, the Conceptual Level Estimate, Old Jail Options, Contra Costa County dated October 20, 2016 and prepared by Leland Saylor Associates considered three options for the Jailhouse building: 1. Demolish the whole structure and construct a surface parking lot; 2. Demolish the annex built in1944 and renovate to “shell condition” the original structure completed in 1903, which could be offered for sale or to a private party; and 3. Demolish the annex and renovate to “a condition” in which the original structure could be established for occupancy as a museum or another suitable use. According to the Conceptual Level Estimate, Option 1 would cost approximately $1.8 million, Option 2 would cost approximately $9.6 million, and Option 3 would cost approximately $8.4 million. Thus, the County finds that the economic benefits of Option 1 (the option that most closely corresponds April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1429 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐6 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   with the Project), which would cost approximately $7.8 million less than Option 2 and approximately $6.6 million less than Option 3, would override the significant and unavoidable impacts from the Project related to historical resources. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant  Impacts that are Mitigated to a Less‐Than‐Significant  Level  Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy   Impact AQ‐2: Violate any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy‐duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, and truck hauling trips. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and land clearing, and from vehicles traveling on roads. Criteria pollutant emissions generated by these sources were quantified using California Emissions Estimator Model (version 2013.2.2). Estimated construction emissions are summarized in Table 3.1‐7 of the Draft EIR. Construction of the Project would not generate emissions that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) numeric thresholds. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend implementation of Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which are best management practices (BMPs), for all projects whether or not construction‐related emissions exceed applicable thresholds. BAAQMD considers dust impacts to be less than significant with the application of BMPs. Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 is recommended for the Project. If Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is implemented, and the building is not demolished, as described on page 4‐12 of the Draft EIR, construction impacts would be less and operation impacts would be greater, depending on the particular use of the structure in the future. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.1.3.3 on page 3.1‐20 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure AQ‐1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction‐Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Estimated construction emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 is summarized in Table 3.1‐8 of the Draft EIR. With implementation of this measure, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds and this impact would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1430 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐7 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Mitigation Measure AQ‐1: Implement Measures to Reduce Construction‐Related Dust and Equipment Exhaust Emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate.  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 CCR Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts associated with air quality emissions during construction would be less than significant. Impact GHG‐1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Construction of the Project would generate emissions of GHGs (carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]) from mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust and employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust. As shown in Table 3.1‐9 of the Draft EIR, the Project would generate approximately 293 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2, during the construction period. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emission threshold for construction‐related emissions. While BAAQMD’s 1,100 metric ton CO2e operational threshold is not established as a construction threshold, construction‐related emissions associated with the Project would be less than this operational threshold. Because construction emissions are temporary, as opposed to annual, comparing construction emissions to BAAQMD’s operational threshold represents a conservative April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1431 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐8 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   assessment of potential impacts. As described in Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, the Project incorporates feasible BMPs, including using alternative‐fueled (e.g. biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet, using at least 10 percent local building materials, and meeting a goal of recycling 50 percent of construction waste. These BMPs would further reduce construction‐related emissions. If Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is implemented, and the building is not demolished, as described on page 4‐12 of the Draft EIR, construction impacts would be less and operation impacts would be greater, depending on the particular use of the structure in the future. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.1.3.3 on page 3.1‐23 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure GHG‐1: Implement BAAQMD’s best management practices for GHG emissions Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1 would further reduce construction‐related GHG emissions below what is shown in Table 3.1‐9 of the Draft EIR. The Project is not expected to generate a significant amount of construction‐related GHG emissions and this impact would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure GHG‐1: Implement BAAQMD’s best management practices for GHG emissions The County will require all construction contractors to implement the following BAAQMD‐ recommended best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions, as applicable.  Use alternative‐fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet.  Use at least 10 percent local building materials.  Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts associated with construction‐related GHG emissions would be less than significant. Cultural Resources   Impact CUL‐2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: No cultural resources were identified either through the NWIC records search or during the field survey, and all ground‐disturbing construction activities would be in previously disturbed contexts. However, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered resources to be encountered during demolition and construction. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1432 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐9 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 on page 3.2‐13 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL‐3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources are Encountered During Ground‐disturbing Activities Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐3, the impact associated with potential discovery of unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure CUL‐3: Stop Work if Cultural Resources are Encountered During Ground‐disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if prehistoric or historic‐period cultural materials are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities. All work within 100 feet of the find will be stopped until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked‐stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat‐affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered‐stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic‐period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impacts associated with potential discovery of unknown archaeological resources during construction would be less than significant. Impact CUL‐3: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Demolition and grading could unearth and damage previously unknown paleontological resources, sites, or unique geologic features. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 on page 3.2‐13 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL‐4: Stop Work if Paleontological or Unique Geologic Features are Encountered During Ground‐disturbing Activities Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐4, the impact associated with potential discovery of unknown paleontological or unique geologic features would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1433 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐10 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Mitigation Measure CUL‐4: Stop Work if Paleontological or Unique Geologic Features are Encountered During Ground‐disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if substantial fossil remains are discovered during Project demolition or construction. All work will stop until a registered professional geologist or qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The County or the appropriate agency will be responsible for ensuring that recommendations regarding treatment and reporting are implemented. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with potential discovery of unknown paleontological or unique geologic features during construction would be less than significant. Impact CUL‐4: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Although no cultural resources were identified either through the background records search or during the Project site survey, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be encountered during Project demolition or construction. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.2.3.3 on pages 3.2‐ 13 and 3.2‐14 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure CUL‐5: Stop Work if Human Remains are Encountered During Ground‐Disturbing Activities Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐5, the impact associated with potential discovery of human remains would be less than significant. The County will implement the following actions. Mitigation Measure CUL‐5: Stop Work if Human Remains are Encountered During Ground‐Disturbing Activities The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction or demolition. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50‐foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Contra Costa County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner will re‐inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with potential discovery of human remains during construction would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1434 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐11 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Impact HAZ‐2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials, including asbestos‐containing materials (ACMs) and lead‐based paints (LBPs). During demolition of any portion of the Jailhouse building, workers and the public could be exposed to hazardous building materials if they were not abated prior to demolition. Before performing demolition activities at the Project site, the County Public Works Department would perform a comprehensive building materials survey for ACMs, LBP, electrical equipment containing PCBs, and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors and lights and identify the applicable construction worker health and safety regulations and materials removal. All disposal would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state standards, including the Cal‐OSHA and BAAQMD regulations. The Project contractor would be required by the County to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an approved facility. Nonetheless, construction workers could be exposed to hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, discussed in Section 3.3.3.3 on pages 3.3‐ 10 and 3.3‐11 of the Draft EIR, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1: Prepare a Hazardous Materials Specification for the Abatement of Asbestos‐Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead‐Based Paints (LBPs) Prior to Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2: Retain a State Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor to Perform Hazardous Materials Abatement Prior to Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ‐3: Obtain Proper Building Permits and Follow Applicable Regulations Regarding the Handling of Hazardous Materials during Demolition Mitigation Measure HAZ‐4: Ensure that Contractors and Designers Know the Exact Location of All Hazardous Materials Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1, HAZ‐2, HAZ‐3, and HAZ‐4, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1: Prepare a Hazardous Materials Specification for the Abatement of Asbestos‐Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead‐Based Paints (LBPs) Prior to Demolition A California‐certified asbestos consultant and a California Department of Health Services‐ certified lead project designer shall prepare a hazardous materials specification for the abatement of the ACMs and LBPs. This specification should be the basis for selecting qualified contractors to perform the proposed asbestos and lead abatement work. The County has already April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1435 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐12 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   identified areas of potential concern as a starting point for determining the hazardous materials that should be removed before demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐2: Retain a State Licensed Asbestos Abatement Contractor to Perform Hazardous Materials Abatement Prior to Demolition The County or its assigned contractor will retain a California‐licensed asbestos abatement contractor to perform the abatement of the ACMs, ACCMs, and LBPs deemed potentially hazardous. In addition, lamps used in fluorescent lights, ballasts, and electrical thermostats will be disposed of properly. Because all materials would be disturbed during demolition, all identified hazardous materials will need to be abated before demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐3: Obtain Proper Building Permits and Follow Applicable Regulations Regarding the Handling of Hazardous Materials during Demolition The County or its assigned contractor will obtain a demolition permit from the County before proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials identified within the structure. Contractors performing work that disturbs LBPs in the building shall implement appropriate work practices in accordance with applicable Cal‐OSHA worker exposure regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐4: Ensure that Contractors and Designers Know the Exact Location of All Hazardous Materials Contractors shall be informed of the exact locations of all potentially hazardous materials in the building so that workers can properly handle, manage, and remove these materials according to the appropriate federal, state, and local requirements. The County and/or assigned contractor shall provide notification to contractors and subcontractors of the building to the presence, locations, and quantities of ACMs, ACCMs, and LBPs at the site within 15 days of receiving this information. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with the exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials would be less than significant. Noise  Impact NOI‐3: Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: The operation of heavy construction equipment can generate localized groundborne vibration at buildings adjacent to the construction site, especially during the operation of high‐impact equipment, such as pile drivers. There is also the potential for perceptible groundborne vibration to be generated when building debris falls or is dropped from one or more building stories above the ground. If this occurs on a sustained basis over several days, substantial annoyance of nearby office building occupants could result. If Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is implemented, and the building is not completely demolished, as described on page 4‐12 of the Draft EIR, construction impacts would be less and operation impacts would be greater, depending on the particular use of the structure in the future. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1436 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐13 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure, discussed in Section 3.4.3.3 on page 3.4‐9 of the Draft EIR, is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure NOI‐1: Implement Vibration‐Reducing Demolition Practices Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1, the impact would be less than significant Mitigation Measure NOI‐1: Implement Vibration‐Reducing Demolition Practices In order to minimize groundborne vibration generated by falling building debris, the construction contractor will conduct demolition activities such that building debris does not fall more than 5 feet and is not dropped more than 5 feet. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with the groundborne vibration during construction would be less than significant. Biological Resources  Potential impacts to roosting bats or nesting migratory birds (less than significant with mitigation) Potential Impact: Because some of the windows in the Jailhouse building are missing or broken, the building could be used as roosting habitat by Townsend’s big‐eared bat or other roosting bats. Additionally, if demolition or construction were to begin during the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), demolition or construction activities could disturb active migratory bird nests in the Project vicinity. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures, discussed in Section 3.6.3.2 on pages 3.6‐ 6 and 3.6‐7 of the Draft EIR, are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Implement Protective Measures for Townsend’s Big‐Eared Bat and Other Roosting Bats Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: Conduct Demolition outside Nesting Season (September 1 to January 31) or Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey for Demolition during Nesting Season (February 1 to August 31) Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds the following. Effects of Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐1, potential impacts on Townsend’s big‐eared bat or other roosting bats would be less than significant. In addition, according to the Bat Survey for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project dated July 26, 2016 and prepared by Sapere Environmental in Appendix F of the EIR prepared for the Project, no sign of bat inhabitation was observed in the Jailhouse building despite there being numerous entry and exit points where bats could enter the building. Many areas in which bats could roost were identified within the Jailhouse building, but access was not available for all potential roost April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1437 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐14 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   sites. In addition, bats could use the Jailhouse building at any point as temporary roosting sites or establish short‐term roost at different times of the year based on prey availability, migratory status, life history stage, or habitat requirements. The Bat Survey included recommendations to minimize the likelihood of bats establishing roots within the building and to minimize the potential for take of state and federally protected migratory and nesting birds. The recommendations from the Bat Survey to be implemented by the County (in compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO‐1) included nest and roosting exclusions for birds and bats and preconstruction roosting bat and nesting bird surveys within two weeks prior of the start of construction/demolition. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐2, potential impacts on active nests of migratory birds during demolition or construction activities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Implement Protective Measures for Townsend’s Big‐Eared Bat and Other Roosting Bats At least 2 months prior to the demolition of the Jailhouse building, qualified biologists will conduct an initial daytime survey to assess the building for potential bat roosting habitat, and to look for bats and bat sign. Qualified biologists will have knowledge of the natural history of the species that could occur and sufficient experience determining bat occupancy in buildings and bat survey techniques. The biologists will examine both the inside and outside of the building for potential roosting habitat, as well as routes of entry to the building. Locations of any roosting bats, signs of bat use, and entry and exit points will be noted and mapped on a drawing of the building. Roost sites will also be photographed as feasible. Depending on the results of the habitat assessment, the following steps will be taken as described below. If the building can be adequately assessed (i.e., all areas of the building can be examined) and no habitat or limited habitat for roosting bats is present and no signs of bat use are present, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building by qualified biologists will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. If moderate or high potential habitat is present but there are no signs of bat use, the County will implement measures under the guidance of a qualified bat biologist to exclude bats from using the building as a roost site, such as sealing off entry points. Prior to installing exclusion measures, qualified biologists will re‐survey the building to ensure that no bats are present. Additionally, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition to confirm that no bats are present. If moderate or high potential habitat is present and bats or bat sign are observed, or if exclusion measures are not installed as described above, or the building provides suitable habitat but could not be adequately assessed, the following protective measures will be implemented.  Follow‐up surveys will be conducted to determine if bats are still present. If species identification is required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), surveys using night vision goggles and active acoustic monitoring using full spectrum bat detectors will be used. A survey plan (number, timing, and type of surveys) will be determined in coordination with CDFW.  Based on the timing of demolition, the extent of bat sign or occupied habitat, and the species present (if determined), the qualified biologists will work with the County and CDFW to develop a plan to discourage or exclude bat use prior to demolition. The plan may include April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1438 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐15 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   installing exclusion measures or using light or other means to deter bats from using the building to roost.  A preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. Depending on the species of bats present, size of the bat roost, and timing of the demolition, additional protective measures may be necessary. Appropriate measures will be determined in coordination with the CDFW and may include measures listed below.  To avoid impacts on maternity colonies or hibernating bats, the building will not be demolished while bats are present, generally between April 1 and September 15 (maternity season) and from October 30 to March 1 (hibernation).  Removal of roosting habitat will only occur only following the maternity season and prior to hibernation, generally between September 15 and October 30, unless exclusionary devices are first installed (as described below). Other measures, such as using lights to deter bat roosting, may be used if developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW.  Installation of exclusion devices will occur before maternity colonies establish or after they disperse, generally from March 1 –30 or September 15–October 30 to preclude bats from occupying a roost site during demolition. Exclusionary devices will only be installed by or under the supervision of an experienced bat biologist. CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for the loss of roosting habitat depending on the species present and size of the bat roost. Compensation, if required, will be determined in consultation with the CDFW, and may include the construction, installation, and monitoring of suitable replacement habitat onsite or near the Project site. Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: Conduct Demolition outside Nesting Season (September 1 to January 31) or Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey for Demolition during Nesting Season (February 1 to August 31) To the extent practicable, demolition and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If demolition or construction cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys to locate any active nests will be performed no more than 2 days prior to demolition activities as follows.  The Project sponsor will be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the Project site and surrounding 250 feet for active nests – with particular emphasis on the nests of migratory birds – if demolition will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31.  If active nests are observed on either the Project site or the surrounding area, the Project sponsor, in coordination with the qualified biologist, shall establish no‐disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size based on the bird species and in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The no‐disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active, the nesting season ends, or if a qualified biologist monitors the nest(s) during demolition activities and determines the demolition activities are not affecting nesting bird behavior. If demolition activities appear to affect nesting bird behavior as determined by the biologist, the activities within the buffer zone shall cease immediately. If demolition activities do not affect nesting bird behavior as April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1439 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐16 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   determined by the biologist, then demolition activities can continue, provided their distance to the nest or sound/vibration intensity does not increase. If demolition ceases for 2 days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present. Remaining Impacts: Any remaining impact associated with native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites would be less than significant. Findings for Cumulative Impacts   State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires the consideration of cumulative impacts in an EIR when a project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3).) In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the State CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those that are outside of the control of the lead agency. The proposed Project’s cumulative contribution to various impacts was considered in conjunction with other proposed and approved projects, as set forth in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR. Based on analysis in the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County makes the following findings with respect to the Project’s cumulatively considerable potential cumulative impacts of the Project. No Contribution to a Cumulative Impact  Based on the discussion in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds that the Project will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to any environmental impacts. Findings for Alternatives Considered in the EIR   Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires findings about the feasibility of project alternatives whenever a project within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the lead agency will have a significant environmental effect that has not been mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level. Identification of Project Objectives   The State CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d][2]). Thus, an evaluation of the project objectives is key to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1440 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐17 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR, the primary project objective is to help the County form a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The specific project objectives are listed below. 1. Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. 2. Meet near‐term parking needs in the area. 3. Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez. 4. Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR   The State CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project. In addition, the EIR must examine the No Project alternative. The County evaluated the alternatives listed below.  Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative  Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative  Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative No Project Alternative  Under Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would not be demolished. Because the Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead‐based paint and asbestos, those materials would continue to contaminate the Project site. No parking lot would be constructed. Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible because it would not meet most of the objectives of the Project. Explanation: The No Project Alternative would have the least environmental impacts because no demolition or construction would be involved. Specifically, the No Project impact would have less or similar impact on most resource topics and greater impact on hydrology and water quality. However, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet the following project goal and objectives and is therefore rejected as infeasible.  Help the County form a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would continue to be vacant, and not contribute to a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. Under the No Project Alternative, the Jailhouse building would not be demolished and it would continue to be contaminated with hazardous materials, including ACMs and LBP. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1441 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐18 April 2017 ICF 00413.15    Meet near‐term parking needs in the area. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing parking spaces on the Project site would continue to serve some of the parking demand for the adjacent County buildings, but no additional parking would be added.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and would not implement any general plan or Specific Plan policies for the civic center portion.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would continue to be vacant. The Project site would not allow for compatible and functional structures in the civic center area. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), the County finds that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because implementation of this alternative would result in fewer significant and unavoidable impacts, but rejects this alternative because it does not meet the Project objectives. Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative  Under Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SIS). The SIS are guiding concepts for the design of alterations and new additions to a historic property, as well as for the maintenance and repairs and replacement of historic materials. The SIS for rehabilitation and reuse address design and construction decisions. Examples of decisions for adaptive reuse design of the entire Jailhouse building following the SIS would include the identification and retention of character‐defining features of the original structure built in 1903, updated evaluation of the historical significance of the 1944 annex, identification of the annex’s character‐defining features, and when to retain and repair rather than replicate deteriorated historic fabric. The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead‐based paint and asbestos. This alternative would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. There would be no demolition and no construction of a parking lot. The granite curb that separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk and the sunken garage would not be demolished. Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative as infeasible because it would not meet all of the project objectives. Explanation: The Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would have less of an impact than the Project on air quality during construction, cultural resources, noise during construction, and transportation and traffic during construction, but would have a greater impact on aesthetics, air quality and GHG emissions during operation, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise during operation, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic during operation, and utilities. The Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative would fail to meet the following project goal and objectives and is therefore rejected as infeasible.  Help the County form a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Under the Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative, the Jailhouse building would be renovated April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1442 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐19 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   and reused for government use. Since the Project site would remain occupied by the existing structures, the development of well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez would be substantially limited.  Meet near‐term parking needs in the area. Under the Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative, the existing parking spaces on the Project site would continue to serve some of the parking demand for the adjacent County buildings, but no additional parking would be added.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez. The intent of the policies for the civic portion is to provide for existing functions and future expansion of the County government. Under the Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative, the Jailhouse building would be renovated and reused for government use. Since the existing buildings were not built to serve government administrative uses, this alternative would only implement General Plan and Specific Plan policies for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez to a limited extent.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Under the Adaptive Reuse of the Entire Building Alternative, the Jailhouse building would be renovated and reused for government use. Since the Project site would remain occupied by the existing structures, the development of compatible and functional structures in the civic center area would be substantially limited. Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative   Under Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the County would demolish the 13,089‐gross‐square‐foot (gsf) 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the 5,919‐gsf original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. A parking lot with approximately 15 spaces would be developed in the current location of the annex. This alternative would add a driveway off Pine Street. The Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead‐based paint and asbestos. This alternative would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. The granite curb that separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk and the sunken garage would be demolished. Finding: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County rejects the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative as infeasible because it would not meet all of the project objectives. However, the County proposes to demolish the 1944 annex and delay the demolition of the 1903 Jailhouse building for a period of approximately two years. During that time, private parties will determine if there is sufficient interest in rehabilitating the original structure. Explanation: The Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Help the County form a well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building would be demolished and the 1903 Jailhouse building would be renovated and reused for government use. Since the building site would remain occupied by the existing structure, the development of well‐planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez would be substantially limited. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1443 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐20 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   Meet near‐term parking needs in the area. Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, an additional 15 parking spaces would be added to the Project site. This would assist with meeting near‐term parking needs in the area, but to a lesser extent than the 25‐30 spaces that would be constructed as part of the Project. Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez. The intent of the policies for the civic portion is to provide for existing functions and future expansion of the County government. Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building would be demolished and the 1903 Jailhouse building would be renovated and reused for government use. Since the 1903 Jailhouse building was not built to serve government administrative uses, this alternative would only implement General Plan and Specific Plan policies for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez to a limited extent. Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative, the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building would be demolished and the 1903 Jailhouse building would be renovated and reused for government use. Since the building site would remain occupied by the existing structure, the development of compatible and functional structures in the civic center area would be substantially limited. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), the County finds that the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because implementation of this alternative would result in fewer significant and unavoidable impacts. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant  Irreversible Changes  Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15127, a discussion of significant irreversible impacts is not required because this is a site‐specific project and not the adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Growth‐ Inducing Impacts  Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should discuss “…the ways in which the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state that growth in any area is not “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[d]). CEQA does not require separate mitigation for growth inducement, as it is assumed that these impacts are already captured in the analysis of environmental impacts. Furthermore, Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristic of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1444 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Exhibit A—Written Findings of Significant Effects     Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition  Final Environmental Impact Report A‐21 April 2017 ICF 00413.15   some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.” Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as elimination of obstacles to growth, stimulation of economic activity within the region, and precedent‐setting action such as the provision of new access to an area or a change in a restrictive zoning or general plan land use designation. In general, a project could be considered growth‐inducing if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way. However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145). The proposed Project’s growth‐inducing impacts are discussed in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. Findings: Based on the EIR and the entire record before the County, the County finds that the Project would not induce growth for the following reasons. Explanation: The Project would not construct any new roads or infrastructure or require changes to the zoning or land use designation for the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not be expected to directly or indirectly induce population growth. Typically, the growth‐inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Project would involve demolition of the Jailhouse building and construction of a parking lot to accommodate existing parking demand. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce any population growth in the area. The Project would not include construction of any new homes or businesses that would attract new residents. Additionally, the Project site is adequately served by existing infrastructure and the Project would not require any road or infrastructure improvements that would indirectly induce growth. Temporary construction jobs generated by the implementation of the Project are not expected to produce permanent increases in jobs or residents in the City or County. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to induce indirect or direct growth in the region. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1445 FINAL (RESPONSE TO COMMENT) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN MARTINEZ JAIL DEMOLITION PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2015112003 P REPARED FOR: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Hillary Heard 925.313.2022 P REPARED BY: ICF 630 K Street Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Sally Zeff 916.737.3000 April 2017 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1446 ICF. Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project Environmental Impact Report. Final. April. 2017. (ICF 00413.15). San Francisco, CA. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, CA. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1447 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report i April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Public Review Process ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Use of this Document ...................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 Response to Comments ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Common Responses ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Common Responses Regarding Alternatives.................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Common Response 4 – Future Uses at the Project Site ................................................ 2-9 2.1.3 Common Response 5 – Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations ...................................................................................................................................2-11 2.2 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period ........................... 2-12 2.2.1 Letter No. 1. Bay Point Historical Society ........................................................................2-14 2.2.2 Letter No. 2. Resident, Gwendolyn Monroe ....................................................................2-18 2.2.3 Letter No. 3. Residents, Kay Cox and Paul Craig ............................................................2-20 2.2.4 Letter. No. 4. Pinole Historical Society ..............................................................................2-22 2.2.5 Letter No. 5. Contra Costa County Historical Society ..................................................2-25 2.2.6 Letter No. 6. Lafayette Historical Society .........................................................................2-27 2.2.7 Letter No. 7. Resident, Dolores White................................................................................2-29 2.2.8 Letter No. 8. Resident, Dena Zachariah .............................................................................2-31 2.2.9 Letter No. 9. Resident, Raymond O’Brien .........................................................................2-36 2.2.10 Letter No. 10. Resident, Bill Sharkey ..................................................................................2-42 2.2.11 Letter No. 11. Residents, Peter and Martha Dragovich ..............................................2-44 2.2.12 Letter No. 12. Resident, Jane Borenstein ..........................................................................2-46 2.2.13 Letter No. 13. Concord Historical Society ........................................................................2-48 2.2.14 Letter No. 14. California Office of Historic Preservation ...........................................2-51 2.2.15 Letter No. 15. Resident, David Seawell..............................................................................2-53 2.2.16 Letter No. 16. Resident, Vickie Dawes ...............................................................................2-55 2.2.17 Letter No. 17. Resident, Elaine Seawell .............................................................................2-57 2.2.18 Letter No. 18. Resident, Melissa Jacobson .......................................................................2-61 2.2.19 Letter No. 19. Martinez Historical Society .......................................................................2-66 2.2.20 Letter No. 20. Resident, Jeanne Jones ................................................................................2-70 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1448 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report ii April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.21 Letter No. 21. Resident, M.K. Carlock .................................................................................2-74 2.2.22 Letter No. 22. City of Martinez ..............................................................................................2-77 2.2.23 Letter No. 23. Resident, Cheryll Grover ............................................................................2-83 2.2.24 Letter No. 24. Resident, Billy Swain ...................................................................................2-86 2.2.25 Letter No. 25. Resident, John Curtis....................................................................................2-88 2.2.26 Letter No. 26. Resident (Former Mayor of Martinez), Mike Menesini .................2-90 2.2.27 Letter No. 27. Resident, Jane Peccianti ..............................................................................2-92 2.2.28 Letter No. 28. Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee ...........................................2-96 2.2.29 Letter No. 29. Resident, Julian Frazer ................................................................................2-99 2.2.30 Letter No. 30. Resident, Alex Brendel ............................................................................. 2-102 2.2.31 Letter No. 31. Resident, Carter Wilson ........................................................................... 2-104 2.2.32 Letter No. 32. Resident, Gwen Monroe .......................................................................... 2-106 2.2.33 Letter No. 33. Southport Land and Commercial Company .................................... 2-114 2.2.34 Letter No. 34. Resident, Harlan Strickland ................................................................... 2-120 2.2.35 Letter No. 35. State Clearinghouse ................................................................................... 2-124 2.2.36 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 36. Founding Chair of Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee, Ray O’Brien ..................................... 2-129 2.2.37 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 37. Vice President of First Villages Consulting, Dean McCleod ....................................................................... 2-130 2.2.38 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 38. Resident, Carol Rose .............................................................................................................................................. 2-130 2.2.39 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 39. Resident, Harlan Strickland ................................................................................................................................... 2-130 2.2.40 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 40. Resident, Julian Frazer ........................................................................................................................................... 2-131 2.2.41 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 41. Resident, Diane Sargent ......................................................................................................................................... 2-132 2.3 Responses to Comments Received After the Public Review Period ............................ 2-133 2.3.1 Letter No. 42. Kristin Henderson ...................................................................................... 2-151 2.3.2 Letter No. 43. Benicia Historical Society, Inc. .............................................................. 2-153 2.3.3 Letter No. 44. Bay Point Historical Society ................................................................... 2-155 2.3.4 Letter No. 45. Architectural Heritage Foundation of Contra Costa County .......................................................................................................................................... 2-161 Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR ........................................................................................ 3-1 Changes to the Draft EIR ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 Changes to the Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 1 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-3 Chapter 2 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-4 Chapter 3 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-4 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1449 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report iii April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Section 3.2 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-4 Chapter 4 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Chapter 5 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Chapter 6 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Chapter 7 Changes............................................................................................................................... 3-7 Appendix D Changes ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 Appendix F ........................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................ 4-1 4.1 Purpose and Need for Monitoring ................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements .............................. 4-1 Chapter 5 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 ICF .................................................................................................................................... 5-1 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1450 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report iv April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Tables 2-1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters Received During the Public Review Period ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters Received After the Public Review Period ............................................................................................................................... 2-2 4-1 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. .................................................................. 4-2 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1451 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contents Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report v April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACMs asbestos containing materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs best management practices CCCPWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR Environmental Impact Report HABS Historic American Building Survey HRER Historical Resources Evaluation Report LBP lead-based paint MMRP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan NOP Notice of Preparation NRHP National Register of Historic Places Project Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1452 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1453 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Document This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of demolishing the Downtown Martinez Jailhouse and constructing an asphalt surface parking lot in its place (Project). The purpose of this document is to provide County decision-makers and the public with information about the Project and its significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR was circulated on March 29, 2016 for public review. The Draft EIR identifies alternatives to the Project that would result in lesser impacts. It also includes substantial mitigation measures that would reduce, but not completely avoid, the significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Technically, the Final EIR consists of two parts: the responses to comments and the Draft EIR. For simplicity, the document you are reading will be called the Final EIR. Both this Final EIR and the Draft EIR will be considered for certification by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors during their deliberations on the Project. The Final EIR document summarizes the process that has occurred to date, presents comments received during the public comment period, provides responses to public comments, provides text changes to the Draft EIR where necessary for clarification or to make minor corrections in response to comments, and presents the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to be included with the Project. This Final EIR contains five chapters.  Chapter 1, Introduction, discusses the purpose of this document, public review process, CEQA requirements, and use of this document.  Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, contains copies of the comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR and the written responses to those comments.  Chapter 3, Text Changes to the DEIR, contains changes to the text of the Draft EIR made in response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR or for purposes of clarification.  Chapter 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, contains the program required by CEQA to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented.  Chapter 5, List of Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared the Draft and Final EIRs. 1.2 Public Review Process CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, CEQA does encourage “wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1454 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 1 Introduction Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 1-2 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Contra Costa County conducted public meetings throughout the environmental review process to help inform its environmental analysis and to determine adequacy. The County distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of intent to prepare a Draft EIR for the Project beginning on November 2, 2015. The scoping period for the EIR was initially scheduled to close on December 2, 2015. At the request of public comments, the scoping period for the EIR was extended and closed on December 16, 2015. Comments on the NOP were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Zoning Administrator conducted a public scoping session on November 16, 2015; there were two public comments on the scope of the EIR. Impacts on historic cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials were the primary environmental issues raised during the meeting. A commenter also requested analysis of an offsite alternative. The Draft EIR was made available for public comment March 29, 2016, and the 45-day public comment period ended on May 12, 2016. A public meeting to accept additional comments and testimony was conducted by the Zoning Administrator on April 18, 2016. There were six public speakers at the public meeting, 35 written comment letters were received during the public comment period, and 4 written comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period. 1.3 CEQA Requirements CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that the Final EIR consist of: a. The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft. b. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. 1.4 Use of this Document This Final EIR will be used by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to decide on the Project and its implementation. The public may use this document to understand the public comments that were received and how the County responded to those comments, as well as changes to the Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1455 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 2 Response to Comments Table 2-1 lists the comment letters received by the County on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) during the public review period and Table 2-2 lists the comment letters received by the County after the close of the public review period. Table 2-1. Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters Received During the Public Review Period Comment Letter Number Commenter Date 1 Bay Point Historical Society April 21, 2016 2 Resident, Gwendolyn Monroe April 27, 2016 3 Residents, Kay Cox and Paul Craig May 3, 2016 4 Pinole Historical Society May 3, 2016 5 Contra Costa County Historical Society May 3, 2016 6 Lafayette Historical Society May 5, 2016 7 Resident, Dolores White May 5, 2016 8 Resident, Dena Zachariah May 6, 2016 9 Resident, Raymond O’Brien May 6, 2016 10 Resident, Bill Sharkey May 8, 2016 11 Residents, Peter and Martha Dragovich May 8, 2016 12 Resident, Jane Borenstein May 9, 2016 13 Concord Historical Society May 10, 2016 14 California Office of Historical Preservation May 10, 2016 15 Resident, David Seawell May 10, 2016 16 Resident, Vickie Dawes May 10, 2016 17 Resident, Elaine Seawell May 10, 2016 18 Resident, Melissa Jacobson May 10, 2016 19 Martinez Historical Society May 10, 2016 20 Resident, Jeanne Jones May 11, 2016 21 Resident, M.K. Carlock May 11, 2016 22 City of Martinez May 11, 2016 23 Resident, Cheryll Grover May 11, 2016 24 Resident, Billy Swain May 11, 2016 25 Resident, John Curtis May 11, 2016 26 Resident (Former Mayor of Martinez), Mike Menesini May 11, 2016 27 Resident, Jane Peccianti May 11, 2016 28 Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee May 12, 2016 29 Resident, Julian Frazer May 12, 2016 30 Resident, Alex Brendel May 12, 2016 31 Resident, Carter Wilson May 12, 2016 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1456 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-2 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment Letter Number Commenter Date 32 Resident, Gwen Monroe May 12, 2016 33 Southport Land and Commercial Company May 12, 2016 34 Resident, Harlan Strickland May 12, 2016 35 State Clearinghouse May 13, 2016 36 Founding Chair of Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee, Ray O’Brien (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 37 Vice President of First Villages of Consulting, Dean McCleod (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 38 Resident, Carol Rose (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 39 Resident, Harlan Strickland (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 40 Resident, Julian Frazer (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 41 Resident, Diane Sargent (Zoning Administrator’s Meeting) April 18, 2016 Table 2-2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letters Received After the Public Review Period Comment Letter Number Commenter Date 42 Kristin Henderson June 22, 2016 43 Benicia Historical Society, Inc. June 23, 2016 44 Bay Point Historical Society July 13, 2016 45 Architectural Heritage Foundation of Contra Costa County November 10, 2016 Many of the comment letters addressed common issues, specifically the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, impacts on historical resources, whether the Draft EIR should analyze the future construction of a new building at the Project site, and consistency with plans, policies, and regulations. Five common responses were developed for these issues and are provided in Section 2.1.1, Alternatives, Section 2.1.2, Historical Resources, Section 2.1.3, Future Uses at the Project Site, and Section 2.1.4, Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations. The common responses are followed by responses to the specific comment letters, which are ordered by letter number and comment number. 2.1 Common Responses 2.1.1 Common Responses Regarding Alternatives The following common responses address the comments related to alternatives. Common Response 1 addresses comments about the range of alternatives presented in the Draft EIR. Common Response 2 addresses comments about additional alternatives that could be considered in the analysis. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1457 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.1.1.1 Common Response 1 – Range of Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft EIR Comments were received that the range of alternatives was not adequate and some commenters had questions about or disagreed with the rejection of some of the alternatives that were considered for analysis in the Draft EIR, but rejected, as discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Draft EIR Alternatives Development As explained on page 4-1 of the Draft EIR, according to Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project. Accordingly, alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of a project do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Additionally, the State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of a No Project Alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of project approval with the impacts of not approving the project. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative. An EIR is not required to present the alternatives analysis at the same level of detail as the assessment of the project, and it is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making. Pursuant to the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the County developed a list of potential alternatives to the Project that would reduce the identified significant impacts of the Project while also meeting the majority of Project objectives. This process is described in Section 4.1, Alternatives Development and Screening Criteria, and Section 4.2, Alternatives Considered, of the Draft EIR. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historical resources and significant or potentially significant impacts that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation measures related to cultural resources, hazards, noise, and bats. Alternatives were developed that would reduce the impacts associated with the Project. The following five alternatives are presented in detail in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.  Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative  Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative  Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative  Off-Site Alternative, which included assessment of the viability of a specific alternative site suggested by a member of the public during the scoping process  Relocation Alternative Screening as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Draft EIR resulted in the Off-Site Alternative and the Relocation Alternative being dropped from consideration in the Draft EIR. The alternatives analysis proceeded with Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. A summary of the reasons why the Off-Site Alternative and the Relocation Alternative were not further considered in the EIR follows. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1458 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-4 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Alternatives Considered but Rejected As described on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the Draft EIR, the following two alternatives were dismissed from analysis: Off-Site Alternative and Relocation Alternative. There are no offsite alternatives that are feasible and that would reduce the impacts associated with the Project. Nonetheless, the Off-Site Alternative was suggested by a member of the public during the scoping process and was considered in the Draft EIR. A number of commenters stated that one or both of these alternatives should be implemented to reduce impacts on historical resources. Information is provided in Section 4.2.6, Alternatives Dismissed from Analysis, of the Draft EIR supporting the Draft EIR’s findings that neither of these alternatives would be feasible. As stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), factors that may be considered when a lead agency is assessing the feasibility of an alternative include: . . . site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). Some commenters agreed with the findings that the Off-Site Alternative and the Relocation Alternative would be infeasible and some did not. Substantial evidence is presented on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the Draft EIR to support the findings of the Draft EIR. The Off-Site Alternative was dismissed from the alternatives analysis for the following reasons.  It would not to meet any of the Project objectives.  It would not reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building.  It would replace a compatible and functional structure with a parking lot in the civic center area.  The Contra Costa County Administration building location, which was suggested as an alternative site, is not vacant and is currently being used for a wide variety of County government administrative and public uses. The Relocation Alternative was dismissed from the alternatives analysis for the following reasons.  Relocation would be infeasible because of the lack of an available vacant site and because of the nature of the structure.  Relocation would result in the loss of the historical character of the building because the building would no longer be able to convey its significance as a cultural resource in a new location and because the loss of materials caused by dismantling, relocating, and reinstalling the building would be detrimental. It is important to note that the alternatives, as presented, are examples of potentially feasible alternatives that would reduce the impacts of the Project, could meet some of the Project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.” The Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document. It provides the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and the general public with enough information to make knowledgeable decisions regarding the environmental impacts of the Project as April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1459 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 well as information regarding its potential alternatives. The decision to approve all or portions of the proposed alternatives to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts, while rejecting alternatives that are deemed to be infeasible, is made at the discretion of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 2.1.1.2 Common Response 2 – Suggested Additional Alternatives Not Analyzed in the Draft EIR Some commenters suggested additional alternatives that could be considered in the analysis in the EIR. The discussion below addresses these suggested additional alternatives. Adaptive Reuse for other Uses Commenters suggested consideration of an alternative that converts the Jailhouse building to a variety of other uses, including an art center, space for movie filming, music venue, museum, a space similar to the San Francisco Ferry Building, or (more generally) for use by private or civic entities. These suggestions differ only slightly from one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, in that rehabilitated structure would not provide for government office use, but for other uses instead. Similar to the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, these suggested alternatives would only meet portions of Project objectives. In particular, this alternative would reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, and allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. This alternative would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to historical resources identified for the Project that are not already reduced by the other alternatives considered in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the impacts related to historical resources under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would be less than under the Project. Therefore, because consideration of a different end use in an adaptive reuse alternative would not be substantially different from Alternative 2, consideration of these alternatives is not required to achieve a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters’ suggestions are included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Sell Building to Allow for Adaptive Reuse and Construct Parking Structure Off-Site Alternative Some commenters suggested consideration of an alternative that allows for the sale of the building to an investor or nonprofit organization that would restore and repurpose the building. This alternative would involve the construction of a parking structure at a different location. It is assumed that this alternative would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. Thus, this alternative is similar to the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, under which the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SIS). Because this alternative would not be substantially different from Alternative 2, consideration of this alternative is not required to achieve a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters’ suggestions are included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1460 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-6 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Façade Wall Preservation Alternative Some commenters suggested consideration of an alternative that preserves a façade wall, erects a plinth and column, or retains the rock edifice as part of any new building constructed on the Project site. As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historical architectural resources. Demolition of an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 prevents the resource from conveying its historical significance and justification for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) and eligibility for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, as presented on page 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, would reduce the significant impact related to the adverse change in significance of a historical resource to some extent. Under Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the county would prepare materials for public interpretation and identify building components that would be appropriate for use in public spaces, respectively. Therefore, an alternative that includes preservation of a façade wall or similar element, and which would include the demolition of the Jailhouse building, would not avoid any significant impacts, and consideration of the suggested alternative is not required to achieve a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters’ suggestions are included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Additional Consideration of Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative Commenters suggested three variations on the alternative that consists of demolishing the newer portion of the Jailhouse building and pursuing adaptive reuse of the 1903 portion of the structure.  Partial Demolition and Installation of Landscaping Alternative. One commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that demolishes the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and retains the original structure built in 1903. Landscaping and hardscaping would be constructed in the current location of the annex.  Partial Demolition and Stabilization of Original Structure Alternative. One commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that demolishes the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and retains the original structure built in 1903. This alternative would not rehabilitate the original structure. Instead, it would stabilize the original structure while the County considers adaptive reuse or demolition options. This alternative would not meet the basic Project objectives. As explained on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, a key Project objective is to reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. An alternative that preserves the original structure built in 1903 without addressing the building’s hazardous materials would not meet this Project objective.  Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative 2. One commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that constructs a two-tiered garage rather than a surface parking lot in the current location of the annex. This alternative would rehabilitate the original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. These suggestions differ only slightly from one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building, in that the reuse would be different than the reuse described in Alternative 3. Therefore, because consideration of a April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1461 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 different end use in an adaptive reuse alternative would not be substantially different from Alternative 3, consideration of these alternatives is not required to achieve a reasonable range of alternatives. The commenters’ suggestions are included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Further Consideration of Off-Site Alternatives One commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that installs short-term parking in the parking lot associated with the Contra Costa County Administration building and preserves the existing building. Another commenter suggested a similar alternative that constructs surface parking on a site where the Gazette building was recently demolished. This alternative would not meet the basic Project objectives. As explained on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, a key Project objective is to reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. An alternative that preserves the existing building without addressing the building’s hazardous materials would not meet this Project objective. Another commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that constructs multi-tiered garages on existing paved parking areas or on parcels with abandoned County substandard buildings. This alternative would not rehabilitate the original structure. Instead, it would stabilize the original structure while the County considers adaptive reuse or demolition options. Another commenter suggested a similar alternative, which would construct a centrally located parking garage, possibly on an existing surface parking lot bounded by Marina Vista Avenue, Escobar Street, Ferry Street, and the Contra Costa Community College District property. This alternative would not meet the basic Project objectives. As explained on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, a key Project objective is to reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building. An alternative that preserves the existing building, without addressing the building’s hazardous materials, would not meet this Project objective. One commenter suggested consideration of an alternative that relocates the Jailhouse building to County-owned parking lots in the vicinity of the Project site. It is assumed that this alternative would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building and construct a surface parking lot at the Project site. This alternative would not meet the basic Project objectives. As explained on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, a key Project objective is to meet near-term parking needs in the area. An alternative that relocates the Jailhouse building to existing parking lots would reduce the amount of parking in the area; therefore, the alternative would not meet this Project objective. In addition, this alternative (similar to the Relocation Alternative that was determined to be infeasible in the Draft EIR), would have a negative impact on the building’s integrity of location. Even if modifications to the Jailhouse building were conducted in compliance with the SIS, the building would most likely no longer convey its significance as a cultural resource in a new location, based on guidance provided by the National Park Service. This alternative would not reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project that are not already reduced by the other alternatives considered in Chapter 4. 2.1.1.3 Common Response 3 – Historical Resources The following common response addresses the comments related to concerns about the analysis of historical resources impacts in the Draft EIR. Some commenters stated that the historical resource significance of the Jailhouse building was not adequately addressed and stated that the proposed April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1462 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-8 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 mitigation measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2) would not reduce the potential impact of the Project. The regulatory and environmental setting for cultural resources is provided in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. In addition, Section 3.2 includes a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation measures for significant impacts, where feasible and appropriate. As stated on page 3.2-6 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan area and Historic Overlay District. The Historic Overlay District includes several historic civic buildings that are individually listed on the NRHP, including the Jailhouse building, as part of the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block. The Jailhouse building is a contributing feature to the Downtown Martinez Historic District, as a County-owned building, it is not subject to the City of Martinez Code of Ordinances. As stated on page 3.2-8, the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) in Appendix D to the Draft EIR identifies and evaluates the historical significance of the Jailhouse building to recommend whether the property is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA. The description of the historical context of the existing Jailhouse building, which consists of the original structure completed in 1903 and the annex built in 1944, on pages 3.2-8 through 3.2-10 is based on the HRER. The HRER concluded that the Jailhouse building, including granite curbing, appears to be significant under NRHP Criterion A, B, and C and is an historical resource for the purpose of CEQA. Although the 1944 annex was not considered a contributing element when the NRHP listing was written in 1989, the annex has become eligible for consideration now that is more than 50 years old. As described in the Draft EIR under Impact CUL-1, the demolition of the Jailhouse building, which is eligible for listing on the CRHR, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historical resource, on the limited historical resources within the Martinez Historic Overlay District, and on the NRHP-listed Contra Costa County Courthouse Block (National Register Information System Reference #89002113, listed 1989), which includes the Jailhouse building and former County Courthouse (i.e., current Finance building). Demolition of an historical resource prevents the resource from conveying its historical significance. The demolition of an historical resource would result in a significant, unavoidable impact. Likewise, the thresholds for determining impacts provided on pages 3.2-11 and 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR, and by reference to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, establish that demolition of those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify it for inclusion in the CRHR is an action that would have a significant effect on the environment. Because demolition would result in there being no Jailhouse building, there would be nothing remaining to convey the building’s historical significance. Thus, demolition of the Jailhouse building would result in a significant impact. The discussion in the Draft EIR is succinct because demolition is widely recognized as a project activity that results in significant impact, and, thus, extensive discussion is unnecessary. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require that the County record the Jailhouse building following National Park Service Guidelines for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. Public interpretation based on information from the HABS documentation will be used to convey the historical significance of the building in formats that may include street-side sign panels and exhibits in nearby County or historical society venues. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require a plan for the reuse of salvaged components of the Jailhouse building in public spaces. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the impact related to an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1463 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 would serve to reduce this impact in ways that are consistent with good-faith efforts to retain aspects of the historical resource’s heritage value and materiality for public use. In response to various comments, the Draft EIR has been revised as described below to clarify the discussion of potential impacts of the Project on historical architectural resources. The following paragraph has been added after the bullet list on page 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR: As summarized in the Setting section above, extensive background research, field review, and analysis has been conducted to identify cultural resources within the Project site or within the Project study area that have the potential to be impacted by the Project. The methods for analyzing impacts include analyzing the Project’s potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of resources located within the Project site through physical disturbance of archaeological resources or human remains during construction and other ground-disturbing activities, to physically alter historical structures or buildings, or to add or remove features that would disrupt historic districts. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), analysis of whether such activities would result in a substantial adverse change to the resource considered whether physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings would materially impair the significance of the resource by adversely altering those characteristics that convey its historical significance and justify it for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. The first full paragraph on page 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows: The Jailhouse building and Courthouse Block are historical resources under CEQA that would be affected by the Project. The demolition of the Jailhouse building, which is eligible for listing on the CRHR, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource, on the limited historic resources within the Martinez Historic Overlay District, substantial adverse change to the Jailhouse building as an individually eligible property, and on the NRHP-listed Contra Costa County Courthouse Block (NRIS Reference #89002113, listed 1989), which is a district that includes the Jailhouse and former County Courthouse (i.e., current Finance building). Demolition of an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 prevents the resource from conveying its historical significanceand justification for inclusion in the NRHP and eligibility for CRHR. Therefore, demolition would undermine justification for inclusion of the Jailhouse building in the NRHP and of eligibility for CRHR by destroying all of the character-defining features that express the building’s historical associations. Demolition of the Jailhouse building would also disrupt the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block by removing one of the components of that multi-component district. Because the Project would demolish the Jailhouse building and impair the Courthouse Block, it would result in a significant impact. The demolition is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. This impact would be significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would serve to reduce the impact to some extent but not to a less than significant impact not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, they would reduce the impact in ways that are consistent with good-faith efforts to retain aspects of the historical resource’s heritage value and materiality for public use. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 2.1.2 Common Response 4 – Future Uses at the Project Site The following common response addresses the comments related to concerns about the analysis of future uses at the Project site in the Draft EIR. Some commenters stated that the potential impacts of the construction of a new building at the Project site should be analyzed in the Draft EIR. As indicated on pages ES-3 and ES-4 in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR to reflect the progress of the County’s planning efforts for replacement of the County Administration Building, a commenter on the Notice April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1464 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-10 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 of Preparation (NOP), similar to this commenter, suggested that the Draft EIR analyze what the commenter suggests would be “the whole of the action,” including the future construction of a new building at the Project site: This EIR analyzes the whole of the project as it is known at this time. In 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. The Board of Supervisors identified a preferred location for the County administrative buildings (the parking lots between Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue) as well as an alternate location (on the hill along Arnold Drive before the intersection with Pacheco Boulevard).1 2 At the same time, Board of Supervisors authorized KMD Architects, a consulting firm working with the County’s Capital Projects Management Division on projects throughout downtown Martinez, to conduct additional design services for the new Contra Costa County Administration building. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. As described in Chapter 2, a potential future use of the Project site if the Jailhouse building were removed would be for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at the Project site. Therefore, no further details are known at this time regarding what structures might be planned and constructed at the site. State CEQA Guidelines Article 10, Section 15145 states that if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the court noted that where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Because future development is unspecified for this Project site, it would be speculative to attempt to determine potential impacts of an unknown future use. Therefore, the unknown future use is not considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, nor will this future potential action change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not analyze the impacts of construction or operation of such a potential future use. At the time that such construction is planned, further environmental review under CEQA would be required. Based on the above, the “whole of the action” (the demolition of the existing Jailhouse building and the construction of a new surface parking lot on the site) is adequately analyzed in the Draft EIR and no analysis of the potential future use of the Project site is required. Since issuance of the NOP for the Project in 2015, the County has developed conceptual approaches to constructing a new government center complex. Recently, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. Contra Costa County has determined that retaining the structure is economically infeasible; however, the County will consider appropriate reuse proposals. If no appropriate reuse is identified, then it would be 1 David Twa. County Administrator. Addressed to Board of Supervisors. Subject: Accept Report on New Administration Building, New Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building and Confirm Guidance Given at Board Retreat. February 7, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=28595&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. 2 Capital Facilities Plan: Administration Building, Public Safety Building & EOC. January 31, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170207_876/28595_Presentation%202017-01-31%20CCC.pdf. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1465 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 necessary to demolish the structure in order to avoid the health and social impacts of the structure remaining in a vacant and hazardous state and not contributing to the achievement of the County and City’s goals for a well-planned, functional, civic center in Downtown Martinez. 2.1.3 Common Response 5 – Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations The following common response addresses the comments related to concerns about the consistency of the Project with County and City plans, policies, and regulations. According to the definition of “local agency” in Government Code Section 53090, the County is not considered a “local agency” for purposes of that specific code section and, thus, the requirement in Section 53091 to comply with all applicable building ordinances and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which the territory of the local agency is situated is not applicable to the Project. That is, because the Project site is County-owned property and because the County is not subject to the requirements in Government Code Section 53091, activities on the Project site are not required to comply with City of Martinez zoning ordinances or regulations, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091, as indicated on page 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Thus, Section 3.6, Other Topics, of the Draft EIR includes an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the County’s land use plans, policies, and regulations. As stated on page 3.6-19 in Section 3.6, Other Topics, of the Draft EIR: The Project site is on County-owned property and the Project would not be required to comply with the City’s land use policies and regulations. The County’s general plan designated the site as Public/Semi-Public, which applies to properties owned by public governmental agencies. With implementation of the Project, the Project site would continue to be County-owned property and would provide parking for surrounding County government buildings. The Project is consistent with the existing land use designations and zoning, and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The determinations of general plan consistency will be made by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The finding of general plan consistency does not require that a project be entirely consistent with each individual general plan policy. A proposed project can be generally consistent with a general plan, even if it does not promote every applicable goal and policy. Based on the above and as concluded in the Draft EIR, the Project’s impacts related to conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation would be less than significant. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1466 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-12 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1467 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1468 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-14 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.1 Letter No. 1. Bay Point Historical Society 2.2.1.1 Response to Letter No. 1 Comment #1 The Bay Point Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. . April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1469 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1470 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-16 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1471 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-17 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1472 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-18 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.2 Letter No. 2. Resident, Gwendolyn Monroe 2.2.2.1 Response to Letter No. 2 Comment #1 Adaptive reuse of the structure is evaluated in Alternatives 2 and 3, which are analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Under Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. Under Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building, the County would demolish the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Comment #2 The Draft EIR presents an objective assessment of the Jailhouse building’s historic value in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Comment #3 As indicated on page 3.2-8 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the HRER in Appendix D of the Draft EIR identifies and evaluates the historical significance of the Jailhouse building to determine whether the property is an historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The description and analysis in Section 3.2 is based on the HRER, which serves as the objective assessment of the Jailhouse building’s historical significance, including findings that the Jailhouse appears to be significant under NRHP Criterion A, B, and C and conclusion that the Jailhouse is an historical resource for the purpose of CEQA. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Comments #4 and #5 The decision makers will be required to weigh the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as well as other factors, including cost, in making the final decision on the Project. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #6 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1473 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-19 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1474 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-20 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.3 Letter No. 3. Residents, Kay Cox and Paul Craig 2.2.3.1 Response to Letter No. 3 Comment #1 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including those suggested in this comment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1475 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-21 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1476 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-22 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.4 Letter. No. 4. Pinole Historical Society 2.2.4.1 Response to Letter No. 4 Comment #1 The Pinole Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1477 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-23 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1478 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-24 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1479 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-25 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.5 Letter No. 5. Contra Costa County Historical Society 2.2.5.1 Response to Letter No. 5 Comment #1 The Contra Costa Historical Society states that the building should be preserved if at all possible. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternative suggested in this comment. Comment #3 The Contra Costa Historical Society requests access to the building to photograph the interior and artifacts. As presented on page 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the County to record the Jailhouse building following National Park Service Guidelines for HABS documentation. This record will include large-format black and white or digitized photography, captions, and thorough written documentation of the historical context and description of the building for submission to local historical repositories, including the Contra Costa County Library in Martinez. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1480 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-26 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1481 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-27 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.6 Letter No. 6. Lafayette Historical Society 2.2.6.1 Response to Letter No. 6 Comment #1 The Lafayette Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1482 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-28 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1483 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-29 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.7 Letter No. 7. Resident, Dolores White 2.2.7.1 Response to Letter No. 7 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1484 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-30 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1485 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-31 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.8 Letter No. 8. Resident, Dena Zachariah 2.2.8.1 Response to Letter No. 8 Comment #1 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternative suggested in this comment. Comment #2 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1486 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-32 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1487 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-33 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1488 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-34 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1489 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-35 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1490 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-36 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.9 Letter No. 9. Resident, Raymond O’Brien 2.2.9.1 Response to Letter No. 9 Comment #1 The commenter notes the findings of the Draft EIR regarding the impact of the Project on historical resources. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Comments #3 and #4 This comment discusses the context of the jail structure. The EIR discusses the physical context and the relationship of the Courthouse and Jail in Section 3.2.2.6 of the Draft EIR. The portion of this comment that states more justification for demolition is needed is addressed in Section 5.3 in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 5-8 in Chapter 5: Contra Costa County has over 200 facilities to operate and maintain. The Public Works Department is responsible for operating and maintaining these facilities. As part of the administration of the County facility portfolio, Public Works is responsible for identifying and highlighting vacant or underutilized County-owned buildings for potential disposition. Because the Jailhouse building is long-vacant, contains hazardous materials including lead and asbestos, is no longer used or needed for the purpose for which it was constructed, and would not be viable for a different use, the building has been recommended for demolition rather than future County use. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Comment #6 Please see Common Response 3 for a discussion and clarification of the Project’s effects on the historic district. As noted in in Common Response 3, additional detail has been added to EIR to provide greater context regarding the nature of the historical resources. Comment #7 The commenter states that Mitigation Measure CUL-2 should not be considered. This comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1491 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-37 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #8 The comment is stated to be directed at the visual impacts analysis, but the issue of the effects of visual changes on historic character are addressed in the EIR in Sections 3.2.2.6 and Impact CUL-1. In addition, please see Common Response 3 for additional information on this topic. Comment #9 The comment states that historic resources are not a part of cultural resources and therefore were not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. For the purposes of CEQA, which may use terms differently than they are used in other contexts, “cultural resources” includes both archaeological resources and historic resources. (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Comment #10 Please see Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR and Common Response 3 for a discussion and further explanation regarding the screening of Project alternatives. In addition, please see Response to Comments Nos. 9-3 and 9-4 for a discussion of the reasons that the Jailhouse building has been recommended for demolition rather than future County use. For the Jailhouse building to be viable for a different use, the County would need to rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. Thus, extensive modifications would be required, as analyzed under the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative. Comment #11 The commenter states that the Project should not be implemented and supports Alternatives 2 and 3. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1492 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-38 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1493 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-39 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1494 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-40 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1495 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-41 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1496 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-42 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.10 Letter No. 10. Resident, Bill Sharkey 2.2.10.1 Response to Letter No. 10 Comment #1 The commenter asks what will be done with the site once the Jailhouse building is demolished. As stated on page 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the parking lot would be constructed as a near-term use. Please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. Comment #2 Alternatives to demolition were considered in the Draft EIR, and presentation and analysis of these alternatives is provided in Chapter 4, Alternatives. Comment #3 The final decision on this Project will be made by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1497 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-43 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1498 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-44 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.11 Letter No. 11. Residents, Peter and Martha Dragovich 2.2.11.1 Response to Letter No. 11 Comment #1 The commenters express support for approving Alternative 1 –No Project Alternative and Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1499 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-45 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1500 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-46 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.12 Letter No. 12. Resident, Jane Borenstein 2.2.12.1 Response to Letter No. 12 Comment #1 The commenter expresses support for approving one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR rather than the Project. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternative suggested in this comment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1501 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-47 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1502 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-48 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.13 Letter No. 13. Concord Historical Society 2.2.13.1 Response to Letter No. 13 Comment #1 The Concord Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1503 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-49 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1504 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-50 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1505 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-51 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.14 Letter No. 14. California Office of Historic Preservation 2.2.14.1 Response to Letter No. 14 Comment #1 The Office of Historic Preservation states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 The Office of Historic Preservation expresses support for approving one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #3 The County Public Works Department mailed copies of the NOP to interested parties, local agencies, and other interested stakeholders (including the City of Martinez) on November 2, 2015. The City of Martinez submitted a comment in response to the NOP that identified the City’s concerns related to the Project Description; alternatives analysis; impacts on the historic district, historic overlay district, and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan; and hazardous materials. The County considered the City’s concerns about the scope of the Draft EIR and addressed those concerns throughout the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was distributed to the City of Martinez on March 29, 2016 in response to the City’s request to be consulted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21153. A general presentation was made to the City Council by the County Public Works Department on April 6, 2016 regarding projects in Downtown Martinez and the Project was briefly discussed. In addition, as indicated on page 1-3 in Chapter 1, Introduction, a public hearing to receive additional comments, which City representatives could have attended, was conducted on April 18, 2016. The County Public Works Department will comply with the remainder of the CEQA procedural requirements. The City of Martinez submitted a comment letter on the Draft EIR (Letter No. 22), which is included in the Final EIR. Responses to the City’s comments are included in Responses to Comments Nos. 22-1 through 22-6. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1506 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-52 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1507 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-53 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.15 Letter No. 15. Resident, David Seawell 2.2.15.1 Response to Letter No. 15 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 As stated on page 5-8 in Chapter 5: Contra Costa County has over 200 facilities to operate and maintain. The Public Works Department is responsible for operating and maintaining these facilities. As part of the administration of the County facility portfolio, Public Works is responsible for identifying and highlighting vacant or underutilized County-owned buildings for potential disposition. Because the Jailhouse building is long-vacant, contains hazardous materials including lead and asbestos, is no longer used or needed for the purpose for which it was constructed, and would not be viable for a different use, the building has been recommended for demolition rather than future County use. Comment #3 The commenter express support for approving Alternative 1 –No Project Alternative. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1508 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-54 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1509 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-55 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.16 Letter No. 16. Resident, Vickie Dawes 2.2.16.1 Response to Letter No. 16 Comment #1 The commenter expresses support for approving one of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR rather than the Project. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1510 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-56 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1511 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-57 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.17 Letter No. 17. Resident, Elaine Seawell 2.2.17.1 Response to Letter No. 17 Comments #1 – #3 Please see responses to Letter No. 15. Letter 17 consists of the entire text of Letter No. 15. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1512 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-58 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1513 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-59 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1514 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-60 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1515 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-61 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.18 Letter No. 18. Resident, Melissa Jacobson 2.2.18.1 Response to Letter No. 18 Comments #1 – #5 The commenter states that the Project should not be approved. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1516 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-62 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1517 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-63 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1518 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-64 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1519 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-65 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1520 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-66 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.19 Letter No. 19. Martinez Historical Society 2.2.19.1 Response to Letter No. 19 Comment #1 This comment correctly states that one of the Project objectives is to reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building, as stated on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. This comment also correctly states that the Project would increase short-term impacts associated with hazardous materials within the Jailhouse building, including asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP), compared with existing conditions. As indicated on page 3.3-10 in Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, During demolition of the Jailhouse building, workers and the public could be exposed to hazardous building materials if they were not abated prior to demolition. Before performing demolition activities at the Project site, the County Public Works Department would perform a comprehensive building materials survey for ACMs, LBP, electrical equipment containing PCBs, and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors and lights and would identify the applicable construction worker health and safety regulations for materials removal. All disposal would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state standards, including the Cal-OSHA and BAAQMD regulations. The Project contractor would be required by the County to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an approved facility. Nonetheless, construction workers could be exposed to hazardous materials. This impact would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and HAZ-4, this would be a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. Regarding the portion of this comment that states the proposed parking lot would not be a long-term benefit, as stated on page 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the parking lot would be constructed as a near-term use. The Project objectives are listed on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR; modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR; and reprinted below in Response to Comment No. 19-6. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives. The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Comment #2 Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comment #3 This comment correctly states that one of the Project objectives is to implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez, as stated on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1521 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-67 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #4 Please see Common Response 4 for a discussion of the modifications to the Draft EIR to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings. As a result of these modifications, the facilitation of future development of required space for County government administrative uses is no longer a Project objective. In addition, please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. Comment #5 Please see Response to Comment No. 19-4. Comment #6 This comment states that the Project objectives are to demolish the building to construct 10 to 15 parking spaces. The Project objectives are listed on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR; modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR; and reprinted below. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives. The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. In addition, the number of parking spaces provided is presented on page 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and, in total, the Project would provide a total of 25 to 30 parking spaces for existing County employees, including the 12 existing spaces. Please see Response to Comments Nos. 19-7 and 19-8 for additional detail on the number of parking spaces. The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The County’s objectives for the Project are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Comments #7 and #8 As stated on page 4-3 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would not include the construction of a parking lot, and the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would include the construction of a parking lot with approximately 15 spaces in the current location of the annex. Thus, the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative would result in approximately 15 more parking spaces than the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative. In addition, under the Project, approximately 10 to 15 parking spaces would be constructed in the current location of the 1903 portion of the building, and approximately 15 spaces would be constructed in the current location of the annex. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1522 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-68 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comment #9 Balancing costs and benefits is an element of the decision to be made by the County Board of Supervisors. However, the EIR is required to disclose the physical effects on the environment, and not costs and benefits. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #10 As noted on page 4-3 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, this alternative was suggested by a member of the public at the scoping meeting for the EIR, and that is the reason it is considered in the Draft EIR. As noted on page 4-3, this alternative would not be viable. Comment #11 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1523 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-69 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1524 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-70 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.20 Letter No. 20. Resident, Jeanne Jones 2.2.20.1 Response to Letter No. 20 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1525 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-71 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1526 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-72 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1527 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-73 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1528 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-74 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.21 Letter No. 21. Resident, M.K. Carlock 2.2.21.1 Response to Letter No. 21 Comment #1 Please see Response to Comment No. 9-1 for a response to this comment, as the two comments are substantially similar. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Comment #3 Please see Response to Comment No. 9-3 for a response to this comment, as the two comments are the same. Comment #4 Please see Response to Comment No. 9-4 for a response to this comment, as the two comments are the same. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Comment #6 Please see Response to Comment No. 9-8 for a response to this comment, as the two comments are the same. Comments #7, #8, #9, and #10 Please see Responses to Comments Nos. 9-9, 9-10, and 9-11 for responses to these comments, as the comments are substantially the same. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1529 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-75 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1530 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-76 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1531 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-77 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.22 Letter No. 22. City of Martinez 2.2.22.1 Response to Letter No. 22 Comment #1 The City of Martinez expresses its willingness to work with the County to develop a plan for the County’s Civic Center Plaza and suggests putting off a decision on the Project until that has been completed. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 3 for a discussion and clarification of the Project’s effects on the historic district. As noted in Common Response 3, additional detail has been added to EIR to provide greater context regarding the nature of the historic resources. Comment #3 As stated on page 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR: Because the Project site is County-owned property, activities on the Project site are not required to comply with City of Martinez zoning ordinances or regulations, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091. Regarding cultural resources, the regulatory setting discussion on pages 3.2-4 and 3.2-5 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR references the City of Martinez Code of Ordinances’ Downtown Historic Overlay District, which describes the City’s provisions for the preservation of NRHP and CRHR buildings, establishing design review for the rehabilitation of structures in the historic overlay district, and establishing incentives for preservation. Thus, sufficient local regulatory context is included in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR to support the analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on historical resources. Comment #4 The commenter states the mitigation measures applicable to the Project are not similarly applied to Alternative 3 - Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building. The discussion of Alternative 3 found on pages 4-12 through 4-16 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR specifically notes when mitigation measures applicable to the Project are also applicable to this alternative. For example, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, GHG-1, BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, CUL-5, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4, NOI-1 would apply to both the Project and Alternative 3. In addition, this alternative would implement standard mitigation measures to reduce the risk to Jailhouse building employees and visitors who would be exposed to long-term risk from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. The Project would not be required to implement the standard mitigation measures because it would not include any structures. This comment states the assumptions related to Alternative 3 do not appear to be totally reasonable, and provides as an example light and glare. The assumptions about what Alternative 3 would include are presented on page 4-3 and are explicitly presented in the environmental analysis of April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1532 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-78 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Alternative 3 in Section 4.3.3 of the Draft EIR. Alternative 3 would result in substantial activity at the Project site as a part of reuse activities. For this reason, operational impacts would be greater than for the Project. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternative suggested in this comment. The Draft EIR indicates on page 4-3 in Chapter 4 that the granite curb that separates the existing parking lot south of the Jailhouse building from the sidewalk and the sunken garage would be demolished under the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative. The demolition of this portion of the granite curb would be necessary for the construction of the proposed driveway off Pine Street and the proposed parking lot in the current location of the annex. The Project also includes demolition of these features, as described on page 2-3 in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR. Comment #6 Standards and applicable regulations are presented in Section 3.3.1 of the Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1533 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-79 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1534 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-80 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1535 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-81 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1536 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-82 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1537 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-83 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.23 Letter No. 23. Resident, Cheryll Grover 2.2.23.1 Response to Letter No. 23 Comments #1 – #4 The comment states that restoration of the building should occur. Adaptive reuse, considered as Alternative 2 in the EIR, would be a form of restoration. Comment #5 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #6 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Please see Responses to Comment Nos. 19-1 and 19-6 regarding parking. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comment #7 The commenter notes that the demolition of the Jailhouse would result in a significant unavoidable impact, as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Comment #8 The Project would increase short-term impacts associated with hazardous materials within the Jailhouse building, including ACMs and lead-based paint LBP, compared with existing conditions. Please see Response to Comment No. 19-1 regarding potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts and mitigation measures. Comment #9 Please see Responses to Comments Nos. 23-6 and 23-7 for a response to this comment. Comment #10 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #11 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1538 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-84 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #12 Please see Common Response 1 regarding alternatives development and screening and Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #13 Impacts during demolition and construction are addressed on page 3.5-6 of the Draft EIR, in Section 3.5, Transportation and Traffic. In addition, as indicated on page 3.5-7 of the Draft EIR, under Impact TRA-6, regular bus service provided by County Connection would continue as usual throughout demolition and after the Project is completed. Amtrak train service would not be affected by construction or operation of the Project. During demolition and construction, the sidewalks on the Project site would be closed. However, the Project would not directly obstruct roadways, sidewalks, or other public ways without a permit. With respect to the adjacent Finance building, the Project contractor would also provide barricades and covered walkways to all entrances and exits affected by Project demolition and construction. Comment #14 Chapter 1 of this Final EIR presents information on the public outreach and coordination process for this Project. In addition, please see Response to Comment No. 14-3 for a summary of specific outreach to the City of Martinez. . April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1539 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-85 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1540 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-86 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.24 Letter No. 24. Resident, Billy Swain 2.2.24.1 Response to Letter No. 24 Comment #1 As noted on page 4-3 of the Draft EIR, an alternative that would include this was suggested by a member of the public at the scoping meeting for the EIR and analyzed in the EIR. Comment #2 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1541 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-87 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1542 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-88 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.25 Letter No. 25. Resident, John Curtis 2.2.25.1 Response to Letter No. 25 Comment #1 The commenter expresses support for a modified version of Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #2 Please see Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1543 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-89 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1544 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-90 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.26 Letter No. 26. Resident (Former Mayor of Martinez), Mike Menesini 2.2.26.1 Response to Letter No. 26 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1545 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-91 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1546 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-92 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.27 Letter No. 27. Resident, Jane Peccianti 2.2.27.1 Response to Letter No. 27 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1547 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-93 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1548 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-94 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1549 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-95 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1550 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-96 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.28 Letter No. 28. Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee 2.2.28.1 Response to Letter No. 28 Comment #1 This comment correctly states that the Contra Costa County Historic Resource Inventory description for the “County Court House,” as named in the inventory is vague and does not indicate inclusion of the Jailhouse building as a component of the listed property with the degree of clarity provided in the NRHP listing for the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block. The HRER in Attachment D of the Draft EIR includes an evaluation of CRHR eligibility for the Jailhouse building. This analysis led to a conclusion that the Jailhouse is eligible and is an historical resource under CEQA, which is adequate substantial evidence upon which to base the Draft EIR impacts analysis and conclusion. Based on additional information provided in this letter, the Draft EIR has been revised as described below. The last paragraph on page 3.2-8, which continues to page 3.2-9, of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows: The 19th century structures were replaced by the existing district – Courthouse building, Jailhouse building, and granite curbing – recognized by the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block NRHP listing and the County Courthouse Block listing in the Contra Costa County Historic Resource Inventory. The sentence below in the first full paragraph on page 5-1 in Appendix D of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows: The 19th century structures were replaced by the existing district – Courthouse building, Jailhouse building, and granite curbing – recognized by the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block NRHP listing and the County Courthouse Block listing in the Contra Costa County Historic Resource Inventory. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1551 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-97 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1552 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-98 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1553 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-99 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.29 Letter No. 29. Resident, Julian Frazer 2.2.29.1 Response to Letter No. 29 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. Comment #3 The commenter is correct, and the same conclusion is made on page 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Please see Common Response 3 for further explanation. Comment #4 The commenter is correct, and the alternatives development and screening complied with this requirement, as described on pages 4-1 through 4-4 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Please see Common Response 1 for further explanation. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 3 for a discussion and clarification of the Project’s effects on the historic district. As noted in Common Response 3, additional detail has been added to EIR to provide greater context regarding the nature of the historic resources. According to the definition of “local agency” in Government Code Section 53090, the County is not considered a “local agency” for purposes of that specific code section and, thus, the requirement in Section 53091 to comply with all applicable building ordinances and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which the territory of the local agency is situated is not applicable to the Project. That is, because the Project site is County-owned property and because the County is not subject to the requirements in Government Code Section 53091, activities on the Project site are not required to comply with City of Martinez zoning ordinances or regulations, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091, as indicated on page 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Thus, an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan is not required. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Comment #6 Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1554 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-100 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. In addition, please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #7 The commenter correctly states that Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building would include the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR considers the impacts of the Project using a baseline of existing conditions at the time of issuance of the NOP, as described in the Draft EIR, and specifically in Section 2.1.2. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1555 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-101 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1556 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-102 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.30 Letter No. 30. Resident, Alex Brendel 2.2.30.1 Response to Letter No. 30 Comments #1 and #2 The commenter states that the Project should not be approved and instead proposes an alternative to the Project that includes adaptive reuse by a private developer. Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. While the remaining portions of this comment are directed at a decision on the Project and not on environmental issues, this entire comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1557 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-103 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1558 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-104 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.31 Letter No. 31. Resident, Carter Wilson 2.2.31.1 Response to Letter No. 31 Comments #1 and #2 The commenter states that the Project should not be approved and instead proposes an alternative to the Project that includes adaptive reuse as professional office space. Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. While portions of this comment are directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this entire comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1559 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-105 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1560 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-106 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.32 Letter No. 32. Resident, Gwen Monroe 2.2.32.1 Response to Letter No. 32 Comment #1 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. In addition, meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comments #2 and #3 Adaptive reuse of the structure is evaluated in Alternatives 2 and 3, which are analyzed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, Alternatives. Under Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building, the County would rehabilitate the Jailhouse building for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. Under Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building, the County would demolish the 1944 annex to the Jailhouse building and would rehabilitate the original structure built in 1903 for government office use through modifications conducted in compliance with the SIS. Comment #4 At this time, it is unknown which portions of the Jailhouse building include greater amounts of ACMs and LBP. This comment correctly asserts that the Project would increase short-term impacts associated with hazardous materials within the Jailhouse building, including ACMs and LBP, compared with existing conditions. Please see Response to Comment No. 19-1 regarding potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts and mitigation measures. Comment #5 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1561 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-107 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1562 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-108 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1563 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-109 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1564 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-110 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1565 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-111 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1566 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-112 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1567 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-113 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1568 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-114 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.33 Letter No. 33. Southport Land and Commercial Company 2.2.33.1 Response to Letter No. 33 Comment #1 This comment correctly states that one of the Project objectives is to meet near-term parking needs in the area, as stated on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comments #2 and #3 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #4 Please see Common Response 1 for a discussion regarding Project alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected (e.g., the Relocation Alternative). As indicated on page 4-4 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, for relocation, the building would need to be temporarily shored and cut into portions to move the building within the confines of the widths of the nearby streets. Thus, it is not feasible to move the Jailhouse building as a complete structural unit. As stated on page 4-5, relocation would not avoid the impacts of the Project on historical resources. Specifically, based on guidance provided by the National Park Service, the building would most likely no longer convey its significance as a cultural resource in a new location. In addition, the loss of materials caused by dismantling, relocating, and reinstalling the building would be detrimental, most likely requiring reconstruction measures that would not be considered favorable as a preservation approach. Thus, it is a combination of the new location and the loss of materials that renders the Relocation Alternative infeasible. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 1, for a discussion regarding Project alternatives, including alternatives considered but rejected (e.g., the Relocation Alternative). This comment references Section 4.2.5 of the Draft EIR, in which the Relocation Alternative is described, and it is stated that a commenter on the NOP suggested that the EIR consider a Relocation Alternative, although the comment did not identify a specific site. The Relocation Alternative was analyzed in the EIR, and the reasons for its rejection as infeasible and because it would not reduce the impacts of the Project are presented on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the Draft EIR, and further explained in Common Response 1. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1569 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-115 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #6 As discussed in detail on pages 4-4 and 4-5 of the Draft EIR, the Relocation Alternative was considered to be infeasible for a range of reasons, of which availability of a site to relocate the structure on was only one. Additionally, evidence is presented on page 4-5 of the Draft EIR that relocation of the structure would not avoid the impacts of the Project on historic resources. Please note that there are only two houses on Escobar Street (1127 and 1139 Escobar Street) identified for demolition rather than the three houses referenced by the commenter. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary in the Final EIR in response to this comment. Comment #7 Please see Response to Comment No. 33-5 and Common Response 1 regarding the reasons why the Relocation Alternative was found not to be a feasible alternative that would reduce the impacts of the Project. The decision makers will be required to weigh the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as well as other factors, including cost, in making the final decision on the Project. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #8 The comment correctly states that the views from the bench located in front of the Courthouse would be altered by the Project. Please note that the analysis in the Draft EIR takes into account the larger visual context. In addition, the substantial effect of the change in the visual character of the area as a result of the Project is the effect on the historic context. The effects of visual changes on historic character are addressed in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.2.2.6 and Impact CUL-1. In addition, please see Common Response 3 for additional information on this topic. Comment #9 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. Comment #10 According to the definition of “local agency” in Government Code Section 53090, the County is not considered a “local agency” for purposes of that specific code section, and, thus, the requirement in Section 53091 to comply with all applicable building ordinances and zoning ordinances of the county or city in which the territory of the local agency is situated is not applicable to the Project. That is, because the Project site is County-owned property and because the County is not subject to the requirements in Government Code Section 53091, activities on the Project site are not required to comply with City of Martinez zoning ordinances or regulations, pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091, as indicated on page 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The comment further states that the City of Martinez should deny the approval of an encroachment permit for the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1570 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-116 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #11 Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1571 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-117 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1572 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-118 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1573 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-119 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1574 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-120 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.34 Letter No. 34. Resident, Harlan Strickland 2.2.34.1 Response to Letter No. 34 Comment #1 This comment correctly restates the goal of the Project, which is provided on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. Please see Common Response 4 for a discussion of the modifications to the Draft EIR to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings. As a result of these modifications, the facilitation of future development of required space for County government administrative uses is no longer a Project objective. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 4 for a discussion of the modifications to the Draft EIR to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings. As a result of these modifications, the facilitation of future development of required space for County government administrative uses is no longer a Project objective. In addition, please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. Comment #3 The Draft EIR does not state that demolition of the Jailhouse building is necessary for the remediation and disposal of the hazardous materials in an appropriate place. Alternative 2 - Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative would include remediation and disposal of hazardous materials and proposes no demolition activities. In addition, as stated on page 4-9 of Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4 would apply to both the Project and the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative. Implementation of those mitigation measures would reduce the impact of potential construction worker exposure to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Comment #4 Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comment #5 The Draft EIR considers the adopted Martinez General Plan (adopted in 2011), as required under CEQA. Delaying the Project until the Martinez General Plan is updated is not required under CEQA. Please see Common Response 5 for a discussion of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1575 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-121 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #6 Please see Common Response 4 for a discussion of the modifications to the Draft EIR to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings. As a result of these modifications, the facilitation of future development of required space for County government administrative uses is no longer a Project objective. In addition, please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. The potential environmental impacts of any other projects, including a project that included demolition of the McBrien Building at 651 Pine Street raised by the commenter, would be analyzed under a separate CEQA analysis. Comment #7 The commenter expresses support for Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative and Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comment #8 This comment reviews the alternatives presented in the EIR and suggests an additional alternative. Please see also Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternative suggested in this comment. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1576 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-122 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1577 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-123 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1578 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-124 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.35 Letter No. 35. State Clearinghouse 2.2.35.1 Response to Letter No. 35 Comment #1 The State Clearinghouse acknowledges that the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The County notes the receipt of the State Clearinghouse comment letter, which indicates that the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project Draft EIR has been distributed to state agencies for review and that the County has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements. No state agencies submitted comments by the end of the review period (May 12, 2016). No further response is required. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1579 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-125 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1580 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-126 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1581 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-127 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1582 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-128 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1583 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-129 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.36 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 36. Founding Chair of Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee, Ray O’Brien 2.2.36.1 Response to Commenter No. 36 Comment #1 Historic resources and the impacts of the Project on those resources are address in Chapter 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Please see also Common Response 3 for some additional detail regarding the historic district and context. Comments #2 and #3 The commenter supports Alternative 2 – Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building and Alternative 3 – Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. Comments #4 and #5 Table 4-1 on page 4-18 in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the No Project Alternative, Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, and Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative with impacts of the Project by resource topic. As noted in Response to Comment No. 9-9, for the purposes of CEQA, which may use terms differently than they are used in other contexts, “cultural resources” includes both archaeological resources and historic resources. (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Comment #6 Preservation of the Jailhouse building was considered as a viable alternative use and is analyzed on pages 4-8 through 4-12 of Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. The purpose of the analysis on page 5-8 in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR is not to describe the supporting analysis for impact conclusions. Rather, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(b) and 15126.2(b), this subsection describes any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less-than-significant level. As discussed throughout the Draft EIR (and specifically in Section 3.2, Cultural Resources), the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on historical architectural resources. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1584 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-130 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.37 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 37. Vice President of First Villages Consulting, Dean McCleod 2.2.37.1 Response to Commenter No. 37 Comment #1 Please see Common Response 3 regarding the potential impacts of the Project on historical resources. Comment #2 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. 2.2.38 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 38. Resident, Carol Rose 2.2.38.1 Response to Commenter No. 38 Comment #1 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. 2.2.39 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 39. Resident, Harlan Strickland 2.2.39.1 Response to Commenter No. 39 Comment #1 Please see Response to Comment No. 14-3 for a summary of the County’s consultation efforts with the City of Martinez. Comments #2 and #3 Please see responses to Letter No. 34, submitted by this commenter, for responses to his comments. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1585 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-131 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.2.40 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 40. Resident, Julian Frazer 2.2.40.1 Response to Commenter No. 40 Comment #1 The commenter correctly states that the Draft EIR presents both mitigation measures and alternative as a way to address identified impacts, and that implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid all of the impacts of the Project, as described in subsection 4.3-1 in Section 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Comment #2 The commenter states that the EIR is required to consider alternative sites, that the consideration of the Off-Site Alternative described and dismissed from consideration in the Draft EIR as not meeting the Project objectives on pages 4-3 and 4-4 of the Draft EIR is not sufficient, and that another off-site location should be considered. As stated on page 4-4 of the Draft EIR, the Off-Site Alternative was rejected because it would not meet any of the Project objectives, which are related to the project site. Selection of a different alternative site would not result in the Project objectives being met. The statement in the Draft EIR that the off-site location identified by a commenter during scoping is not vacant is provided for information, but is not the reason why that alternative does not meet the Project objectives. Please see Common Responses 1 and 2 for more explanation. Comments #3 and #4 Meeting near-term parking needs is only one of the Project objectives, which are presented in detail on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR and modified in Chapter 3, Text Changes to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR, the goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. Please see also Responses to Comments Nos. 19-1 and 19-6. Comment #5 Please see Common Response 3 regarding the potential impacts of the Project on historical resources. Comment #6 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. Comment #7 This comment discusses the context of the jail structure. The Draft EIR discusses the physical context and the relationship of the Courthouse and Jail in Section 3.2.2.6 of the Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1586 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-132 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #8 Please see Response to Comment No. 29-4, submitted by this commenter, for a response to his comment. Comment #9 Please see Common Response 2 for a discussion and analysis regarding additional alternatives, including the alternatives suggested in this comment. The rest of this comment is regarding remediation of existing onsite hazardous materials. As stated on page 4-9 of Chapter 4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4 would apply to the Project, the Adaptive Reuse of Entire Building Alternative, and the Partial Demolition and Adaptive Reuse of Remaining Building Alternative. The Project contractor would be required by the County to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would be disposed of in an approved facility. Implementation of those mitigation measures would reduce the impact of potential construction worker exposure to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Comment #10 The commenter states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. 2.2.41 Zoning Administrator’s Meeting Commenter No. 41. Resident, Diane Sargent 2.2.41.1 Response to Commenter No. 41 Comment #1 The Draft EIR does consider nearby residential areas, as stated on page 3.6-18 in Section 3.6, Other Topics, of the Draft EIR, where it is noted that there is a residential neighborhood containing single-family homes located approximately 200 feet east of the Project site. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1587 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-133 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.3 Responses to Comments Received After the Public Review Period April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1588 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-134 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1589 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-135 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1590 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-136 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1591 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-137 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1592 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-138 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1593 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-139 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1594 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-140 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1595 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-141 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1596 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-142 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1597 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-143 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1598 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-144 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1599 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-145 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1600 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-146 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1601 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-147 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1602 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-148 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1603 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-149 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1604 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-150 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1605 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-151 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.3.1 Letter No. 42. Kristin Henderson 2.3.1.1 Response to Letter No. 42 Comment #1 In a letter dated July 26, 2016, the County responded to all of the comments submitted by the commenter. The response letter prepared by the County was sent to the commenter and is included as part of Comment Letter No. 42. As stated in the response letter, the County understood the comments to be Public Records Requests rather than NOP comments. Nonetheless, all of the issues raised by the commenter were addressed in the Draft EIR. In addition, please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1606 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-152 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1607 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-153 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.3.2 Letter No. 43. Benicia Historical Society, Inc. 2.3.2.1 Response to Letter No. 43 Comment #1 The Benicia Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1608 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-154 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1609 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-155 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.3.3 Letter No. 44. Bay Point Historical Society 2.3.3.1 Response to Letter No. 44 Comment #1 The Bay Point Historical Society states that the Jailhouse building should not be demolished. While this comment is directed at a decision on the Project and not on an environmental issue, this comment is included in the Final EIR and will be considered by the decision-makers in their final decision-making process. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1610 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-156 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1611 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-157 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1612 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-158 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1613 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-159 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1614 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-160 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1615 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-161 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 2.3.4 Letter No. 45. Architectural Heritage Foundation of Contra Costa County 2.3.4.1 Response to Letter No. 45 Comment #1 Please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and why an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. In response to the concern that the EIR ignored work that was proceeding in planning for a new administration building, since the time of issuance of the Draft EIR, the County has developed conceptual approaches to constructing a new government center complex. As explained in Common Response 4, recently, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. The Board of Supervisors identified a preferred location for the County administrative buildings (the parking lots between Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue) as well as an alternate location (on the hill along Arnold Drive before the intersection with Pacheco Boulevard).3 4 At the same time, Board of Supervisors authorized KMD Architects, a consulting firm working with the County’s Capital Projects Management Division on projects throughout downtown Martinez, to conduct additional design services for the new Contra Costa County Administration building. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. Contra Costa County has determined that retaining the structure is economically infeasible; however, the County will consider appropriate reuse proposals. If no appropriate reuse is identified then it would be necessary to demolish the structure in order to avoid the health and social impacts of the structure remaining in a vacant and hazardous state and not contributing to the achievement of the County and City’s goals for a well-planned, functional, civic center in Downtown Martinez. Comment #2 As described in Response to Comment No. 45-1, the County’s decisions on conceptual approaches to replacing the County Administration Building are very recent, and took place considerably after the issuance of the Draft EIR. The studies that were done as a part of that work did not include an evaluation of the project site. Please see Common Response 4 for an explanation of how the EIR analyzes the “whole of the action” and why an analysis of the potential future use of the Project site for County administrative functions is not required in the EIR. 3 David Twa. County Administrator. Addressed to Board of Supervisors. Subject: Accept Report on New Administration Building, New Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building and Confirm Guidance Given at Board Retreat. February 7, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=28595&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. 4 Capital Facilities Plan: Administration Building, Public Safety Building & EOC. January 31, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170207_876/28595_Presentation%202017-01-31%20CCC.pdf. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1616 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 2 Response to Comments Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 2-162 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Comment #3 As explained in Responses to Comments No. 45-1 and 45-2, and as noted by the commenter, the information concerning the Board of Supervisor’s decision to proceed regarding the replacement of the County Administration Building is new information not available at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR. This information has been made available to the public through the normal County processes related to Board of Supervisors hearings and decisions. Recirculation of a Draft EIR is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a) (see below) if “significant new information” is added to the EIR. However, as described in Section 15088.5(a), new information is not significant if the EIR is not changed in a way that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement”. The new information concerns the conceptual locations and plans for new County administration buildings at other locations, and does not include any information about future uses or new structures to be located at the project site. Therefore, the new information does not provide any information that would lead to the identification of a new environmental impact not presented in the Draft EIR. 15088.5. RECIRCULATION OF AN EIR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043) (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The EIR does analyze an alternative in which the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain, with an appropriate reuse, as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. For these reasons, there is no need for recirculation of the Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1617 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 provides that a Final EIR must include, among other things, the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR. This chapter identifies the text changes that have been made to the Draft EIR. This chapter contains revisions to the Draft EIR that have been made in response to the comments received or to otherwise make insignificant changes and corrections to the Draft EIR. The revisions are organized according to their order of appearance in the Draft EIR. Changes to the Draft EIR The text revisions are identified by Draft EIR page number and section number, as applicable. Where practical, revisions are included in the full paragraph where they are found in the Draft EIR. Deletions from the Draft EIR are shown as strikeout (e.g., strikeout) text; additions are underlined (e.g., addition). Since issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project in 2015, the County has developed conceptual approaches to constructing a new government center complex. Recently, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a preferred location for the County administrative buildings (the parking lots between Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue) as well as an alternate location (on the hill along Arnold Drive before the intersection with Pacheco Boulevard). 1 2 As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. Contra Costa County has determined that retaining the structure is economically infeasible; however, the County will consider appropriate reuse proposals. If no appropriate reuse is identified, then it would be necessary to demolish the structure in order to avoid the health and social impacts of the structure remaining in a vacant and hazardous state and not contributing to the achievement of the County and City’s goals for a well-planned, functional, civic center in Downtown Martinez. Because the County’s plans have been developed since issuance of the NOP and preparation of the Draft EIR, and therefore more is known about the siting of the future government buildings, the text of the EIR has been revised to reflect this change, as noted in this chapter. 1 David Twa. County Administrator. Addressed to Board of Supervisors. Subject: Accept Report on New Administration Building, New Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building and Confirm Guidance Given at Board Retreat. February 7, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=28595&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. 2 Capital Facilities Plan: Administration Building, Public Safety Building & EOC. January 31, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170207_876/28595_Presentation%202017-01-31%20CCC.pdf. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1618 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-2 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Changes to the Executive Summary The third paragraph on page ES-1 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: If the Jailhouse building were removed, tThe Project site could potentially be used in the future as the site for construction and operation of new structures for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time at the Project site. For these reasons, analysis of impacts of construction and operation of such potential future uses and structures would be speculative and are not evaluated in this EIR. At the time such potential future uses and structures are proposed, additional evaluation under CEQA would be required. The first full paragraph on page ES-2 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings: The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The County’s objectives for the Project are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. The only paragraph on page ES-4 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: This EIR analyzes the whole of the project as it is known at this time. In 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. The Board of Supervisors identified a preferred location for the County administrative buildings (the parking lots between Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue) as well as an alternate location (on the hill along Arnold Drive before the intersection with Pacheco Boulevard).1 2 At the same time, Board of Supervisors authorized KMD Architects, a consulting firm working with the County’s Capital Projects Management Division on projects throughout downtown Martinez, to conduct additional design services for the new Contra Costa County Administration building. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. As described in the Project Description, a potential future use of the Project site if the Jailhouse building were removed would be for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time at the Project site. Therefore, no further details are known at this time regarding what structures might be planned and constructed at the site. State CEQA Guidelines Article 10 Section 15145 states that if a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the court noted that where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Because future development is unspecified for this Project site, it would be speculative to attempt to determine potential impacts of an unknown future use. Therefore, the unknown future use is not considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, nor will this future potential action change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1619 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 analyze the impacts of construction or operation of such a potential future use. At the time that such construction is planned, further environmental review under CEQA would be required. _______________________________________ 1 David Twa. County Administrator. Addressed to Board of Supervisors. Subject: Accept Report on New Administration Building, New Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building and Confirm Guidance Given at Board Retreat. February 7, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=28595&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. 2 Capital Facilities Plan: Administration Building, Public Safety Building & EOC. January 31, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170207_876/28595_Presentation%202017-01-31%20CCC.pdf. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. Chapter 1 Changes The second paragraph on page 1-1 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: The Project sponsor (County Public Works Department) proposes to demolish the Martinez Jailhouse building and surrounding granite curb, and proposes to expand the existing parking lot on the south side of the building as an interim use of the Project site. A potential future use of the site if the Jailhouse building were removed would be for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time at the Project site. The first full paragraph on page 1-3 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: This EIR analyzes the whole of the project as it is known at this time. In 2017, the Board of Supervisors directed that planning proceed for County government buildings, including a new Administration Building, located in downtown Martinez. The Board of Supervisors identified a preferred location for the County administrative buildings (the parking lots between Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue) as well as an alternate location (on the hill along Arnold Drive before the intersection with Pacheco Boulevard).1 2 At the same time, Board of Supervisors authorized KMD Architects, a consulting firm working with the County’s Capital Projects Management Division on projects throughout downtown Martinez, to conduct additional design services for the new Contra Costa County Administration building. As shown on the conceptual plans associated with this site option, the Jailhouse building, without the 1944 annex, could remain as a part of the civic center area, should an interested party present a viable reuse for the structure. As described in the Project Description, a potential future use of the Project site would be for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time at the Project site. Therefore, no further details are known at this time regarding what structures might be planned and constructed at the site. State CEQA Guidelines Article 10 Section 15145 states that if a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. In Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the court noted that where future development is unspecified and uncertain, no purpose can be served by requiring an EIR to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences. Because future development is unspecified for this Project site, it would be speculative to attempt to determine potential impacts of an unknown future use. Therefore, the unknown future use is not considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project, nor will this future potential action change the scope or nature of the initial project analyzed or its environmental effects. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not analyze the impacts of construction April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1620 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-4 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 or operation of such a potential future use. At the time that such construction is planned, further environmental review under CEQA would be required. _______________________________________ 1 David Twa. County Administrator. Addressed to Board of Supervisors. Subject: Accept Report on New Administration Building, New Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building and Confirm Guidance Given at Board Retreat. February 7, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/public//print/ag_memo_pdf_popup.cfm?seq=28595&rev_num=0&mode=CUSTOM. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. 2 Capital Facilities Plan: Administration Building, Public Safety Building & EOC. January 31, 2017. Accessed: http://64.166.146.245/docs/2017/BOS/20170207_876/28595_Presentation%202017-01-31%20CCC.pdf. Accessed on: March 9, 2017. Chapter 2 Changes The second paragraph on page 2-2 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings: The goal of the Project is to help form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The County’s objectives for the Project are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. The last paragraph on page 2-2, which continues to page 2-3, of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: The Project sponsor (Contra Costa County Public Works) proposes to demolish the Jailhouse building, including the sunken garage and the surrounding granite curb, and proposes to construct a parking lot in its place as a near-term use. In total, the Project would provide 25 to 30 parking spaces for existing County employees. A potential future use of the site if the Jailhouse building were removed would be for County administrative functions, although but no plans or designs for such a use at the Project site have been prepared and no funding is available for such a future use at this time at the Project site. Chapter 3 Changes Section 3.2 Cultural Resources The last paragraph on page 3.2-8, which continues to page 3.2-9, of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: The County’s original courthouse was condemned following the earthquake of 1898, and the crumbling brick jail was the scene of several escapes. Construction of the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block, including the Jailhouse building, curbing, and Courthouse building, began in 1901 and was completed in 1903 (McDevitt 2001: 146). A dedication ceremony for the project was April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1621 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 conducted on May 29, 1903 (Contra Costa County Gazette: 1). The 19th century structures were replaced by the existing district – Courthouse building, Jailhouse building, and granite curbing – recognized by the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block NRHP listing and the County Courthouse Block listing in the Contra Costa County Historic Resource Inventory. The original portion of the Jailhouse building was designed by the architecture firm William Mooser & Sons of San Francisco, while Haven and Toepke of Sacramento designed the Courthouse.1 The original portion of the Jailhouse building and the Courthouse building were constructed by the Pacific Construction Company.2 The 1903 portion of the Jailhouse is approximately square in plan, while the 1944 addition is rectangular and oriented perpendicularly to the 1903 section. The text after the bullet list on page 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows:  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. As summarized in the Setting section above, extensive background research, field review, and analysis has been conducted to identify cultural resources within the Project site or within the Project study area that have the potential to be impacted by the Project. The methods for analyzing impacts include analyzing the Project’s potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of resources located within the Project site through physical disturbance of archaeological resources or human remains during construction and other ground-disturbing activities, to physically alter historical structures or buildings, or to add or remove features that would disrupt historic districts. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), analysis of whether such activities would result in a substantial adverse change to the resource considered whether physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings would materially impair the significance of the resource by adversely altering those characteristics that convey its historical significance and justify it for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. The first full paragraph on page 3.2-12 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: The Jailhouse building and Courthouse Block are historical resources under CEQA that would be affected by the Project. The demolition of the Jailhouse building, which is eligible for listing on the CRHR, would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic resource, on the limited historic resources within the Martinez Historic Overlay District, substantial adverse change to the Jailhouse building as an individually eligible property, and on the NRHP-listed Contra Costa County Courthouse Block (NRIS Reference #89002113, listed 1989), which is a district that includes the Jailhouse and former County Courthouse (i.e., current Finance building). Demolition of an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 prevents the resource from conveying its historical significance and justification for inclusion in the NRHP and eligibility for CRHR. Therefore, demolition would undermine justification for inclusion of the Jailhouse building in the NRHP and of eligibility for CRHR by destroying all of the character-defining features that express the building’s historical associations. Demolition of the Jailhouse building would also disrupt the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block by removing one of the components of that multi-component district. Because the Project would demolish the Jailhouse building and impair the Courthouse Block, it would result in a significant impact. The demolition is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. This impact would be significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would serve to reduce the impact to some extent but not to a less than significant impact not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, they would reduce the impact in ways that are consistent with good-faith efforts to retain aspects of the historical resource’s heritage value and materiality for public use. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1622 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-6 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 4 Changes The first full paragraph on page 4-2 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows to reflect that the Project site is not currently proposed as a part of the preferred location for the County administrative buildings: As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the primary Project objective is to help the County form a well-planned, functional civic center in Downtown Martinez. The specific Project objectives are listed below.  Reduce hazards posed by the existence of the unoccupied, contaminated building.  Meet near-term parking needs in the area.  Implement policies in the Martinez General Plan, the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of downtown Martinez.  Facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses.  Allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. The last paragraph on page 4-2, which continues to page 4-3, of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain in its existing condition and the Jailhouse building would not be demolished. Because the Jailhouse building is contaminated with hazardous materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos, those materials would continue to contaminate the Project site. No parking lot would be constructed. The County would not be able to reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, meet near-term parking needs in the area, implement the Martinez General Plan and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez, facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses, or allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. The second paragraph on page 4-4 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: Alternatives that do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the Project or that do not meet the Project objectives do not need to be analyzed in an EIR. Only some of the alternatives that were screened would meet portions of Project objectives. Those alternatives would reduce the hazards posed by the contaminated building, implement the Martinez General Plan and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan for the civic portion of Downtown Martinez, facilitate future development of required space for County government administrative uses, and allow for compatible and functional structures and land uses in the civic center area. Chapter 5 Changes No changes are necessary or proposed. Chapter 6 Changes No changes are necessary or proposed. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1623 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 3 Text Changes to Draft EIR Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 7 Changes No changes are necessary or proposed. Appendix D Changes The sentence below in the first full paragraph on page 5-1 in Appendix D, the Historical Resources Evaluation Report, of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: Contra Costa County was one of the original counties in the state of California, and Martinez has always served as the seat of county government. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the city was well served by rail and water transportation, which helped the local agricultural and industrial economies flourish. However, Martinez was not centrally located, and by 1900 it was being challenged by rival cities with growing populations and more central locations within the county. The County’s original courthouse was condemned following the earthquake of 1898, and the crumbling brick jail was the scene of several escapes. Construction of the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block, including the Jailhouse building, curbing, and Courthouse building, began in 1901 and was completed in 1903 (McDevitt 2001: 146). A dedication ceremony for the project was held on May, 29, 1903 (Contra Costa County Gazette: 1). The 19th century structures were replaced by the existing district – Courthouse building, Jailhouse building, and granite curbing – recognized by the Contra Costa County Courthouse Block NRHP listing and the County Courthouse Block listing in the Contra Costa County Historic Resource Inventory. The original portion of the Jailhouse building was designed by the architecture firm William Mooser & Sons of San Francisco, while Haven and Toepke of Sacramento designed the Courthouse.2 The original portion of the Jailhouse building and the Courthouse building were constructed by the Pacific Construction Company.3 The 1944 annex, which is not recognized as a contributing resource in the 1989 listing, was built during World War II to expand the jail’s capacity by an additional 132 inmates (The Sheriff’s Review 1965), reflecting the county’s population growth. The courthouse became the Contra Costa County Finance building in 1966 and the county courts were moved to a new courthouse directly across Main Street to the southeast. The Jailhouse held prisoners until all were removed from both the 1903 section and 1944 annex when a new correctional facility was completed in 1981 (National Register of Historic Places: 4, 8). The Jailhouse is now used for records storage. Appendix F The Bat Survey for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project dated July 26, 2016 and prepared by Sapere Environmental is added to the Draft EIR as Appendix F. The recommendations and conclusions of the survey did not contradict, but rather confirmed, the analysis in the Draft EIR. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1624 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1625 Appendix F to the Draft EIR Bat Survey April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1626 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1627 135 Glasgow Circle | Danville, California 94526 | Direct: (925) 719-1916 | Office: (415) 365-0010 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Ms. Hillary Heard Environmental Services Division Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94453 Re: Bat Survey for the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project Dear Ms. Heard: This memorandum documents the results of our initial bat survey conducted in support of the Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project located at 650 Pine Street in downtown Martinez, Contra Costa County, California. The project involves the proposed demolition of the jailhouse that has fallen into disrepair. Survey methodologies, results, and recommendations are presented below. Background Of the 25 known bat species in California, 11 are listed as Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB 2016). Bats are classified as non-game mammals and are afforded protection under various sections of the CFGC1. They also receive protection under the California Code of Regulations2 and the California Public Resources Code3. In general, bats exhibit a wide range of habitat usage depending on the species, season, time of day, resource availability, level of disturbance, and other such factors, but often exhibit a high site fidelity and specificity for roost selection. Roost sites consist of maternity (nursery colonies), bachelor, daytime, nighttime, and inter-feeding sites within caves, mines, cliffs, rock crevices, tree hollows, stumps, foliage, under exfoliating bark, and in man-made structures including buildings and bridges, and outbuildings. Some species require a complex network of habitat characteristics that fulfill foraging, water intake, shelter, and thermoregulatory requirements that vary seasonally. The survey effort necessary to document presence of some species, particularly those that roost and forage high off the ground, may require several weeks of monitoring based on the species roost selection, solitary roosting and foraging behaviors during non-breeding periods, rarity within the region, and current limitations of monitoring methods (Weller and Lee, 2007). In general, bat habitat should be managed on a temporal and spatial scale that accounts for each species’ specific habitat requirements, resource availability, and sensitivity to disturbance (Ball, 2002). 1 e.g., CFGC §86, §2000, §2014, §3007, and §4150 2 e.g., Title 14, §251.1, Article 20; §15380; and §15382 3 Division 13 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1628 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 2 | P a g e Bats hibernate in the winter from mid-November through early-April. Starting mid-March, bats may begin to emerge in smaller numbers on warmer nights, although activity is limited and dependent upon good weather. By May, bats are fully active and feed nightly. Females form maternity colonies to find suitable nursery sites, giving birth to a single pup in June and continuing to nurse through mid-August. Mating season begins in September and continues into October, coinciding with increased feeding to build up fat reserves in preparation for winter hibernation. Methods Sapere biologists Jerry Roe and Travis McCleary conducted an initial site visit on May 19, 2016. The entire building was examined both internally and externally for bats or signs of bat inhabitation, including guano, staining, carcasses, etc. All crevices, access openings, corners, overhangs, and potential roost sites were visually examined using flashlights and 10x42 binoculars. Setting & Habitat Suitability The structure, built in 1903 and modified with an annex in 1944, has been abandoned since 1986. Since then, it has become dilapidated and contains hazardous materials including asbestos and lead paint. The three-story building is 19,008 square feet with maximum height of 35 feet. The original structure is made of carved granite, while the annex is made of concrete. Both provide suitable substrate for roosting bats since the rock warms during the day and releases stored heat slowly throughout the night (Photos 1-2). The exterior walls contain several openings into the internal structure for bat roosting; however, there were no observable signs of bat inhabitation on the external structure. The numerous inward facing corners on exterior walls and areas around the barred windows do provide suitable nighttime roosts used by bats to rest between feeding bouts (Photo 3). It should be noted that individual bats using the structure intermittently might not leave readily observable sign of their presence. Birds have also established nests on the external portion of the building on the corners of barred windows. It was not determined if these nests are active; however, a follow-up survey could determine the status of these nests (Photo 4). Photo 1. Granite exterior of the original jail. Photo 2. Concrete exterior of the annexed portion. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1629 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 3 | P a g e Photo 3. Night roost habitat under small overhangs Photo 4. Bird nest in upper portion of window atop and in corners of windows. of metal bars. The edge of the roof of the original granite building has an aluminum fascia that covers the outer edge of the exterior walls and abuts the exterior, leaving no open space for bats to enter. In addition, aluminum releases heat quickly and does not provide suitable roost habitat for bats. The roof of the original structure is nondescript with external vents, pipes, and support structures housing ventilation intake and exhaust structures (Photo 5). We observed several openings among the external structures including pipes, access panels, and grates that allow access to bats (Photos 7-9). The roof of the annex, by contrast, contains only an open prisoner yard enclosed in a chain-link fence and several smaller ventilation structures (Photos 6). The annex roof did not contain structures that could support bat roosting, and none of the structures exhibited the openings or dilapidation present on the adjacent roof. Photo 5. Roof of the original jail with external vents. Photo 6. Roof of the annex with the chain-link enclosure. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1630 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 4 | P a g e Photo 7. Open grate providing Photo 8. Opening in ventilation Photo 9. Opening in ventilation access for bats. structure. conduit. The inside of the building is dilapidated, exhibited by peeling paint, broken windows and ventilation louvers, holes in the walls and ceiling, and scattered furniture and supplies. The site contains three levels, each with various access points (Photo Group 10). Nesting birds are utilizing the third floor for nesting and have gained entry at two locations based on their observed presence and secondary signs, i.e. whitewash, eggshells, and nest material (Photos 11- 13). The two bird species observed inside the structure are house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) and house sparrows (Passer domesticus); the latter is exempt from the protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). No signs of bat usage were observed at these locations. Protection is afforded to bird species by the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which makes it unlawful, unless expressly authorized by permit pursuant to federal regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.” This includes direct and indirect acts, with the exception of harassment and habitat modification, which are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The California Fish and Game Code §3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird; §3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys and falcons, among others) or Strigiformes (owls); §3511 prohibits the take or possession of fully protected birds; and §3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof as designated in the MBTA. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1631 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 5 | P a g e Photo Group 10. Examples of window openings and structural damage allowing access to bats. Photo 11. At least two active house finch nests on top of a light fixture on the top floor of the building. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1632 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 6 | P a g e Photo Group 12. Open and broken windows allowing access to bats and birds. Photo Group 13. Open windows and whitewash on the main floor indicating regular use by birds. No nests or signs of bats were observed in this room. Results and Recommendations No bats or sign of bat inhabitation was observed; however, there are numerous entry and exit points where bats could enter the structure. County staff member, Jay Humiston, informed us that a bat was found in the basement of the neighboring building suggesting they are present and roosting in the buildings in this area of Martinez (Jerry Roe pers. comm., 2016). We identified many areas in which bats could roost inside the structure; however, we were not able to gain access to inspect all potential roost sites. For example, exposed plumbing service corridors between cellblocks, the vertical dumbwaiter shaft, and narrow utility ducts provided suitable roost sites but were inaccessible during the survey, because access doors were locked or locations were too obscure to permit access. Furthermore, bats could use the building at any point as temporary roosting sites or establish short-term roosts at different times of the year based on prey availability, migratory status, life history stage, or habitat requirements. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1633 July 26, 2016 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project 7 | P a g e Based on these results, we do not recommend installing an acoustic bat monitor, since there are too many access points to monitor and a lack of observable sign suggests the building is not currently inhabited or is used by a small number of individual bats. We do recommend implementing the following actions to minimize the likelihood of bats establishing roosts within the building and minimize the potential for take of state and federally protected migratory and nesting birds: 1. Implement nest and roosting exclusion measures for birds and bats. This would include access to internal areas by covering key access points (e.g., vents on the roof and open widows to the interior of the building) that provide entry to bats and birds with wire mesh, netting, or a durable high mil plastic. Exclusion at access points used by birds is subject to verification of inactive nests. Exclusion should not be implemented at access points where it could adversely affect active bird nests. If this is the case, these access points should be left open until all active nests are determined to be complete by a qualified biologist. 2. Preconstruction roosting bat and nesting bird surveys should be conducted within two weeks prior to the start of construction/demolition. Preconstruction bird surveys are not required outside of the breeding season, which occurs from February 1st to August 31st. However, roosting bat surveys should be conducted regardless of the time of year as they roost year-round. Please feel free to call me at (925) 228-1027 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jerry D. Roe, CEO Wildlife & Conservation Biologist Sapere Environmental, Inc. References Ball, L. C. 2002. A Strategy for Describing and Monitoring Bat Habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 66(4):1148-1153. October. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2016. [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Version 5.2.2]. Weller, T. J., and D. C. Lee. 2007. Mist Net Effort Required to Inventory a Forest Bat Species Assemblage. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(1): 251-257. February. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1634 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1635 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was included as Appendix E to the Draft EIR. The draft MMRP is finalized and is included herein for ease of reference. 4.1 Purpose and Need for Monitoring In compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared for the Project. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts in the resource areas listed below and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project-level significant impacts pertaining to the following resource areas would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.  Air Quality  Greenhouse Gases  Cultural Resources  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Noise  Biological Resources CEQA requires that a lead agency adopt a MMRP for the measures the agency has proposed to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are implemented and to identify who is responsible for their implementation. Table 4-1, which follows this introductory section, identifies the mitigation measures for the proposed project, the parties responsible for implementing and monitoring the measures, the timing of each measure, and a summary of the actions necessary to implement and monitor each measure. 4.2 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Requirements This MMRP has been prepared for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which specifies that when a public agency makes findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081, it “shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 further specifies that the draft MMRP will “ensure compliance during project implementation.” This MMRP is intended to ensure the effective implementation of mitigation measures that are within Contra Costa County’s authority to implement, including monitoring where identified, throughout the phases of development and operation of the Project. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1636 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-2 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Table 4-1. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date 3.1 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT AQ-2 VIOLATION OF ANY QUALITY STANDARD OR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY VIOLATION MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1: IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION-RELATED DUST AND EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EMISSIONS The County will require all construction contractors to implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1637 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure in 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. IMPACT GHG-1 GENERATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION MEASURE GHG-1: IMPLEMENT THE BAAQMD’S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GHG EMISSIONS Require all construction contractors to implement the following BAAQMD-recommended best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions, as applicable. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment in at least 15 percent of the fleet. Use at least 10 percent local building materials During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1638 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-4 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT CUL-1 CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: RECORD THE BUILDING’S HISTORY AND ARCHITECTURE FOLLOWING HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY GUIDELINES AND PREPARE MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC INTERPRETATION The county will record the Jailhouse building following National Park Service Guidelines for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation. This will include large-format black and white or digitized photography, captions, and thorough written documentation of the historic context and description of the building for submission to local historical repositories including the Contra Costa County Library in Martinez. Public interpretation based on information from the HABS documentation will be used to convey the historical significance of the building in formats that may include street-side sign panel(s) and exhibits in nearby County or historical society venues. Prior to demolition Qualified historian retained by CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2: PLAN FOR REUSE OF SALVAGED COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING IN PUBLIC SPACES To the extent feasible, the County will plan to reuse materials from the building in public parks and facilities in the Martinez area. A Salvage Plan will be prepared to identify building components that would be appropriate for use in public spaces, including public park(s). Building components for consideration will include the granite cladding, granite curbs, and possibly interior architecture, as appropriate. Prior to demolition CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1639 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-5 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date IMPACT CUL-2 CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATON MEASURE CUL-3: STOP WORK IF CULTURAL RESOURCES ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. All work within 100 feet of the find will be stopped until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division; qualified archaeologist April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1640 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-6 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date IMPACT CUL-3 DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTRORY A UNIQUEPALEONTOLICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-4: STOP WORK IF PALEONTOLOGICAL OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURES ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if substantial fossil remains are discovered during Project demolition or construction. All work will stop until a registered professional geologist or qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The County or the appropriate agency will be responsible for ensuring that recommendations regarding treatment and reporting are implemented. During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division; registered professional geologist or qualified professional paleontologist April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1641 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-7 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date IMPACT CUL-4 DISTURB ANY HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-5: STOP WORK IF HUMAN REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES The County will ensure the construction specifications include a stop work order if human remains are discovered during construction or demolition. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Contra Costa County Coroner will be notified and will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner will re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division; Contra Costa County Coroner April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1642 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-8 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date 3.3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT HAZ-2 CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORSEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-1: PREPARE A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPECIFICATION FOR THE ABATEMENT OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACMS) AND LEAD-BASED PAINTS (LBPS) PRIOR TO DEMOLITION A California-certified asbestos consultant and a California Department of Health Services-certified lead project designer shall prepare a hazardous materials specification for the abatement of the ACMs and LBPs. This specification should be the basis for selecting qualified contractors to perform the proposed asbestos and lead abatement work. The County has already identified areas of potential concern as a starting point for determining the hazardous materials that should be removed before demolition. Prior to demolition Construction contractor; California-certified asbestos consultant; California Department of Health-certified lead project designer CCCPWD Environmental Services Division MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-2: RETAIN A STATE LICENSED ASBESTOS ABATEMENT CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ABATEMENT PRIOR TO DEMOLITION The County or its assigned contractor will retain a California-licensed asbestos abatement contractor to perform the abatement of the ACMs, asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCMs), and LBPs deemed potentially hazardous. In addition, lamps used in fluorescent lights, ballasts, and electrical thermostats will be disposed of properly. Because all materials would be disturbed during demolition, all identified hazardous materials will need to be abated before demolition. Prior to demolition Construction contractor; California-licensed asbestos abatement contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1643 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-9 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-3: OBTAIN PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND FOLLOW APPLICABLE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DURING DEMOLITION The County or its assigned contractor will obtain a demolition permit from the County before proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials identified within the structure. Contractors performing work that disturbs LBPs in the building shall implement appropriate work practices in accordance with applicable Cal-OSHA worker exposure regulations. Prior to and during demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-4: ENSURE THAT CONTRACTORS AND DESIGNERS KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Contractors shall be informed of the exact locations of all potentially hazardous materials in the building so that workers can properly handle, manage, and remove these materials according to the appropriate federal, state, and local requirements. The County and/or assigned contractor shall provide notification to contractors and subcontractors of the building to the presence, locations, and quantities of ACMs, ACCMs, and LBPs at the site within 15 days of receiving this information. Prior to demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division 3.4 NOISE IMPACT NOI-3 EXPOSE PERSONS TO OR GENERATE EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-1: IMPLEMENT VIBRATION-REDUCING DEMOLITION PRACTICES In order to minimize groundborne vibration generated by falling building debris, the construction contractor will conduct demolition activities such that building debris does not fall more than 5 feet and is not dropped more than 5 feet. During demolition and construction Construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1644 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-10 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACT BIO-D INTERFERE WITH WILDLIFE CORRIDORS OR WILDLIFE NURSERY SITE MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS AND IMPLEMENT PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT AND OTHER ROOSTING BATS At least two months prior to the demolition of the Jailhouse building, qualified biologists will conduct an initial daytime survey to assess the building for potential bat roosting habitat, and to look for bats and bat sign. Qualified biologists will have knowledge of the natural history of the species that could occur and sufficient experience determining bat occupancy in buildings and bat survey techniques. The biologists will examine both the inside and outside of the building for potential roosting habitat, as well as routes of entry to the building. Locations of any roosting bats, signs of bat use, and entry and exit points will be noted and mapped on a drawing of the building. Roost sites will also be photographed as feasible. Depending on the results of the habitat assessment, the following steps will be taken as described below. If the building can be adequately assessed (i.e., all areas of the building can be examined) and no habitat or limited habitat for roosting bats is present and no signs of bat use are present, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building by qualified biologists will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. Prior to demolition and construction Qualified biologist retained by construction contractor CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1645 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-11 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 If moderate or high potential habitat is present but there are no signs of bat use, the County will implement measures under the guidance of a qualified bat biologist to exclude bats from using the building as a roost site, such as sealing off entry points. Prior to installing exclusion measures, qualified biologists will re-survey the building to ensure that no bats are present. Additionally, a preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition to confirm that no bats are present. If moderate or high potential habitat is present and bats or bat sign are observed, or if exclusion measures are not installed as described above, or the building provides suitable habitat but could not be adequately assessed, the following protective measures will be implemented. Follow-up surveys will be conducted to determine if bats are still present. If species identification is required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), surveys using night vision goggles and active acoustic monitoring using full spectrum bat detectors will be used. A survey plan (number, timing, and type of surveys) will be determined in coordination with CDFW. Based on the timing of demolition, the extent of bat sign or occupied habitat, and the species present (if determined), the qualified biologists will work with the County and CDFW to develop a plan to discourage or exclude bat use prior to demolition. The plan may include installing exclusion measures or using light or other means to deter bats from using the building to roost. A preconstruction survey of the interior and exterior of the building will be conducted will be conducted within 24 hours of demolition. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1646 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-12 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date Depending on the species of bats present, size of the bat roost, and timing of the demolition, additional protective measures may be necessary. Appropriate measures will be determined in coordination with the CDFW and may include measures listed below. To avoid impacts on maternity colonies or hibernating bats, the building will not be demolished while bats are present, generally between April 1 and September 15 (maternity season) and from October 30 to March 1 (hibernation). Removal of roosting habitat will only occur only following the maternity season and prior to hibernation, generally between September 15 and October 30, unless exclusionary devices are first installed (as described below). Other measures, such as using lights to deter bat roosting, may be used if developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW. Installation of exclusion devices will occur before maternity colonies establish or after they disperse, generally from March 1 -30 or September 15-October 30 to preclude bats from occupying a roost site during demolition. Exclusionary devices will only be installed by or under the supervision of an experienced bat biologist. CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for the loss of roosting habitat depending on the species present and size of the bat roost. Compensation, if required, will be determined in consultation with the CDFW, and may include the construction, installation, and monitoring of suitable replacement habitat onsite or near the Project site. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1647 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-13 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: CONDUCT DEMOLITION OUTSIDE NESTING SEASON (SEPTEMBER 1 TO JANUARY 31) OR CONDUCT PRE-CONSTRUCTION NESTING BIRD SURVEY FOR DEMOLITION DURING NESTING SEASON (FEBRUARY 1 TO AUGUST 31) To the extent practicable, demolition and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If demolition or construction cannot be performed during this period, pre-construction surveys to locate any active nests will be performed no more than 2 days prior to demolition activities as follows. The Project sponsor will be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the Project site and surrounding 250 feet for active nests – with particular emphasis on the nests of migratory birds – if demolition will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. Prior to demolition and construction Qualified biologist retained by CCCPWD Environmental Services Division, Construction contractors CCCPWD Environmental Services Division April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1648 Contra Costa County Public Works Department Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 4-14 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Versification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date If active nests are observed on either the Project site or the surrounding area, the Project sponsor, in coordination with the qualified biologist, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size based on the bird species and in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active, the nesting season ends, or if a qualified biologist monitors the nest(s) during demolition activities and determines the demolition activities are not affecting nesting bird behavior. If demolition activities appear to affect nesting bird behavior as determined by the biologist, the activities within the buffer zone shall cease immediately. If demolition activities do not affect nesting bird behavior as determined by the biologist, then demolition activities can continue, provided their distance to the nest or sound/vibration intensity does not increase. If demolition ceases for 2 days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present. CCCPWD = Contra Costa County Public Works Department April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1649 Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Final Environmental Impact Report 5-1 April 2017 ICF 00413.15 Chapter 5 List of Preparers 5.1 Contra Costa County • Hillary Heard—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Project Manager • Leigh Chavez—Public Works Department, Environmental Services, Division Manager • Lashun Cross—Department of Conservation and Development, Principal Planner 5.2 ICF • Sally Zeff, AICP—Project Director, document review • Elizabeth Antin—Draft EIR Project Manager, document review • Ed Yarborough, AIA—Draft EIR Project Manager, Cultural Resources (Historic Resources Evaluation Report) • Jessica Viramontes—Draft EIR Project Coordinator, Final EIR Project Manager, document review¸ Other CEQA, Alternatives • Liza Farr—Section Preparer, project coordination, Transportation and Traffic, Hazardous Materials, Other Topics • Alisa Reynolds, RPA—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report) • Joanne Grant, RPA—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report) • January Tavel—Cultural Resources (Historic Resources Evaluation Report) • Lily Henry Roberts—Cultural Resources (Archaeological Survey Report) • Dave Buehler, P.E.—Noise • Shannon Hatcher—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Dave Earnst—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Jennifer Haire—Biological Resources • Leila Harris—Biological Resources • Donna Maniscalco—Biological Resources • Lawrence Truong—Responses to Comments • Susan Lassell—Responses to Comments • Paul Shigley—Editor • Tim Messick—Graphics • Deborah Jew—Publications Specialist • Corrine Ortega—Publications Specialist • James Harmon—Publications Specialist April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1650 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1651 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\Capital Projects-Facilities\Martinez Jail\Final EIR\NOD\NOD.doc Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Form updated December 2016 To: Office of Planning and Research From: Contra Costa County P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 Dept. of Conservation & Development Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 County Clerk County of: Contra Costa State Clearinghouse Number: SCH# 2015112003 Project Title: Downtown Martinez Jail Demolition Project Project No. WO5885, CP# 15-39 Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Location: 650 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Project Description: The Project would involve demolition and removal of the existing Jailhouse building, including all building elements (i.e., foundations, roof equipment, and building appurtenances). The basement of the Jailhouse building and the sunken garage would also be demolished and filled. The existing Jailhouse building consists of the original structure, built in 1903, and an annex built in 1944. The Jailhouse building is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Jailhouse building is approximately 19,008 gross square feet and 35 feet in height. There are seven parking spaces in a parking lot to the south of the building and five in a parking lot to the north of the building. The Jailhouse is currently vacant (with the exception of a limited amount of obsolete storage). The Jailhouse building is currently contaminated with hazardous materials including asbestos and lead-based paint. Following demolition of the existing Jailhouse building, the Project site would be leveled to match the surrounding area and a surface parking lot would be constructed on the Project site. As described above, the existing parking lots have a total of 12 striped parking spaces. The County Public Works Department would repave the entire site, providing a total of 25 to 30 spaces. The proposed parking lot would serve some of the parking demand from the adjacent County buildings and would be restricted to County employees only. Construction activities would include abatement of hazardous materials and the demolition of the existing Jailhouse, site preparation and excavation, site grading, and paving of the new parking lot. Additionally, the Project would include the demolition and removal of all other site features, including building footings, granite bollards, granite curb, concrete curb, metal railings, walls, paving, and limited portions of sidewalks within the Project site. All existing planters and landscaping would be removed as well. The Project would have significant effects with regard to historic architectural resources, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. With the exception of historic architectural resources, these impacts could be reduced to a less-than- significant level with mitigation. The Project site is not included on a hazardous materials/contaminated sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the Board of Supervisors “to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable”. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1652 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\Capital Projects-Facilities\Martinez Jail\Final EIR\NOD\NOD.doc Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Form updated December 2016 The project was approved on: 1. The project [ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures [ were were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ was was not] adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was was not] adopted for this project. 6. Findings [ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Notice of Determination sent to Office of Planning and Research.* This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 Signature (Contra Costa County): Title: Date: Date Received for filing at OPR: AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on ____________________________________________ I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title: Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department EIR - $3,078.25 Total Due: $ 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $2,216.25 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: Leigh Chavez County Clerk - $50 Receipt #: Environmental Services Division Conservation & Development - $25 Phone: (925) 313-2366 *Notice of Determination may be sent by fax to (916) 323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1653 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1654 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1655 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1656 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1657 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1658 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1659 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1660 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1661 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1662 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1663 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1664 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1665 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1666 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1667 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1668 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1669 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1670 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1671 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1672 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1673 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1674 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1675 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1676 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1677 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1678 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1679 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency actions originally taken by the Board of Supervisors effective January 19 and February 14, 2017 regarding the hazardous conditions caused by a series of severe rainstorms in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: This action is necessary to maintain eligibility for Contra Costa County and its cities to receive disaster relief funds to cover costs of the emergency response and damage repairs needed as a result of the significant storm events in early January 2017 that continued into February. The initial damage estimates for the County from the January 6 -10, 2017 storms are estimated at $9.5 million; additional damage from the February storms has not yet been estimated. The County does not currently have funds designated for the response and repair of the storm damages and has, therefore, applied for relief funds. BACKGROUND: Conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property have arisen within the County, caused by a series of severe rainstorms that began in January 2017 and have continued into February, and have led to widespread flooding, mudslides, sinkholes and damage to public buildings, flood control facilities and roadways, including the collapse of a portion of Alhambra Valley Road at Pinole Creek, caused by a massive sinkhole. These conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the County. The initial damage estimate encompasses the County’s response and cleanup of various sites throughout the county and estimated costs to repair damages from the storm. The estimate includes road infrastructure, flood control APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTINUATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCIES ARISING OUT OF JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2017 STORM DAMAGE April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1680 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > infrastructure, public building facilities and park and recreation facilities. The majority of the damage occurred on or along rural county roads. The largest and most significant damage occurred on Alhambra Valley Road at Pinole Creek, and on Morgan Territory Road in Clayton, where there were washouts of the roads. Flood control infrastructure also experienced storm related damage. Public building and park facilities suffered minimal impact from the storm. A slideshow illustrating the storm damage can be accessed at this link: January 2017 Storm Damage Slideshow . The effects of the storms continue to be dynamic. Since the Board's original emergency declaration of January 19, Public Works Department crews have been responding to isolated mudslides, localized flooding, downed trees and drainage issues throughout the county, along with intermittent road closures including Marsh Creek Road, Morgan Territory Road, and a partial closure at Alhambra Valley Road at Ferndale Road. There have additionally been isolated issues related to County buildings/facilities including 50 Douglas Drive, 12000 Marsh Creek Rd (Detention Facility) and the County Hospital. Public Works crews continue to respond to items as they are reported. On March 7, 2017, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency and authorized the Public Works Director to proceed in the most expeditious manner with the Morgan Territory Road slide repair project. Government Code Section 8630 requires that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 30 days until the local emergency is terminated, which shall occur at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. Since the conditions that warranted proclamations of an emergency persist, it is appropriate for the Board to continue the local emergency actions regarding the hazardous conditions caused by storm damage. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Pursuant to Resolution No. 2017/404, the proclamation of local emergencies by the Board of Supervisors on January 19 and February 14, 2017 (Resolutions No. 2017/404 and 2017/65) cannot remain in effect more than 30 days unless they are reviewed and continued by the Board of Supervisors. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1681 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE discharge from accountability of 1,348 uncollectible General Assistance program accounts receivable totaling $256,577.53 and AUTHORIZE the Director of Employment and Human Services Department to write off the outstanding balances in the department's collection records. A true and correct list of the accounts receivable proposed for discharge is provided as part of this request. FISCAL IMPACT: General Assistance program accounts receivable are maintained on an internal subsidiary ledger and do not impact the County financial statements. The accounts receivable recommended for discharge are non-fraudulent debts established between calendar years 1991 and 2012, for which the cost of further collection efforts is found to outweigh the potential collection. Collection costs are 100% County funded and include administrative and personnel costs, legal filing fees, investigative costs, and hearing costs. BACKGROUND: The General Assistance program is required by Welfare and Institutions Code 17000 to provide cash assistance to very low-income indigents who do not have children, and who APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Posedel 313-1673 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Discharge of General Assistance Accounts Receivable April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1682 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) are not eligible for any other Federal or State benefits. An accounts receivable is established in the General Assistance program when a recipient was not entitled to payment because he or she did not meet eligibility requirements. Names and addresses of persons liable for each debt are maintained in EHSD department records. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this recommendation is not approved, the collection potential of accounts receivable will be overstated and future administrative costs associated with collection actions will be increased. ATTACHMENTS Collection Write Off April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1683 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 316543 251049 11/5/1991 AE-ADMIN ERR 260.00$ 190.00$ 414104 419695 11/2/1995 CE-CLIENT ERR 910.00$ 725.00$ 560798 627036 10/29/1999 AE-ADMIN ERR 262.00$ 104.00$ 803540 637730 2/18/2000 CE-CLIENT ERR 498.00$ 248.00$ B516238 703424 5/16/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 335.00$ 335.00$ B825524 704976 5/30/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,165.20$ 1,165.20$ B848167 709842 8/6/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 114.00$ 114.00$ B547796 709973 8/8/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 120.00$ 65.22$ B434464 730289 12/26/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,142.00$ 1,142.00$ B825683 730267 12/26/2001 CE-CLIENT ERR 686.00$ 686.00$ B553215 731749 1/3/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ B836578 733783 1/9/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 513.00$ 513.00$ B827517 736458 2/7/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 166.50$ 166.50$ B596278 742640 3/28/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 181.00$ 181.00$ B858282 765268 8/20/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 200.00$ 68.92$ B593951 765274 8/20/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 148.00$ 148.00$ B801967 770905 11/16/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 300.00$ 300.00$ 591986 770917 11/16/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 384.00$ 384.00$ B463295 772226 11/23/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ B580942 772309 11/23/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 222.00$ B867404 773409 12/3/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 744.00$ 744.00$ B351864 774343 12/16/2002 CE-CLIENT ERR 315.00$ 315.00$ B349134 783771 4/26/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 400.00$ 400.00$ B466210 785324 5/2/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,329.00$ 1,329.00$ B858220 785361 5/8/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 111.00$ 111.00$ B873808 786817 5/17/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ B846264 788523 6/12/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 372.00$ 372.00$ B530216 790680 7/24/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 148.00$ 148.00$ B466350 792470 8/15/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,019.20$ 1,019.20$ B466917 792860 8/25/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 148.00$ 148.00$ B377776 796720 10/13/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 296.00$ 296.00$ B581838 804880 12/18/2003 CE-CLIENT ERR 288.00$ 288.00$ 825327 806434 1/14/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 399.00$ 399.00$ B816101 820874 6/23/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 356.86$ 356.86$ B530143 821813 7/13/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ B550529 824496 8/2/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ B288244 826890 8/26/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ C832350 830246 9/30/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 272.00$ 247.00$ B595319 830321 10/1/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 287.00$ 262.00$ B439537 831379 10/8/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ B890251 831321 10/8/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 522.00$ 522.00$ B874368 831460 10/11/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ B582327 832176 10/18/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ 1 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1684 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance B831032 833604 11/2/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 154.00$ 154.00$ B567529 834138 11/4/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 192.60$ 192.60$ B811954 834301 11/9/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 277.00$ 277.00$ B567477 834255 11/9/2004 CE-CLIENT ERR 435.00$ 435.00$ B890099 845151 3/17/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 197.00$ 197.00$ C890370 845146 3/17/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ B890213 845274 3/21/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B522632 849146 5/13/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 217.30$ 217.30$ 514926 850217 5/19/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B615730 850381 5/20/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ C817661 852925 6/14/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 312.10$ 312.10$ B616440 852927 6/14/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 616251 852928 6/14/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ C612810 854921 7/7/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ B865993 855601 7/11/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 109.00$ 109.00$ B539449 855599 7/11/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 813.00$ 813.00$ B613206 855625 7/12/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 885347 855627 7/12/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 728.00$ 728.00$ B825997 855624 7/12/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 750.00$ 750.00$ B609730 855717 7/13/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 666.00$ 566.00$ B858610 876243 1/24/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ B624588 876304 1/25/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 547.00$ 547.00$ B624494 879138 2/16/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B578187 882596 3/16/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 632.68$ 632.68$ B549613 883432 3/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B538722 883433 3/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B02Q26 883434 3/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 163.00$ 163.00$ B624857 890710 6/7/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B613884 890739 6/8/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 852.00$ 852.00$ 1B01S38 890740 6/8/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 873.00$ 873.00$ B539039 891123 6/16/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 632.00$ 632.00$ B849978 892294 6/22/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 354.00$ 354.00$ 1B02W11 905872 11/1/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B440074 907674 11/16/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 240.00$ 240.00$ B862397 933219 8/24/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ 1B01P83 939844 11/5/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ B825406 946822 1/31/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B0CM41 958901 6/16/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 496.00$ 496.00$ 1B0D997 961719 7/14/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 158.00$ 1B09S50 967587 9/26/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B01Q93 971196 11/3/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0NM06 975189 12/15/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 538.00$ 538.00$ 1B0JS70 976095 12/26/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 538.00$ 538.00$ 2 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1685 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B00304 1117017 10/10/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,135.00$ 1,135.00$ 1B00653 1068594 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 77.00$ 1B00653 1068600 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 142.00$ 142.00$ 1B00653 1072948 2/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 83.00$ 83.00$ 1B00703 290574 10/11/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B00D21 1148881 4/5/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 528.00$ 528.00$ 1B00Q54 179026 8/24/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 181.00$ 181.00$ 1B00Q54 179028 8/24/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 181.00$ 181.00$ 1B00Q54 179047 8/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 60.00$ 60.00$ 1B00Q54 179048 8/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 181.00$ 181.00$ 1B00Q54 179049 8/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 181.00$ 181.00$ 1B00W31 1150311 4/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B01008 1191494 12/10/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 225.00$ 225.00$ 1B01657 327745 3/19/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B01657 327746 3/19/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B01869 1181569 10/5/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ 1B01893 265063 6/27/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 2,403.00$ 2,403.00$ 1B01936 1162138 6/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B01959 1177092 9/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B01959 1182361 10/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B01B78 1118259 10/18/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B01C18 279619 8/30/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 266.00$ 266.00$ 1B01C73 66959 11/18/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B01J96 355364 7/30/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 402.00$ 344.00$ 1B01K77 102108 1/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 504.00$ 27.00$ 1B01S03 130054 3/1/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B01W79 316175 1/29/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B01X57 307564 12/19/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 344.00$ 344.00$ 1B01X57 307565 12/19/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,032.00$ 1,032.00$ 1B02603 1081838 4/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 88.00$ 86.00$ 1B02C14 172526 8/2/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 858.00$ 858.00$ 1B02F96 1085188 4/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B02J04 1036948 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 7.00$ 7.00$ 1B02N42 123063 2/14/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 273.00$ 273.00$ 1B02Q90 389672 2/2/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B02W44 474674 12/28/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B02X06 224774 1/19/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,276.00$ 148.02$ 1B03352 157000 6/6/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 268.00$ 268.00$ 1B03398 439099 10/6/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B03631 313015 1/16/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 217.00$ 1B03631 324426 3/3/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B03631 324428 3/3/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B03659 129368 2/28/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B03778 153108 5/22/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 470.00$ 470.00$ 1B03795 125571 2/17/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B03H42 185960 9/13/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 43.00$ 43.00$ 1B03K14 1036958 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 235.00$ 235.00$ 1B03L69 129840 3/1/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B03Q31 1104009 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B03S65 1126958 12/5/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B03V18 428335 8/14/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ 3 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1686 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B03X86 1133447 1/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B03Z77 1105949 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 98.00$ 98.00$ 1B04690 141072 4/3/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B04C21 1084436 4/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ 1B04N49 1106294 8/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B04Q20 1095264 6/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 178.00$ 178.00$ 1B04S12 529025 1/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B04S12 1021167 5/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B04W63 1171463 8/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 517.00$ 517.00$ 1B04W63 1171468 8/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 99.00$ 99.00$ 1B05130 203623 11/7/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 681.00$ 681.00$ 1B05D27 144604 4/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 572.00$ 572.00$ 1B05G52 1095258 6/15/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 49.00$ 49.00$ 1B05G88 281200 9/4/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B05H55 1062520 12/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B05H72 433310 9/4/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 124.00$ 1B05K21 1052092 11/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 88.00$ 88.00$ 1B05M76 1044621 9/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 148.00$ 148.00$ 1B05M83 157237 6/7/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B05Q95 176670 8/16/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 236.00$ 236.00$ 1B06055 167736 7/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 67.00$ 67.00$ 1B06180 165598 7/10/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B06180 165599 7/10/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B06256 158220 6/12/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B06713 1149420 4/10/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 60.00$ 60.00$ 1B06848 1084904 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B06B09 1133308 1/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 103.00$ 103.00$ 1B06Y61 238621 3/6/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B07320 354790 7/29/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 75.00$ 75.00$ 1B07436 1015955 4/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B07G72 207913 11/21/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ 1B07G72 238949 3/7/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 906.00$ 805.36$ 1B07J92 1031743 7/23/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 427.00$ 316.00$ 1B07T43 1032853 7/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 192.00$ 192.00$ 1B07V62 360227 8/26/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B07W56 207200 11/20/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B08099 1062581 12/9/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 443.00$ 443.00$ 1B08264 1062303 12/7/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 248.00$ 248.00$ 1B08753 358653 8/19/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 98.00$ 32.00$ 1B08D92 1128217 12/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 574.00$ 574.00$ 1B08H15 1117599 10/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 122.00$ 122.00$ 1B08K48 1020838 5/25/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B08P86 1104423 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 127.00$ 127.00$ 1B08Z60 212162 12/4/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 126.00$ 1B09821 231942 2/8/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 224.00$ 224.00$ 1B09821 231943 2/8/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B09D96 220448 1/2/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 199.00$ 199.00$ 1B09F78 436858 9/25/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 300.00$ 300.00$ 1B09F94 353380 7/23/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 300.00$ 300.00$ 1B09L10 381689 12/19/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 119.00$ 60.00$ 1B09Q80 1111348 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 213.00$ 213.00$ 4 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1687 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B09S20 1061782 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 2.00$ 1B09V78 1107322 8/23/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 74.00$ 74.00$ 1B09X59 1034790 8/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 68.00$ 68.00$ 1B09X63 1128948 12/16/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B09Z92 319684 2/12/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 63.00$ 1B0B210 206063 11/15/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 51.00$ 51.00$ 1B0B488 1073403 2/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B0B507 1148593 4/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B0BD70 1037155 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 229.00$ 206.00$ 1B0BF48 1061687 12/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B0BF94 196741 10/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 356.00$ 356.00$ 1B0BK85 440411 10/14/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 90.00$ 90.00$ 1B0BK85 440412 10/14/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 19.00$ 19.00$ 1B0BS32 1123306 11/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 100.00$ 70.00$ 1B0BS32 1170458 8/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0BW25 221359 1/4/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ 1B0BY14 1104087 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0BY74 1194022 12/26/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0BZ26 320288 2/15/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 32.00$ 19.00$ 1B0C527 213293 12/6/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 48.00$ 48.00$ 1B0CC50 1175894 9/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 178.00$ 168.00$ 1B0CG54 1119071 10/24/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 27.00$ 17.00$ 1B0CT18 230606 2/5/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 151.00$ 127.00$ 1B0CT40 1105952 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B0D120 551483 2/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 756.00$ 756.00$ 1B0D130 448151 11/30/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,008.00$ 1,008.00$ 1B0D277 1183785 10/23/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 378.00$ 378.00$ 1B0D379 232419 2/12/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 506.00$ 329.00$ 1B0D949 376066 11/17/2008 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B0DJ18 331902 4/4/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 268.00$ 162.00$ 1B0DK64 274268 8/6/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0DL75 1134489 1/21/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0DR68 381369 12/17/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B0DT76 1092950 6/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ 1B0DY09 1068353 1/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 228.00$ 228.00$ 1B0F052 352771 7/21/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 15.00$ 1B0F117 1143621 3/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 120.00$ 120.00$ 1B0F181 233297 2/15/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 52.00$ 52.00$ 1B0FF58 1069478 1/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 85.00$ 85.00$ 1B0FK73 266497 7/3/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 75.00$ 75.00$ 1B0FK73 273563 8/2/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 300.00$ 300.00$ 1B0FS43 1105954 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 40.00$ 1B0FS43 1158060 6/1/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B0FT73 528318 1/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B0G016 340138 5/8/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 528.00$ 528.00$ 1B0G733 1042346 9/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 149.00$ 149.00$ 1B0G891 1037422 8/21/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 432.00$ 432.00$ 1B0GJ71 1090371 5/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B0GK91 1078525 3/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B0GP98 285048 9/21/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 214.00$ 214.00$ 1B0GS85 1027120 6/28/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 5 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1688 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B0GT84 312844 1/15/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B0H034 1069506 1/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B0H074 264037 6/25/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0H318 1111297 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 227.00$ 227.00$ 1B0H531 1037162 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 121.00$ 121.00$ 1B0HH82 1100622 7/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 49.00$ 49.00$ 1B0HN13 1169707 8/1/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0HN90 631405 3/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 119.00$ 119.00$ 1B0HW11 1068495 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 193.00$ 193.00$ 1B0HY14 1150210 4/16/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 15.00$ 15.00$ 1B0J484 295830 11/2/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,434.00$ 1,296.00$ 1B0J941 1028981 7/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 90.00$ 90.00$ 1B0JC16 1049670 10/22/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ 1B0JF29 1030729 7/20/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 105.00$ 1B0JJ43 1068185 1/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 102.00$ 1B0JJ76 1154748 5/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0JP73 307748 12/20/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 756.00$ 756.00$ 1B0K713 1131044 12/29/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B0KB13 1100225 7/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 175.00$ 175.00$ 1B0KH14 1185332 10/30/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 29.00$ 29.00$ 1B0KP29 364384 9/17/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ 1B0KT99 1015214 4/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0L165 1194692 12/31/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,274.00$ 822.00$ 1B0LC19 309355 12/28/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 72.00$ 72.00$ 1B0LG57 380107 12/8/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 311.00$ 311.00$ 1B0LH33 1028887 7/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 378.00$ 378.00$ 1B0LJ25 1104963 8/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B0LJ66 330129 3/28/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 83.00$ 20.00$ 1B0LL92 345878 6/10/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B0LL92 345879 6/10/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B0M579 524686 1/22/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 539.00$ 539.00$ 1B0M739 1041235 9/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 139.00$ 139.00$ 1B0MC10 1187918 11/16/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B0MC10 1187919 11/16/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B0MG93 1052489 11/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0MJ85 1036360 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 227.00$ 227.00$ 1B0MX18 1144195 3/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ 1B0N080 1032169 7/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B0N168 306151 12/12/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 672.00$ 672.00$ 1B0ND48 332506 4/7/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 58.00$ 1B0NG68 1036333 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 166.00$ 166.00$ 1B0NM84 1141615 2/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 171.00$ 171.00$ 1B0NM90 1125155 11/28/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 45.00$ 8.00$ 1B0NM90 1138793 2/9/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B0NM90 1138794 2/9/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 117.00$ 117.00$ 1B0NZ62 1068153 1/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ 1B0P552 1062359 12/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 459.00$ 459.00$ 1B0P609 348247 6/25/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B0P687 1126590 12/2/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B0P751 631995 3/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B0P936 1039910 9/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 6 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1689 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B0PB46 1089145 5/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 4.00$ 1B0PK00 1163721 6/26/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 91.00$ 1B0PK54 1067990 1/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 201.00$ 201.00$ 1B0PM06 1036351 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 197.00$ 197.00$ 1B0PP57 339797 5/7/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B0PT02 356182 8/1/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 128.00$ 128.00$ 1B0Q302 1028361 7/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 248.00$ 248.00$ 1B0QC04 350682 7/3/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 142.00$ 142.00$ 1B0QC04 1015308 4/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 309.00$ 309.00$ 1B0QC93 626842 3/25/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 53.00$ 53.00$ 1B0QC93 1081887 4/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0QC95 1063358 12/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 240.00$ 240.00$ 1B0QD42 1041704 9/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 622.00$ 622.00$ 1B0QM03 1189807 11/30/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B0QM65 350129 7/2/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 182.00$ 182.00$ 1B0QR39 445491 11/6/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 572.00$ 572.00$ 1B0QV58 448296 11/30/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 171.00$ 1B0QW43 1156708 5/24/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B0QW47 539355 2/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 398.00$ 142.00$ 1B0QW85 341120 5/15/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 372.00$ 372.00$ 1B0QY73 1015361 4/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0QZ42 1117478 10/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 120.00$ 1B0QZ42 1138928 2/10/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 329.00$ 329.00$ 1B0QZ71 409621 5/15/2009 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 1B0R209 1146807 3/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 47.00$ 32.00$ 1B0R420 1030291 7/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 137.00$ 60.00$ 1B0R598 1099889 7/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 436.00$ 436.00$ 1B0R830 1154743 5/11/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B0RC24 1111249 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 97.00$ 97.00$ 1B0RF49 349210 6/30/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ 1B0RF64 1084860 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 91.00$ 91.00$ 1B0RG50 546855 2/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 506.00$ 506.00$ 1B0RJ66 1037419 8/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 376.00$ 188.00$ 1B0RJ85 442818 10/27/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 572.00$ 572.00$ 1B0RQ79 373444 10/31/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B0RR93 505842 1/12/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 194.00$ 194.00$ 1B0RV08 350403 7/3/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B0RW87 360070 8/26/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0S308 1179177 9/26/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 428.00$ 368.00$ 1B0S514 1131034 12/29/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 402.00$ 402.00$ 1B0S879 1061730 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 244.00$ 244.00$ 1B0SG04 1085368 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B0SJ41 358640 8/19/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 59.00$ 59.00$ 1B0SK08 1063835 12/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ 1B0SN35 1022869 6/2/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 50.00$ 35.00$ 1B0SN35 1156831 5/25/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 285.00$ 285.00$ 1B0SR34 358116 8/14/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B0SV37 1027226 6/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 94.00$ 94.00$ 1B0SW96 347235 6/20/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 554.00$ 419.00$ 1B0T238 350574 7/3/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 34.00$ 34.00$ 1B0T252 1159648 6/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 266.00$ 7 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1690 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B0T267 1025122 6/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 378.00$ 378.00$ 1B0TB06 367753 10/1/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ 1B0TC06 1126005 11/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B0TC98 1132391 1/5/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 36.00$ 21.00$ 1B0TF21 1192838 12/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 638.00$ 638.00$ 1B0TG12 1077762 3/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 193.00$ 193.00$ 1B0TH60 955055 4/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 225.00$ 225.00$ 1B0TR86 1177689 9/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ 1B0TS97 1036345 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 59.00$ 59.00$ 1B0TT89 357801 8/13/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B0TW52 1021580 5/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0V667 1023923 6/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B0VG89 1069479 1/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 74.00$ 6.00$ 1B0VH03 1089488 5/11/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0VJ00 1106650 8/19/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0VK27 391700 2/12/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0VK27 1094693 6/10/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0VL99 1104970 8/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B0VM14 370422 10/15/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 91.00$ 91.00$ 1B0VP93 1094125 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 92.00$ 1B0VV06 436681 9/25/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 309.00$ 309.00$ 1B0VV67 1066581 1/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 94.00$ 94.00$ 1B0VX80 395246 3/2/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B0VZ10 1042728 9/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 105.00$ 69.00$ 1B0W067 1030384 7/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 105.00$ 105.00$ 1B0W399 370149 10/13/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 32.00$ 32.00$ 1B0W519 1037246 8/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 1B0W681 1084858 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B0W757 367280 9/30/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0W950 373803 11/3/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 169.00$ 169.00$ 1B0WH48 1117472 10/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B0WH96 1068659 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B0WM96 1166425 7/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B0WP43 1119900 10/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 30.00$ 30.00$ 1B0WP70 1167901 7/24/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 19.00$ 19.00$ 1B0WP70 1167902 7/24/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 7.00$ 7.00$ 1B0WR18 1187724 11/15/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 83.00$ 1B0WR63 1180684 10/2/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 864.00$ 864.00$ 1B0WV28 1170183 8/3/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B0WZ67 1192292 12/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 790.00$ 790.00$ 1B0X280 1064902 12/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0X488 1025223 6/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B0X572 1054332 11/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B0X671 451271 12/4/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 35.00$ 35.00$ 1B0X838 1111850 9/16/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 436.00$ 436.00$ 1B0X985 380412 12/10/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ 1B0XC41 1061701 12/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B0XG47 1147194 3/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 151.00$ 151.00$ 1B0XK04 1146444 3/27/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B0XK31 1036933 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 33.00$ 33.00$ 1B0XK63 1028726 7/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ 8 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1691 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B0XL30 1109930 9/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B0XL87 1159685 6/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 906.00$ 906.00$ 1B0XZ41 1146875 3/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 121.00$ 91.00$ 1B0Y216 446566 11/17/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ 1B0Y233 396303 3/6/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 234.00$ 104.00$ 1B0Y433 1016900 5/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0Y545 1099078 7/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 98.00$ 98.00$ 1B0Y877 1038918 8/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B0Y907 1048654 10/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 116.00$ 116.00$ 1B0Y907 1048655 10/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 88.00$ 88.00$ 1B0Y912 1053095 11/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 29.00$ 29.00$ 1B0YB19 626836 3/25/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 512.00$ 422.00$ 1B0YC69 1148246 4/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B0YH78 1157827 5/31/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B0YJ79 1024400 6/11/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B0YK65 413931 6/5/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B0YM93 396457 3/9/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 219.00$ 219.00$ 1B0YS90 1037412 8/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B0YX15 1116802 10/7/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B0Z136 1093576 6/3/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 16.00$ 16.00$ 1B0Z136 1104438 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B0Z261 1189075 11/27/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0Z378 1133030 1/10/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 484.00$ 484.00$ 1B0Z512 1177325 9/17/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B0Z622 407541 5/4/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B0Z622 407545 5/4/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B0Z624 412056 5/28/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 224.00$ 1B0Z852 1085145 4/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B0ZC98 407737 5/5/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B0ZD54 1036757 8/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 303.00$ 303.00$ 1B0ZG42 1108081 8/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 116.00$ 116.00$ 1B0ZN41 1106310 8/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B0ZP87 1188676 11/26/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 88.00$ 88.00$ 1B0ZR58 1054014 11/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 97.00$ 97.00$ 1B0ZR60 1138604 2/8/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 252.00$ 194.00$ 1B0ZT21 1155919 5/21/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 201.00$ 201.00$ 1B0ZT21 1155920 5/21/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 201.00$ 201.00$ 1B0ZT38 1105967 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B0ZT49 1025231 6/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B0ZW33 1149555 4/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,112.00$ 1,110.65$ 1B10027 411398 5/26/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B10283 1142198 3/1/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 170.00$ 79.00$ 1B10784 1073762 2/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 86.00$ 19.00$ 1B10D84 1036348 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B10D89 1032758 7/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B10F34 1067707 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 120.00$ 120.00$ 1B10G45 1085155 4/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B10L43 472050 12/17/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 253.00$ 253.00$ 1B10M19 1089166 5/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B10M62 1121837 11/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B10P82 1061992 12/6/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 9 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1692 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B10Q87 1061207 12/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 274.00$ 193.00$ 1B10V83 1181873 10/8/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 398.00$ 13.00$ 1B10W28 1059916 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ 1B10Z99 1154572 5/10/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 425.51$ 425.51$ 1B11195 1095000 6/14/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B11256 1030822 7/20/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 232.00$ 232.00$ 1B11278 1090271 5/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B11323 440827 10/16/2009 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 16.00$ 16.00$ 1B11396 1034904 8/5/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 55.00$ 55.00$ 1B11739 1173088 8/23/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 50.00$ 50.00$ 1B11739 1177127 9/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 19.00$ 19.00$ 1B11892 1127796 12/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B11C45 446106 11/12/2009 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 39.00$ 39.00$ 1B11D83 1068223 1/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 948.00$ 948.00$ 1B11H01 1174047 8/28/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 142.00$ 142.00$ 1B11J30 1028360 7/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B11L62 1156152 5/22/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 266.00$ 266.00$ 1B11L72 1176484 9/10/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 117.00$ 17.00$ 1B11M88 1063284 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B11M88 1132149 1/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B11N71 1170976 8/8/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 44.00$ 44.00$ 1B11R63 1028209 7/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 155.00$ 70.00$ 1B11S87 1092160 5/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B11S98 634971 3/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B12014 1139747 2/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 74.00$ 74.00$ 1B12207 1051920 11/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 190.00$ 190.00$ 1B12218 1036753 8/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 129.00$ 104.00$ 1B12328 1140775 2/23/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B12666 1110308 9/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ 1B12J89 581824 3/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 203.00$ 203.00$ 1B12R31 1016288 4/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B12S47 1079149 3/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B12T20 541100 2/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 170.00$ 170.00$ 1B12T21 1052096 11/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B12V68 1062411 12/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 205.00$ 205.00$ 1B12V86 1067048 1/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 207.00$ 207.00$ 1B12Y98 1046940 10/5/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B13007 1067605 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B13039 1063538 12/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 392.00$ 392.00$ 1B13153 1142697 3/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B13824 810151 4/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 459.00$ 459.00$ 1B13824 1023844 6/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 306.00$ 306.00$ 1B13F57 1086376 4/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B13F57 1086377 4/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B13H27 1111074 9/12/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B13H43 1067064 1/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B13H72 1176696 9/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B13L40 1030211 7/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 1.00$ 1.00$ 1B13M75 1029451 7/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 162.00$ 162.00$ 1B13N41 1072930 2/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B13S24 1068640 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 632.00$ 632.00$ 10 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1693 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B13W23 1046245 10/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 74.00$ 43.00$ 1B13W23 1111688 9/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B14040 1062583 12/9/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 311.00$ 311.00$ 1B14204 1167120 7/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 632.00$ 632.00$ 1B14502 1153601 5/3/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 98.00$ 98.00$ 1B14720 1098404 7/1/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 357.00$ 357.00$ 1B14895 1014934 4/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 107.00$ 107.00$ 1B14995 1063291 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B14C02 1100330 7/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ 1B14G40 1029927 7/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B14G40 1149269 4/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 227.00$ 227.00$ 1B15618 1032866 7/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 344.00$ 169.00$ 1B15B10 1063293 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B15C87 1094782 6/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B15H70 1024816 6/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 305.00$ 305.00$ 1B15K46 1156118 5/22/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 138.00$ 138.00$ 1B15M58 1063292 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B15R84 1031749 7/23/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 51.00$ 1B15V48 1023371 6/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 215.00$ 215.00$ 1B16014 1033128 7/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B16083 1094132 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 143.00$ 1B16289 577701 2/24/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 16.00$ 16.00$ 1B16466 1136849 1/31/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B16506 1051033 10/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 275.00$ 275.00$ 1B16555 1068599 1/20/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 144.00$ 144.00$ 1B16635 1149533 4/11/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 948.00$ 948.00$ 1B16705 1128955 12/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 255.00$ 255.00$ 1B16915 523824 1/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 80.00$ 80.00$ 1B16973 1068159 1/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 107.00$ 92.00$ 1B16C47 1115584 10/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 110.00$ 110.00$ 1B16D22 1107729 8/25/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 151.00$ 151.00$ 1B16J80 1068437 1/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 406.00$ 377.00$ 1B16P55 1192780 12/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 406.00$ 406.00$ 1B16Q99 1158971 6/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 858.00$ 858.00$ 1B16T31 1095013 6/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 27.00$ 27.00$ 1B16T31 1095014 6/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 27.00$ 27.00$ 1B16T31 1105258 8/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 131.00$ 131.00$ 1B16V94 1132065 1/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 34.00$ 34.00$ 1B16X17 1043072 9/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B16X56 1153810 5/4/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 117.00$ 117.00$ 1B16Z75 1070511 1/28/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B17240 1171145 8/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 199.00$ 199.00$ 1B17380 529785 2/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 58.00$ 58.00$ 1B17390 1171605 8/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 421.00$ 421.00$ 1B17524 1067270 1/10/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 97.00$ 53.00$ 1B17850 1137858 2/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ 1B17908 1025268 6/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B17D63 1105981 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 73.00$ 15.00$ 1B17G62 1100752 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 268.00$ 212.00$ 1B17J36 1106614 8/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 78.00$ 78.00$ 1B17K67 1103710 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 38.00$ 38.00$ 11 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1694 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B17R23 1148604 4/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 105.00$ 105.00$ 1B17T09 1088179 5/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 108.00$ 91.00$ 1B17V62 1094118 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 67.00$ 67.00$ 1B17V66 1105980 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 636.00$ 636.00$ 1B17X04 1037164 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B18465 1073525 2/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 178.00$ 178.00$ 1B18670 1165645 7/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 64.00$ 64.00$ 1B18765 1068660 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 84.00$ 84.00$ 1B18999 1031171 7/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B18B08 1015115 4/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B18B62 1073416 2/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B18C66 1060681 12/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B18C72 1119723 10/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B18F23 528641 1/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B18G62 1071718 2/2/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 178.00$ 178.00$ 1B18H05 1020927 5/25/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 227.00$ 227.00$ 1B18H41 595545 3/9/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 146.00$ 146.00$ 1B18L61 1036983 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 32.00$ 17.00$ 1B18N30 1027359 6/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 258.00$ 258.00$ 1B18N39 1029880 7/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 466.00$ 466.00$ 1B18N66 505341 1/11/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 190.00$ 190.00$ 1B18N69 1116353 10/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 889.00$ 845.00$ 1B18Q50 1094141 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B18R41 585584 3/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 68.00$ 68.00$ 1B18R48 1063294 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 50.00$ 25.00$ 1B18R77 1159937 6/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 480.00$ 480.00$ 1B18R77 1159938 6/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 53.00$ 1B18R77 1159939 6/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B18S87 1142626 3/2/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 2.00$ 2.00$ 1B18S87 1142627 3/2/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 2.00$ 2.00$ 1B18V76 1086618 4/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B18W21 1063295 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B18Y28 1143262 3/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B19028 1107010 8/22/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 23.00$ 23.00$ 1B19269 1030644 7/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 572.00$ 572.00$ 1B19369 635081 3/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 94.00$ 94.00$ 1B19398 1110412 9/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 204.00$ 52.00$ 1B19551 1061733 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 70.00$ 70.00$ 1B19609 1015548 4/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B19648 1094683 6/10/2011 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 32.00$ 32.00$ 1B19989 647929 4/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 56.00$ 1B19B29 1015120 4/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B19C10 1106285 8/17/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B19D25 637932 4/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 105.00$ 105.00$ 1B19D84 644426 4/2/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 58.00$ 58.00$ 1B19J19 1084865 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B19K55 1121116 11/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B19M68 1109105 8/31/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B19R52 1068661 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 250.00$ 250.00$ 1B19R77 1016647 5/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 480.00$ 480.00$ 1B19R86 1029169 7/7/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 259.00$ 259.00$ 12 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1695 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B19S72 1034628 8/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B19W06 1025276 6/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 27.00$ 27.00$ 1B19W17 1070006 1/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 121.00$ 112.00$ 1B19W29 1036350 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 57.00$ 57.00$ 1B19W73 1154177 5/8/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B19X72 1030759 7/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 162.00$ 162.00$ 1B19X76 1025258 6/18/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B19X87 1031098 7/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 141.00$ 141.00$ 1B19Y94 1052784 11/5/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ 1B19Z44 1029777 7/12/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 255.00$ 33.00$ 1B19Z44 1115309 9/30/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B19Z69 1157792 5/31/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ 1B1B110 1060685 12/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 588.00$ 588.00$ 1B1B207 1023656 6/7/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 43.00$ 43.00$ 1B1B232 1023633 6/7/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1B471 1018554 5/12/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 143.00$ 143.00$ 1B1B615 1115644 10/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 113.00$ 113.00$ 1B1B768 1140924 2/24/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 178.00$ 178.00$ 1B1B768 1159331 6/8/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1B902 1100144 7/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1B959 1025278 6/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B1BD12 1037243 8/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 2.00$ 2.00$ 1B1BG51 1106043 8/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 159.00$ 159.00$ 1B1BJ31 1111807 9/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B1BJ47 1024819 6/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 147.00$ 147.00$ 1B1BL05 1021271 5/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1BL05 1117621 10/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 152.00$ 152.00$ 1B1BQ03 954937 4/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 44.00$ 44.00$ 1B1BQ38 1029580 7/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 121.00$ 121.00$ 1B1BR02 1060056 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 31.00$ 1B1BR64 1067655 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 612.00$ 612.00$ 1B1BS19 1048264 10/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,024.00$ 1,024.00$ 1B1BS70 1114116 9/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 114.00$ 114.00$ 1B1BT72 1010066 4/23/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 35.00$ 25.00$ 1B1BX12 1024571 6/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 62.00$ 62.00$ 1B1BX67 1036959 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 168.00$ 168.00$ 1B1BX79 1018461 5/11/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 174.00$ 174.00$ 1B1BY25 1037157 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 358.00$ 358.00$ 1B1BY30 1026723 6/25/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 161.00$ 161.00$ 1B1BY84 1191840 12/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 425.00$ 425.00$ 1B1BY86 1036835 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 448.00$ 448.00$ 1B1C161 1037146 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 240.00$ 240.00$ 1B1C407 1033186 7/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 212.00$ 212.00$ 1B1C429 1036756 8/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 344.00$ 344.00$ 1B1C446 1033321 7/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 50.00$ 50.00$ 1B1C703 1028816 7/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B1C760 1149064 4/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 116.00$ 116.00$ 1B1C919 1063304 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1CC51 1063220 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 463.00$ 463.00$ 1B1CD05 1182435 10/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1CD52 1103567 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 203.00$ 203.00$ 13 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1696 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1CD94 1105144 8/8/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 327.00$ 327.00$ 1B1CF37 1036953 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 84.00$ 84.00$ 1B1CF85 1036957 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 229.00$ 229.00$ 1B1CF98 1034284 8/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 81.00$ 81.00$ 1B1CG77 1036366 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 90.00$ 90.00$ 1B1CG77 1036367 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1CH71 1168313 7/26/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 446.00$ 446.00$ 1B1CK69 1118626 10/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 218.00$ 64.00$ 1B1CL41 1067782 1/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 268.00$ 268.00$ 1B1CL85 1036343 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 115.00$ 84.00$ 1B1CN53 1027548 6/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ 1B1CN76 1029493 7/8/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 411.00$ 411.00$ 1B1CN76 1029494 7/8/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1CP15 1036361 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ 1B1CQ38 1045220 9/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 1B1CR11 1128969 12/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 214.00$ 214.00$ 1B1CR22 1082243 4/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 67.00$ 67.00$ 1B1CR34 1025652 6/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1CW75 1032507 7/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B1CX12 1139221 2/14/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B1CX48 1035289 8/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1CY82 1110251 9/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B1CY89 1036369 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 105.00$ 1B1CY89 1124033 11/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B1CZ16 1037266 8/20/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 110.00$ 110.00$ 1B1CZ80 1036947 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 110.00$ 110.00$ 1B1D426 1041770 9/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 122.00$ 122.00$ 1B1D693 1036755 8/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1D815 1036943 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 107.00$ 107.00$ 1B1DC26 1035649 8/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B1DC42 1112801 9/21/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1DC77 1036935 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B1DD11 1119500 10/25/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1DD21 1038915 8/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B1DD69 1171792 8/15/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 91.00$ 91.00$ 1B1DG30 1036355 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 102.00$ 1B1DG34 1085419 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ 1B1DG72 1067571 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 28.00$ 28.00$ 1B1DH23 1059918 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 277.00$ 277.00$ 1B1DJ15 1120038 10/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1DJ15 1121593 11/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 528.00$ 528.00$ 1B1DK08 1037161 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1DK26 1036954 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 39.00$ 39.00$ 1B1DN77 1040376 9/3/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1DN95 1035638 8/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 1B1DQ04 1046149 10/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1DQ22 1032079 7/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 70.00$ 56.00$ 1B1DT13 1162228 6/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B1DV60 1032495 7/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1DV64 1168252 7/25/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 1B1DV91 1112658 9/21/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 185.00$ 185.00$ 14 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1697 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1DX47 1039314 8/31/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 103.00$ 103.00$ 1B1DY71 1063368 12/15/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 242.00$ 242.00$ 1B1DZ36 1072534 2/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1F002 1103570 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 65.00$ 65.00$ 1B1F230 1035338 8/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1F269 1167255 7/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B1F345 1061973 12/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 81.00$ 58.00$ 1B1F462 1086798 4/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 55.00$ 55.00$ 1B1F729 1136848 1/31/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1F776 1050838 10/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 37.00$ 37.00$ 1B1F843 1068936 1/21/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 102.00$ 42.00$ 1B1F872 1103576 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1F902 1041232 9/8/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 102.00$ 1B1F940 1103578 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 231.00$ 210.00$ 1B1FB03 1040606 9/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 1B1FD10 1040514 9/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1FD44 1110715 9/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 480.00$ 480.00$ 1B1FD98 1040887 9/7/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 81.00$ 81.00$ 1B1FF24 1098107 6/30/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 119.00$ 119.00$ 1B1FF52 1159719 6/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1FG22 1039741 9/1/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 370.00$ 248.00$ 1B1FG67 1047536 10/7/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1FH93 1054879 11/22/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 249.00$ 249.00$ 1B1FH93 1054880 11/22/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B1FK85 1054136 11/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 14.00$ 14.00$ 1B1FL11 1035570 8/10/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 245.00$ 245.00$ 1B1FL55 1167104 7/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 130.00$ 1B1FL86 1063832 12/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 92.00$ 1B1FL96 1063777 12/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 236.00$ 236.00$ 1B1FM87 1044643 9/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 231.00$ 175.00$ 1B1FN49 1041767 9/13/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 100.00$ 1B1FR59 1082517 4/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1FR62 1042780 9/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 72.00$ 72.00$ 1B1FR72 1046476 10/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 72.00$ 15.00$ 1B1FS01 1041602 9/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1FS33 1042680 9/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 49.00$ 49.00$ 1B1FS34 1105204 8/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 45.00$ 45.00$ 1B1FS56 1067256 1/10/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 314.00$ 314.00$ 1B1FS72 1054081 11/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B1FT02 1041659 9/10/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1FT96 1042681 9/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B1FV62 1044619 9/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1FV90 1046996 10/5/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 60.00$ 60.00$ 1B1FY67 1043267 9/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ 1B1FY79 1106533 8/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1FY88 1127596 12/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 285.00$ 285.00$ 1B1FZ02 1062418 12/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 240.00$ 240.00$ 1B1FZ27 1061279 12/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 394.00$ 394.00$ 1B1FZ43 1138459 2/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 16.00$ 16.00$ 1B1G019 1053555 11/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 294.00$ 294.00$ 1B1G137 1153237 5/2/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 201.00$ 135.00$ 15 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1698 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1G158 1051986 11/2/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 727.00$ 727.00$ 1B1G215 1068405 1/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 285.00$ 253.00$ 1B1G422 1060193 11/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 103.00$ 103.00$ 1B1G422 1060196 11/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 103.00$ 103.00$ 1B1G599 1066071 1/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 459.00$ 459.00$ 1B1G617 1062937 12/11/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 264.00$ 264.00$ 1B1G722 1054545 11/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 218.00$ 218.00$ 1B1G873 1113762 9/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 356.00$ 356.00$ 1B1G873 1135378 1/25/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 152.00$ 152.00$ 1B1G884 1103481 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B1G884 1153425 5/3/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B1G928 1065062 12/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 300.00$ 270.00$ 1B1G939 1162435 6/20/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 502.00$ 502.00$ 1B1GB99 1063318 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1GC16 1179848 9/28/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1GC74 1061749 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 484.00$ 484.00$ 1B1GD20 1063319 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 37.00$ 37.00$ 1B1GF41 1094142 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1GH32 1061761 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 169.00$ 169.00$ 1B1GJ43 1054403 11/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 89.00$ 89.00$ 1B1GJ91 1061736 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 163.00$ 163.00$ 1B1GL02 1052885 11/5/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ 1B1GL37 1062972 12/11/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 181.00$ 68.00$ 1B1GL68 1054208 11/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 143.00$ 143.00$ 1B1GN23 1095215 6/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B1GP88 1052592 11/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 68.00$ 68.00$ 1B1GR00 1051870 11/2/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 39.00$ 39.00$ 1B1GS44 1052106 11/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 47.00$ 47.00$ 1B1GT52 1063322 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B1GT91 1052433 11/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 67.00$ 1B1GT91 1151329 4/23/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 101.00$ 101.00$ 1B1GV11 1078164 3/10/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 301.00$ 209.00$ 1B1GV49 1078150 3/10/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1GX58 1063263 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B1GX79 1066751 1/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 102.00$ 1B1GY91 1050167 10/26/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1H135 1063323 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1H207 1112502 9/20/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 38.00$ 1B1H287 1046055 10/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 90.00$ 90.00$ 1B1H310 1121883 11/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 37.00$ 1B1H426 1063324 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 271.00$ 271.00$ 1B1H459 1118555 10/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1H461 1068649 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 211.00$ 211.00$ 1B1H483 1148527 4/4/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 100.00$ 75.00$ 1B1H492 1063325 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 138.00$ 138.00$ 1B1H572 1059856 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1H580 1061199 12/2/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 208.00$ 208.00$ 1B1H700 1068651 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 304.00$ 289.00$ 1B1H700 1148879 4/5/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 37.00$ 37.00$ 1B1H760 1068650 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 69.00$ 69.00$ 1B1H802 1063534 12/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 102.00$ 16 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1699 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1H808 1061797 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 73.00$ 73.00$ 1B1H890 1063329 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1H927 1066590 1/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 1B1H946 1070830 1/31/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1H997 1068376 1/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B1HB97 1060181 11/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1HB97 1060182 11/30/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1HB97 1063328 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1HC37 1060059 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1HD21 1068257 1/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 59.00$ 59.00$ 1B1HF16 1084864 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 35.00$ 35.00$ 1B1HF86 1068544 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1HG51 1060917 12/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 98.00$ 98.00$ 1B1HH27 1127719 12/8/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1HJ25 1097380 6/28/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1HJ25 1121833 11/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 38.00$ 38.00$ 1B1HJ42 1125478 11/29/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B1HK80 1095139 6/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 206.00$ 145.00$ 1B1HL44 1144086 3/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ 1B1HM17 1060863 12/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B1HP29 1061940 12/6/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1HP30 1094807 6/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 58.00$ 33.00$ 1B1HP73 1061727 12/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B1HQ24 1067047 1/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 178.00$ 178.00$ 1B1HR48 1063332 12/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1HR69 1062988 12/11/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B1HT37 1068652 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ 1B1HV48 1050234 10/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 36.00$ 1B1HV53 1088291 5/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1HW05 1068654 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 293.00$ 293.00$ 1B1HX86 1159244 6/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 366.00$ 366.00$ 1B1HX91 1067368 1/11/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 133.00$ 133.00$ 1B1HY51 1068369 1/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 138.00$ 138.00$ 1B1J028 1104754 8/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1J041 1067607 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 238.00$ 238.00$ 1B1J071 1176908 9/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 268.00$ 268.00$ 1B1J140 1052268 11/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B1J583 1088942 5/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 143.00$ 143.00$ 1B1J819 1170342 8/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,008.00$ 1,008.00$ 1B1J880 1067827 1/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1J882 1064943 12/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B1J941 1165262 7/3/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1JB43 1103583 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1JC22 1133795 1/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B1JC48 1090424 5/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 29.00$ 29.00$ 1B1JF26 1144731 3/17/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 236.00$ 85.00$ 1B1JF77 1094096 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B1JF83 1085347 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 78.00$ 78.00$ 1B1JN69 1137049 2/1/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1JP05 1149560 4/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 156.00$ 156.00$ 1B1JP05 1149561 4/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 17 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1700 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1JP06 1083668 4/11/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ 1B1JQ85 1103586 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1JR00 1078008 3/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 92.00$ 1B1JR54 1158474 6/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 637.00$ 322.00$ 1B1JS65 1067210 1/10/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 21.00$ 21.00$ 1B1JT62 1151776 4/25/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ 1B1JV29 1117874 10/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B1JV96 1150377 4/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B1JY40 1090402 5/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 110.00$ 110.00$ 1B1JY42 1076085 3/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 156.00$ 104.00$ 1B1JY61 1067667 1/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 58.00$ 58.00$ 1B1JY61 1067668 1/12/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1JY61 1068614 1/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1K083 1143259 3/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 69.00$ 69.00$ 1B1K083 1143266 3/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 160.00$ 160.00$ 1B1K205 1096167 6/22/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 322.00$ 322.00$ 1B1K205 1121357 11/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 29.00$ 29.00$ 1B1K554 1066904 1/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 7.00$ 1B1K697 1169368 7/31/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 34.00$ 8.00$ 1B1K836 1084829 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1K866 1086075 4/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 232.00$ 232.00$ 1B1K895 1090403 5/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1K941 1082830 4/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B1K983 1094145 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 92.00$ 1B1KD87 1100837 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 15.00$ 15.00$ 1B1KH78 1076499 3/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B1KH88 1086081 4/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 66.00$ 66.00$ 1B1KP56 1068115 1/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 45.00$ 45.00$ 1B1KP56 1068116 1/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1KQ44 1131790 1/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 87.00$ 1B1KQ63 1084821 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 107.00$ 107.00$ 1B1KR49 1084851 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 133.00$ 133.00$ 1B1KV83 1146307 3/26/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B1KV98 1100767 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 34.00$ 34.00$ 1B1KW47 1105989 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1KW78 1118179 10/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B1KX57 1150795 4/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 296.00$ 296.00$ 1B1KY74 1106328 8/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1L006 1083559 4/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1L032 1143069 3/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 128.00$ 128.00$ 1B1L308 1158454 6/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 600.00$ 600.00$ 1B1L511 1103587 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 19.00$ 1B1L787 1078261 3/11/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1L873 1144818 3/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1LB59 1086086 4/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 43.00$ 43.00$ 1B1LB87 1192652 12/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 383.00$ 383.00$ 1B1LC74 1086624 4/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 142.48$ 1B1LD97 1122496 11/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1LJ70 1075019 2/24/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 33.00$ 33.00$ 1B1LP93 1100723 7/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 104.00$ 104.00$ 1B1LQ28 1181905 10/9/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 18 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1701 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1LQ28 1181906 10/9/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 375.00$ 375.00$ 1B1LQ28 1181907 10/9/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 1,300.00$ 1,300.00$ 1B1LQ53 1085423 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 122.00$ 122.00$ 1B1LR25 1094812 6/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 269.00$ 157.00$ 1B1LR68 1094146 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1LR74 1100403 7/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1LT62 1085413 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B1LW40 1103590 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 33.00$ 33.00$ 1B1LW70 1094151 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1M026 1175835 9/5/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 142.00$ 142.00$ 1B1M048 1094140 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 57.00$ 57.00$ 1B1M083 1094780 6/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 129.00$ 129.00$ 1B1M091 1103591 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 22.00$ 22.00$ 1B1M156 1088979 5/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B1M166 1082846 4/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1M187 1089144 5/7/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 148.00$ 148.00$ 1B1M405 1077706 3/8/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 54.00$ 54.00$ 1B1M405 1094120 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1M473 1078365 3/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 237.00$ 237.00$ 1B1M848 1106619 8/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 69.00$ 69.00$ 1B1MB65 1085287 4/21/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 49.00$ 49.00$ 1B1MC76 1094148 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 244.00$ 244.00$ 1B1MH64 1100853 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B1MH91 1138997 2/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 218.00$ 218.00$ 1B1MH91 1140920 2/24/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1ML43 1100932 7/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 48.00$ 48.00$ 1B1MN28 1100735 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 59.00$ 59.00$ 1B1MN86 1100936 7/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 67.00$ 67.00$ 1B1MS31 1103593 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 248.00$ 248.00$ 1B1MW22 1095460 6/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1MX35 1171635 8/14/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 3.00$ 3.00$ 1B1MX65 1103598 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1MY61 1155436 5/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1N001 1095088 6/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 116.00$ 116.00$ 1B1N114 1100777 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B1N265 1100778 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B1N605 1103832 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 34.00$ 34.00$ 1B1N684 1100781 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ 1B1N685 1092534 5/31/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 251.00$ 251.00$ 1B1N720 1155904 5/21/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 352.00$ 352.00$ 1B1N796 1105503 8/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 9.00$ 9.00$ 1B1N816 1105998 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 117.00$ 77.00$ 1B1N859 1100782 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 240.00$ 240.00$ 1B1N864 1121054 11/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 111.00$ 81.00$ 1B1NB04 1106455 8/18/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1NB33 1097047 6/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B1NB43 1100784 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 117.00$ 117.00$ 1B1ND73 1094121 6/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B1NF29 1100791 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 102.00$ 102.00$ 1B1NF53 1192146 12/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ 1B1NH29 1103845 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 53.00$ 53.00$ 19 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1702 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1NH67 1101693 7/23/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 434.00$ 434.00$ 1B1NH74 1155619 5/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1NH74 1155620 5/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1NH75 1103848 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 424.00$ 424.00$ 1B1NJ45 1103860 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B1NK96 1103862 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1NL77 1100798 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1NL78 1100799 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1NL86 1103712 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 43.00$ 43.00$ 1B1NM11 1096642 6/24/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1NM46 1100801 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 52.00$ 52.00$ 1B1NM66 1100736 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ 1B1NM74 1127879 12/9/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 355.00$ 355.00$ 1B1NP11 1100807 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 33.00$ 33.00$ 1B1NP31 1168965 7/30/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 375.00$ 150.00$ 1B1NP87 1091902 5/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B1NQ38 1100248 7/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 232.00$ 232.00$ 1B1NQ43 1100808 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B1NQ61 1103900 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 90.00$ 1B1NV07 1105403 8/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 293.00$ 213.00$ 1B1NX79 1106052 8/15/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B1P016 1106311 8/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1P127 1091333 5/25/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1P140 1105887 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 208.00$ 171.00$ 1B1P142 1103508 8/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 98.00$ 98.00$ 1B1P202 1104148 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 136.00$ 136.00$ 1B1P308 1104151 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ 1B1P376 1106003 8/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1P416 1110301 9/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B1P479 1100714 7/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 44.00$ 44.00$ 1B1P517 1104152 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1P541 1095092 6/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 119.00$ 119.00$ 1B1P700 1104153 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 12.00$ 12.00$ 1B1P710 1128586 12/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 61.00$ 35.00$ 1B1P717 1105586 8/10/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B1P739 1099402 7/7/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 62.00$ 1B1P769 1104733 8/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 82.00$ 82.00$ 1B1P939 1104594 8/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1P947 1104154 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B1P996 1104324 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 1B1P997 1106544 8/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 71.00$ 71.00$ 1B1PB03 1104155 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 53.00$ 53.00$ 1B1PC53 1106545 8/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B1PD92 1184626 10/26/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 774.00$ 774.00$ 1B1PG37 1104026 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 48.00$ 48.00$ 1B1PH00 1104162 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 36.00$ 36.00$ 1B1PH18 1111370 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 42.00$ 42.00$ 1B1PH25 1160119 6/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B1PJ70 1106365 8/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 15.00$ 8.00$ 1B1PN75 1148685 4/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 51.00$ 1B1PR69 1134938 1/24/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 603.00$ 603.00$ 20 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1703 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1PR79 1189722 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1PR79 1189723 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1PR79 1189724 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 632.00$ 632.00$ 1B1PR79 1189725 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1PS10 1123522 11/16/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 246.00$ 66.00$ 1B1PW42 1109457 9/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 164.00$ 164.00$ 1B1PW48 1100503 7/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 193.00$ 193.00$ 1B1PY69 1108730 8/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 67.00$ 67.00$ 1B1PZ75 1115543 10/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1PZ79 1111277 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 68.00$ 68.00$ 1B1Q009 1121496 11/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 9.00$ 9.00$ 1B1Q152 1110957 9/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B1Q152 1112163 9/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B1Q214 1106829 8/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 105.00$ 105.00$ 1B1Q360 1106851 8/20/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B1Q399 1110015 9/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 35.00$ 35.00$ 1B1Q407 1108134 8/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1Q461 1138731 2/9/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,500.00$ 1,474.00$ 1B1Q703 1101103 7/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 229.00$ 229.00$ 1B1Q719 1121969 11/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 5.00$ 5.00$ 1B1Q742 1110306 9/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ 1B1Q758 1108702 8/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ 1B1Q958 1113542 9/24/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 110.00$ 88.00$ 1B1QF81 1113219 9/23/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 187.00$ 187.00$ 1B1QF90 1128190 12/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 70.00$ 70.00$ 1B1QG46 1123634 11/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 43.00$ 43.00$ 1B1QG79 1167271 7/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ 1B1QH30 1115733 10/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 112.00$ 112.00$ 1B1QH94 1141637 2/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B1QJ03 1115727 10/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 194.00$ 194.00$ 1B1QJ25 1123827 11/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 127.00$ 127.00$ 1B1QM19 1115102 9/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1QM28 1115949 10/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 130.00$ 130.00$ 1B1QP10 1165171 7/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,185.00$ 982.00$ 1B1QR05 1144732 3/17/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 169.00$ 169.00$ 1B1QR46 1110879 9/9/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 15.00$ 15.00$ 1B1QR68 1115108 9/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1QR78 1122477 11/8/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1QR81 1113896 9/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 104.00$ 104.00$ 1B1QS23 1168145 7/25/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 17.00$ 5.00$ 1B1QV74 1114884 9/29/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 69.00$ 69.00$ 1B1QW97 1115245 9/30/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B1QX02 1122204 11/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 182.00$ 182.00$ 1B1QX17 1131584 12/31/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 415.00$ 415.00$ 1B1R033 1111374 9/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1R090 1113850 9/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 311.00$ 311.00$ 1B1R236 1118585 10/20/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B1R245 1117475 10/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B1R614 1117677 10/13/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 227.00$ 127.00$ 1B1R663 1116597 10/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 428.00$ 428.00$ 1B1R663 1116615 10/6/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 123.96$ 123.96$ 21 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1704 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1R800 1120741 10/31/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 58.00$ 6.00$ 1B1R969 1118893 10/22/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 109.00$ 109.00$ 1B1R998 1116493 10/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1RB28 1111061 9/12/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 173.00$ 173.00$ 1B1RF60 1129350 12/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 61.00$ 61.00$ 1B1RH36 1127324 12/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1RJ18 1134442 1/20/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 222.00$ 1B1RK04 1122102 11/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B1RN35 1129151 12/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 193.00$ 193.00$ 1B1RN39 1138745 2/9/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 600.00$ 600.00$ 1B1RQ36 1138420 2/7/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 93.00$ 93.00$ 1B1RV94 1149149 4/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1RX21 1133486 1/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 201.00$ 201.00$ 1B1SB07 1129154 12/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 81.00$ 81.00$ 1B1SC21 1182360 10/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B1SF17 1119688 10/26/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1SF26 1139075 2/13/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 210.00$ 210.00$ 1B1SH30 1180904 10/3/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 418.00$ 418.00$ 1B1SR61 1122931 11/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 142.00$ 127.00$ 1B1SS59 1128780 12/15/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ 1B1SV59 1133356 1/11/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 80.00$ 80.00$ 1B1T500 1130501 12/27/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 46.00$ 46.00$ 1B1T599 1150470 4/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 3.00$ 3.00$ 1B1T601 1137431 2/2/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 93.00$ 93.00$ 1B1T860 1188162 11/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B1T860 1188163 11/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B1T880 1123817 11/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 157.00$ 157.00$ 1B1TB00 1127027 12/5/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 214.00$ 214.00$ 1B1TD09 1164322 6/28/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ 1B1TG17 1150132 4/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B1TG31 1136781 1/31/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 243.00$ 243.00$ 1B1TH00 1129025 12/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ 1B1TH00 1129026 12/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 1B1TH29 1124695 11/22/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 163.00$ 163.00$ 1B1TJ82 1133142 1/10/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 84.00$ 84.00$ 1B1TK74 1128612 12/14/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1TT93 1132091 1/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 62.00$ 1B1TY92 1174355 8/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ 1B1TZ18 1134102 1/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 92.00$ 92.00$ 1B1V027 1132527 1/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B1V136 1143064 3/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 79.00$ 79.00$ 1B1V136 1143070 3/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 40.00$ 40.00$ 1B1V423 1132005 1/4/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ 1B1V711 1189727 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1V937 1145834 3/23/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ 1B1VG31 1139014 2/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1VL36 1144194 3/14/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B1VL47 1142722 3/3/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ 1B1VM59 1143079 3/6/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 1B1VM63 1140982 2/24/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B1VR32 1138211 2/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 240.00$ 180.00$ 22 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1705 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B1VR97 1150796 4/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 143.00$ 1B1VR97 1150799 4/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1VT13 1137997 2/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 287.00$ 287.00$ 1B1VT37 1150121 4/14/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1VV41 1155526 5/17/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 572.00$ 286.00$ 1B1VW26 1143944 3/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 27.00$ 27.00$ 1B1VW26 1171721 8/15/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 254.10$ 254.10$ 1B1VX74 1148397 4/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 111.00$ 111.00$ 1B1VZ64 1147073 3/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 151.00$ 151.00$ 1B1W042 1141889 2/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 273.00$ 273.00$ 1B1W672 1146466 3/27/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 47.00$ 47.00$ 1B1W766 1154078 5/7/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ 1B1WB82 1187486 11/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 248.00$ 248.00$ 1B1WC44 1160073 6/14/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 9.00$ 9.00$ 1B1WH55 1145845 3/23/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B1WR65 1144028 3/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 231.00$ 231.00$ 1B1WR65 1144030 3/13/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 42.98$ 42.98$ 1B1X124 1168423 7/26/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 394.00$ 369.00$ 1B1X920 1165256 7/3/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B1XK48 1162165 6/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ 1B1XK48 1162166 6/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ 1B1XL47 1162172 6/18/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1XP32 1158577 6/5/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 248.00$ 248.00$ 1B1XT01 1171731 8/15/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 1B1YF02 1156198 5/22/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 60.00$ 40.00$ 1B1YF02 1165441 7/5/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 83.00$ 83.00$ 1B1Z453 1162479 6/20/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 34.00$ 34.00$ 1B1Z935 1166552 7/13/2012 TE-TECHNICAL ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ 1B1ZS95 1175307 9/4/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ 1B1ZV52 1186022 11/2/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 74.00$ 74.00$ 1B20519 1175193 9/4/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B20B10 1181729 10/8/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 269.00$ 269.00$ 1B20C18 1180713 10/2/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 129.00$ 129.00$ 1B20F03 1179827 9/28/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 839.00$ 747.00$ 1B20H62 1190813 12/5/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 87.00$ 87.00$ 1B20M26 1179541 9/27/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ 1B20T48 1186449 11/6/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 47.00$ 47.00$ 1B20Y25 1185420 10/31/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 42.00$ 42.00$ 1B20Z15 1176907 9/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 213.00$ 213.00$ 1B21C14 1184900 10/29/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ 1B21H48 1187199 11/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 114.00$ 114.00$ 1B21J01 1176966 9/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 26.00$ 26.00$ 1B21J01 1176967 9/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ 1B21Q88 1194510 12/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 78.00$ 78.00$ 1B22019 1182686 10/16/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 57.00$ 57.00$ 1B22019 1182687 10/16/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 4.00$ 4.00$ 1B22463 1184739 10/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ 1B22625 1191887 12/12/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 390.00$ 387.00$ 1B22813 1184863 10/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ 1B22813 1184864 10/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ 1B22B95 1192764 12/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 303.51$ 229.51$ 23 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1706 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance 1B23152 1188284 11/20/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 122.00$ 122.00$ 1B23626 1189244 11/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 144.00$ 138.00$ 1B23S46 1192726 12/18/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 74.00$ 46.00$ B128070 1036829 8/18/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B223196 1021322 5/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 251.00$ 251.00$ B287008 257262 5/25/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 200.00$ 200.00$ B287641 1036528 8/16/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 591.00$ 547.00$ B290018 1109424 9/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ B300141 386929 1/22/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ B300141 395008 3/2/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ B316917 1101075 7/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 276.00$ 276.00$ B327222 1115721 10/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 39.00$ 39.00$ B349134 334494 4/17/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 470.00$ 470.00$ B352037 1023751 6/8/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 637.00$ 637.00$ B367765 276330 8/17/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B379256 177666 8/21/2006 CE-CLIENT ERR 227.00$ 227.00$ B385704 1116161 10/4/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 307.00$ 148.00$ B386476 1180287 10/1/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 370.00$ 370.00$ B392976 327851 3/20/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 773.00$ 773.00$ B399492 234442 2/21/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 39.00$ 39.00$ B399492 244622 3/29/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 157.00$ 157.00$ B412346 214135 12/7/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B422254 264721 6/26/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 187.00$ 187.00$ B435524 1113266 9/23/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 868.00$ 724.00$ B435755 158288 6/12/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ B435755 278215 8/27/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,136.00$ 1,136.00$ B435755 278217 8/27/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ B441538 171580 7/31/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ B452415 49902 10/18/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B457198 473144 12/22/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B457198 1129020 12/19/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B458330 1140838 2/23/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 128.00$ 128.00$ B466439 312512 1/14/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ B466988 1084839 4/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 143.00$ 143.00$ B473226 1039552 8/31/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 226.00$ 226.00$ B479327 1019464 5/18/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 158.00$ 143.00$ B489409 1062452 12/8/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,008.00$ 1,008.00$ B495532 507380 1/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 72.00$ 72.00$ B501442 183560 9/5/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 230.00$ 230.00$ B502152 1178898 9/25/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ B502525 1052276 11/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 153.00$ 153.00$ B506198 1154074 5/7/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 223.00$ 223.00$ B507945 44230 10/6/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B514130 1104170 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 41.00$ 41.00$ B518815 1051487 10/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 7,254.00$ 2,282.00$ B520852 1155497 5/17/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ B527133 138970 3/29/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 504.00$ 504.00$ B532699 1042535 9/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 672.00$ 672.00$ B538724 1141500 2/28/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 863.00$ 739.00$ B550056 93434 1/4/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 50.00$ 50.00$ B550056 93436 1/4/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ 24 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1707 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance B550056 93437 1/4/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ B550508 1132924 1/9/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 300.00$ 300.00$ B550508 1132925 1/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ B552722 1053635 11/12/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B553097 1117337 10/11/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 52.00$ 52.00$ B556701 595973 3/10/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 30.00$ B564352 106038 1/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B566866 167241 7/17/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 408.00$ 408.00$ B573230 529714 2/1/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 267.00$ 267.00$ B573412 319153 2/8/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 286.00$ 286.00$ B575949 1104173 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 122.00$ 122.00$ B577726 101433 1/18/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 57.00$ 57.00$ B580801 129412 2/28/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 329.00$ 329.00$ B583967 1101109 7/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ B584362 363424 9/10/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ B584362 363425 9/10/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 72.00$ 72.00$ B584847 83861 12/19/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 175.00$ 175.00$ B585391 1023323 6/4/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 161.00$ 161.00$ B585744 1177369 9/17/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 585.00$ 585.00$ B587269 587336 3/3/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 150.00$ 49.00$ B587351 306702 12/14/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B588532 1030616 7/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 57.00$ 42.00$ B592244 271037 7/25/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 257.00$ 257.00$ B592324 1116542 10/6/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 150.00$ 150.00$ B592324 1119735 10/26/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 159.00$ 159.00$ B592452 194751 10/11/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ B592452 215589 12/14/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ B595990 284279 9/19/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B603935 364156 9/16/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 252.00$ B603951 1178917 9/25/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 132.00$ 132.00$ B604681 1028391 7/1/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ B608628 124585 2/16/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 29.00$ 29.00$ B609476 1027307 6/28/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 11.00$ 11.00$ B610270 1123005 11/14/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 178.00$ 13.00$ B612306 1031112 7/21/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 8.00$ 8.00$ B613240 99782 1/13/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 858.00$ 858.00$ B613253 1036106 8/12/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 44.00$ 44.00$ B613408 102338 1/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B613418 391687 2/12/2009 AE-ADMIN ERR 234.00$ 204.00$ B613509 1104192 8/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 20.00$ 20.00$ B613554 1109512 9/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 95.00$ 95.00$ B613568 45078 10/7/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 15.00$ 15.00$ B613689 31118 9/14/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 226.00$ 226.00$ B613708 1043486 9/22/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 1.00$ 1.00$ B613821 469822 12/14/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 538.00$ 538.00$ B613852 1151779 4/25/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ B613868 1037152 8/19/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 257.00$ 257.00$ B614203 135843 3/21/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 277.00$ 277.00$ B614376 110356 1/30/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 790.00$ 790.00$ B614383 335529 4/22/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 1,144.00$ 558.00$ B614383 335908 4/23/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 24.00$ 24.00$ 25 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1708 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance B614551 135523 3/21/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ B615648 120320 2/9/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 639.00$ 639.00$ B615795 229991 2/2/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 133.88$ 133.88$ B616355 76150 12/6/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 25.00$ 25.00$ B616355 76151 12/6/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 151.50$ B616871 1068334 1/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 252.00$ 185.00$ B616956 577661 2/24/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 56.00$ 56.00$ B621922 80075 12/12/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B622317 278201 8/27/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ B622769 175728 8/11/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 174.00$ 174.00$ B622853 32359 9/16/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 280.00$ 280.00$ B623841 59483 11/3/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 402.00$ 402.00$ B624087 595548 3/9/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 111.00$ 111.00$ B628401 374957 11/6/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 50.00$ 50.00$ B628992 67129 11/18/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 243.00$ 243.00$ B629328 77393 12/7/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 18.00$ 18.00$ B629545 1172533 8/21/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 282.00$ 282.00$ B629638 151854 5/15/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 30.00$ 30.00$ B803581 1064912 12/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ B803737 277502 8/23/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 837.00$ 837.00$ B805514 1059955 11/29/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ B806864 135020 3/17/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 900.00$ 900.00$ B807086 1189746 11/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ B807155 1110032 9/3/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 67.00$ 38.00$ B817454 81821 12/14/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 108.00$ B817510 1082498 4/5/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 476.00$ 385.00$ B825078 109887 1/30/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 852.00$ 852.00$ B825206 520320 1/19/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 474.00$ B825323 120429 2/9/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ B833019 105629 1/24/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B833566 1138506 2/8/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 126.00$ 126.00$ B834233 1036729 8/17/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 60.00$ 60.00$ B834293 22870 8/26/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 50.00$ 50.00$ B834367 1126535 12/1/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 73.00$ 73.00$ B836543 101735 1/18/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ B842392 161995 6/26/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 264.00$ 264.00$ B846069 104079 1/20/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ B846326 102081 1/19/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ B850833 446469 11/16/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 866.00$ 866.00$ B854596 231052 2/6/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 32.00$ 32.00$ B854596 231053 2/6/2007 CE-CLIENT ERR 246.00$ 184.00$ B855617 86226 12/21/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 284.00$ 284.00$ B864877 136064 3/21/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 166.00$ 166.00$ B868231 81716 12/14/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,405.00$ 1,405.00$ B871936 1052121 11/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 268.00$ 268.00$ B874482 1085157 4/20/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 139.00$ 139.00$ B874621 1036335 8/14/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 31.00$ 31.00$ B875799 363458 9/10/2008 CE-CLIENT ERR 150.00$ 40.00$ B876056 1171695 8/14/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 474.00$ 454.00$ B878633 1042282 9/16/2010 CE-CLIENT ERR 201.00$ 201.00$ B879118 1156089 5/22/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 17.00$ 17.00$ 26 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1709 GENERAL ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DISCHARGE LIST 2/21/2017 Case ID Claim ID Claim Established Date Error Type Original Claim Amount Outstanding Claim Balance B883933 1064915 12/27/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 41.00$ 41.00$ B885097 22867 8/26/2005 CE-CLIENT ERR 238.00$ 157.00$ B885497 99910 1/13/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 118.00$ 118.00$ B889173 1132843 1/9/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ B889829 166096 7/11/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 572.00$ 572.00$ B890040 1052438 11/3/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 125.00$ 92.00$ B890240 170468 7/27/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B890307 1103996 8/2/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 168.00$ 168.00$ B890307 1133412 1/12/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B890438 80474 12/12/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 33.00$ 33.00$ B890438 80475 12/12/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 52.00$ 52.00$ B890518 119157 2/8/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 65.00$ 65.00$ B890645 1162366 6/20/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 319.00$ 319.00$ B890645 1162374 6/20/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 957.00$ 957.00$ B890695 355263 7/30/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 134.00$ 134.00$ B892720 1147429 3/30/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ B896208 109774 1/30/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 100.00$ 100.00$ B897664 271671 7/27/2007 AE-ADMIN ERR 63.00$ 63.00$ B899163 415128 6/15/2009 CE-CLIENT ERR 176.00$ 176.00$ B899340 1038320 8/26/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ C395163 1134075 1/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 1,300.00$ 1,171.00$ C395163 1134187 1/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 13.00$ 13.00$ C395163 1134188 1/19/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 76.00$ 76.00$ C395163 1134189 1/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 342.00$ 342.00$ C395163 1134190 1/19/2012 CE-CLIENT ERR 38.00$ 38.00$ C404431 1089920 5/16/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ C500952 49969 10/18/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 221.00$ 221.00$ C518948 1100802 7/18/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 632.00$ 402.00$ C518948 1110901 9/9/2011 CE-CLIENT ERR 316.00$ 316.00$ C520218 1180423 10/1/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 30.00$ 2.00$ C520762 366350 9/25/2008 AE-ADMIN ERR 183.00$ 183.00$ C572692 1141909 2/29/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 273.00$ 273.00$ C863706 138734 3/28/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 158.00$ 158.00$ C886387 507288 1/13/2010 AE-ADMIN ERR 10.00$ 10.00$ C895539 55947 10/27/2005 AE-ADMIN ERR 528.00$ 528.00$ D489796 1095532 6/17/2011 AE-ADMIN ERR 107.00$ 107.00$ D824887 1186938 11/8/2012 AE-ADMIN ERR 128.00$ 128.00$ D882912 103219 1/20/2006 AE-ADMIN ERR 336.00$ 336.00$ 276,887.38$ 256,577.53$ 27 OF 27April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1710 RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE as surplus and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of fully depreciated vehicles and equipment no longer needed for public use, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 1108-2.212 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of any personal property belonging to Contra Costa County and found by the Board of Supervisors not to be required for public use. The property for disposal is either obsolete, worn out, beyond economical repair, or damaged beyond repair. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Public Works would not be able to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Nida Rivera, (925) 313-2124 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1711 ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles & Equipment April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1712 ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER APRIL 25, 2017 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair AGRICULTURE 2011 DODGE DAKOTA TRUCK #5083 (26109 MILES) 1D7RW3BK5BS581823 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR SHERIFF 2015 FORD TAURUS #2545 (11268 MILES) 1FAHP2MT2FG151815 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR SHERIFF 2008 CHEVY TAHOE #3691 (114485 MILES) 1GNEC03038R135710 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 2002 TOYOTA PRIUS #0231 (88703 MILES) JT2BK12U820059950 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA #2037 (71767 MILES) 2FABP7BV5BX120702 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2011 FORD TAURUS #1018 (100838 MILES) 1FAHP2DW4BG106458 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2003 CLUBCAR #9311 () 5J5LD22B02A238745 B. WORN OUT AGRICULTURE 2006 FORD F-150 TRUCK #5238 (103664 MILES) 1FTPF125X6NB15146 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2009 FORD CROWN VICTORIA #1956 (103361 MILES) 2FAFP71V29X140220 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 1996 HONDA 300 ATV #9085 478TE1509TA825684 B. WORN OUT ANIMAL SERVICES 2008 FORD F-250 BOX TRUCK #5469 (120940 MILES) 1FDSX20R58EC75274 B. WORN OUT April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1713 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for temporary nursing and therapy services rendered during the period November 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, payments for services rendered, totaling no more than $1,000,000, will be issued to the Contractor. These costs will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. No increase in the rate schedule. BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-473-21 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-473-22) with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017, for the provision of temporary nursing and therapy services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers and Detention Facility. Despite significant efforts to permanently fill vacant positions, the County continues to face a shortage of permanent personnel and per diems to cover necessary shifts in the Health Services Department. On March 12, 2016, the County notified the appropriate unions regarding the need to increase APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Payment to SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) for Services Rendered April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1714 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the payment limit of this contract. Teamsters, Local 856 responded with a request to meet and confer over this amendment. While the County has been meeting with Teamsters, the contract term expired before the County was able to amend the then existing contract. The Contractor is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of its services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. That theory provides that where a contractor has been asked to provide services without a valid contract, and the contractor does so to the benefit of the County, the Contractor is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those services. SHC Services, Inc. provided services at the request of the County after the original contract payment limit had been reached. Therefore, the Department is requesting the amount due to the Contractor be paid in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for services rendered through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the requested action is not approved, the Contractor will not be paid for services provided through March 31, 2017. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1715 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Small Business Enterprise and Outreach Programs Report, reflecting departmental program data for the period July 1 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is an informational report. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County values the contributions of small business in the County and has developed programs to assist in the solicitation and awarding of contracts. The Board of Supervisors has adopted these programs to enable small and local businesses to compete for a share of the County's purchasing transactions. The Board of Supervisors has set a goal of awarding at least 50% of eligible product and service dollars to small businesses. The Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Program applies to: (1) County-funded construction contracts of $100,000 or less; (2) purchasing transactions of $100,000 or less; and (3) professional/personal service contracts of $100,000 or less. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 335-1077 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Small Business Enterprise & Outreach Program Report for July-December 2016 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1716 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > The SBE Program's objective is to have at least 50% or more of the total eligible dollar base amounts be awarded to SBEs. A Small Business Enterprise, as defined by the California Government Code, Section 14837, Chapter 3.5 must be: Independently owned and operated business, which is not dominant in its field of operation Principal office of which is located in California Officers of which are domiciled in California, and which together with affiliates, has 100 or fewer employees Average annual gross receipts of fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) or less over the previous three tax years, or a manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees. Reporting Requirements It is the responsibility of each department to track and compile the data on these purchasing activities, which are reported to the Board of Supervisors at six-month intervals. The last report received by the Board was for the period ending June 2016. Attachment A constitutes the next report due for the time period of July 1 - December 31, 2016. Summary Findings The table below summarizes the attached department activity on a Countywide basis. July-December 2016 ACTIVITY TYPE: Total # of ALL Contracts Total # of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Total Dollar Value of ALL Contracts Total Dollar Value of SBE Contracts SBE Percent of Total Professional/Personal Services 515 292 56.7%$25,738,907 $9,893,204 38.4% Purchasing Transactions 4,543 1,530 33.7%$20,244,724 $8,763,316 43.3% Construction Contracts 5 5 100.0%$ 160,860 $ 160,860 100.0% Overall this information shows the County is directing a large volume of qualifying activity to SBE firms. For professional/personal services contracts, it should be noted that while this activity did not achieve the 50% goal, the dollar value of these contracts awarded increased to $9.9 million for this period compared to $3.3 million in the previous reporting period. Similarly, for the category of purchasing transactions, the percentage improved from 41.3% in the last reporting period to 43.3% in the current period. Construction projects continued to be awarded 100% to SBE firms and the dollar value doubled from $86,183 to $160,860. It is worth noting that the SBE participation goals of surrounding agencies are more typically in the 20-25% range. By that measure, Contra Costa County’s reported activity is well above that threshold in every reporting category. Purchasing Outreach In addition, outreach data for many small departments and for commodities exceeding $10,000 is maintained and provided through the Purchasing Division of the Public Works Department reflecting outreach to small, women, minority-owned, local, disadvantaged and/or other business enterprises. A report for calendar year 2016 will beApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1717 minority-owned, local, disadvantaged and/or other business enterprises. A report for calendar year 2016 will be provided at the next committee meeting by the Purchasing Manager. Conclusion The County demonstrates continued commitment to achieving the 50% goal for participation by SBE firms in contract and purchasing activity. While the data for some individual departments is below this threshold, this is often due to unique business requirements that require sole source purchases or contracts. Continued outreach is necessary to maintain and improve participation of SBE firms as well as training for department staff that make these purchasing and contract decisions regarding the policy. Lastly, under the guidance of the Internal Operations Committee, a review of all purchasing policies is underway including an updating of the SBE component. ATTACHMENTS SBE Program Activity Report by Department - Jul-Dec 2016 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1718 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Agriculture Professional/Personal services contracts 17 9 52.9%$72,858 Purchasing Transactions 65 13 20.0%$79,305 Construction contracts 1 1 100.0%$3,960 Animal Services Professional/Personal services contracts 30 28 93.3%$431,567 Purchasing Transactions 112 28 25.0%$2,559,328 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Assessor Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0 $0 Purchasing Transactions 6 5 83.30%$26,360 Construction contracts 0 0 0 $0 Page 1 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1719 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Auditor-Controller Professional/Personal services contracts 3 2 66.7%$16,293 Purchasing Transactions 12 6 50.0%$11,579 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Clerk-Recorder-Elections Professional/Personal services contracts 16 3 18.8%$282,013 Purchasing Transactions 195 27 13.8%$98,476 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Conservation and Development Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Purchasing Transactions 69 13 18.8%$73,928 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 2 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1720 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Contra Costa Fire Protection District Professional/Personal services contracts 6 2 33.3%$285,468 Purchasing Transactions 2371 628 26.5%$2,858,234 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 County Administrator's Office - Administration Professional/Personal services contracts 5 1 20.0%$306,000 Purchasing Transactions 6 2 33.3%$137,228 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 County Administrator's Office - Clerk of the Board Professional/Personal services contracts 6 3 50.0%$4,766 Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 3 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1721 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts County Administrator's Office - Communications and Media Professional/Personal services contracts 1 0 0.0%$99,000 Purchasing Transactions 10 2 20.0%$132,950 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 County Administrator's Office - Dept. of Information Technology (DoIT) Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Purchasing Transactions 46 18 39.1%$684,014 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 County Counsel Professional/Personal services contracts 55 55 100.0%$17,778 Purchasing Transactions 14 12 85.7%$37,721 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 4 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1722 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Dept. Child Support Services (DCSS) Professional/Personal services contracts 22 6 27.3%$475,098 Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 District Attorney Professional/Personal services contracts 5 4 80.0%$325,954 Purchasing Transactions 32 9 28.1%$272,534 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Employment and Human Services Professional/Personal services contracts 12 4 33.3%$478,670 Purchasing Transactions 257 145 56.4%$739,124 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 5 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1723 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Health Services Professional/Personal services contracts 241 136 56.4%$12,358,134 Purchasing Transactions 481 215 44.7%$4,049,478 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Human Resources Professional/Personal services contracts 1 1 100.0%$16,500 Purchasing Transactions 25 19 76.0%$176,995 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Library Professional/Personal services contracts 9 2 22.2%$166,520 Purchasing Transactions 93 33 35.5%$175,458 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 6 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1724 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Probation Professional/Personal services contracts 26 12 46.2%$248,455 Purchasing Transactions 39 20 51.3%$314,380 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Public Defender Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Purchasing Transactions 0 0 0.0%$0 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Public Works Professional/Personal services contracts 28 17 60.7%$1,341,457 Purchasing Transactions 415 218 52.5%$5,240,235 Construction contracts 4 4 100.0%$156,900 Sheriff Professional/Personal services contracts 27 5 18.5%$8,766,739 Purchasing Transactions 260 105 40.90%$2,474,842 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Page 7 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1725 ATTACHMENT A SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE - Program Activity report Reporting Period: June - December 2016 Total # of Total # of SBE percent of Total dollar value ALL contracts SBE contracts Total # of contracts of ALL contracts Treasurer - Tax Collector Professional/Personal services contracts 5 2 40.0%$45,637 Purchasing Transactions 25 5 20.0%$95,926 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Veterans Services Office Professional/Personal services contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Purchasing Transactions 10 7 70.0%$6,629 Construction contracts 0 0 0.0%$0 Total Activity Reported Professional/Personal services contracts 515 292 56.7%$25,738,907 Purchasing Transactions 4543 1530 33.7%$20,244,724 Construction contracts 5 5 100.0%$160,860 Page 8 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1726 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $47,291 64.9% $49,590 62.5% $3,960 100.0% $430,917 99.8% $445,168 17.4% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $21,436 81.3% $0 0.0% Page 9 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1727 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $15,198 93.3% $3,869 33.4% $0 0.0% $186,075 66.0% $12,615 12.8% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $50,536 68.4% $0 0.0% Page 10 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1728 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $119,250 41.8% $624,981 21.9% $0 0.0% $80,000 26.1% $62,708 45.7% $0 0.0% $3,319 69.6% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% Page 11 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1729 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $0 0.0% $2,000 1.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $492,822 72.0% $0 0.0% $17,778 100.0% $31,454 83.4% $0 0.0% Page 12 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1730 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $24,580 5.2% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $230,954 70.9% $110,161 40.4% $0 0.0% $213,400 44.6% $308,479 41.7% $0 0.0% Page 13 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1731 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $6,994,319 56.6% $1,965,173 48.5% $0 0.0% $16,500 100.0% $28,247 16.0% $0 0.0% $17,300 10.4% $65,397 37.3% $0 0.0% Page 14 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1732 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $187,486 75.5% $133,678 42.5% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $924,900 68.9% $2,087,101 39.8% $156,900 100.0% $340,300 3.9% $2,224,810 46.80% $0 0.0% Page 15 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1733 ATTACHMENT A Total dollar value SBE percent of of SBE contracts Total contracts value $43,637 95.6% $36,763 38.3% $0 0.0% $0 0.0% $6,329 95.5% $0 0.0% $9,893,204 38.4% $8,763,316 43.3% $160,860 100.0% Page 16 of 16April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1734 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #23-617 with Contra Costa County Office of Education, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at various Health Services Department facilities for students, for the period from April 18, 2017 through December 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide students at Contra Costa County Office of Education with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. Under Unpaid Student Training Agreement #23-617, Contra Costa County Office of Education students will receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at various Health Services Department facilities through December 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: William Walker, MD, 925-957-5403 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #23-617 with Contra Costa County Office of Education April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1735 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at various Health Services Department facilities. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1736 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-502-7 with California State University, Sacramento, an educational institution, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers to physical therapist students from June 1, 2017 through May 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide physical therapist students at California State University, Sacramento with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-502-7 with California State University, Sacramento April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1737 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) #26-502-6 with California State University of Sacramento, for the period from July 1, 2015 through May 30, 2017 for the provision of supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services Department. Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-502-7 will allow California State University, Sacramento students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers through May 30, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1738 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the March 2017 operations report of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department submits a monthly report to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) to ensure ongoing communication and updates to the County Administrator and BOS regarding any and all issues pertaining to the Head Start Program and Community Services Bureau. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/25/2017 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine burres, 313-1717 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 25, 2017 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on the Operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1739 ATTACHMENTS CSB Mar 2017 CACFP Report CSB Mar 2017 Credit Card CSB Mar 2017 EHS CC Partnership Fiscal CSB Mar 2017 EHS Fiscal CSB Mar 2017 HS Fiscal CSB Mar 2017 LIHEAP CSB Mar 2017 Public Hearing Flyer CSB Mar 2017 CAO Report CSB Mar 2017 MENU April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1740 2017 Month covered January Approved sites operated this month 15 Number of days meals served this month 20 Average daily participation 788 Child Care Center Meals Served: Breakfast 12,333 Lunch 15,757 Supplements 11,568 Total Number of Meals Served 39,658 fldr/fn:2017 CAO Monthly Reports FY 2016-2017 EMPLOYMENT & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU CHILD NUTRITION FOOD SERVICES CHILD and ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM MEALS SERVED April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1741 A - 3 Agency: Community Services Bureau Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx8798 Month:February 2017 K. Mason, Div Mgr xxxx2364 C. Reich, Div Mgr xxxx4959 Credit Card:Visa/U.S. Bank S. Kim, Sr. Business Systems Analyst xxxx1907 C. Johnson, AD xxxx0220 J. Rowley, AD xxxx2391 P. Arrington, AD xxxx3838 I. Renggenathen, AD xxxx2423 R. Radeva, PSA III xxxx1899 Stat. Date Card Account # Amount Program Purpose/Description 02/22/17 xxxx4959 25.00 EHS-CC Partnership Training & Registration 25.00 02/22/17 xxxx1907 2,014.29 Child Care Svs Program Minor Computer Equipment 02/22/17 xxxx1907 382.74 Operations (C2AP) Other Travel Employees 02/22/17 xxxx1907 99.45 Child Care Svs Program Office Exp 2,496.48 02/22/17 xxx2423 55.41 Verde Site Costs Educational Supplies 55.41 02/22/17 xxx2364 1,618.80 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 1,618.80 02/22/17 xxx8798 42.02 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 42.02 02/22/17 xxx1899 268.00 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 02/22/17 xxx1899 174.00 Indirect Admin Costs Training & Registration 02/22/17 xxx1899 229.90 Child Nutrition Food Svc Other Travel Employees 671.90 02/22/17 xxxx2391 106.79 FACS Mental Health Program Educational Supplies 02/22/17 xxxx2391 2,990.94 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 02/22/17 xxxx2391 190.39 EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 02/22/17 xxxx2391 1,015.00 Child Dev Admin Training & Registration 4,303.12 02/22/17 xxxx0220 107.91 George Miller Concord Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 02/22/17 xxxx0220 15.00 Ambrose Park Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 02/22/17 xxxx0220 3,800.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Training & Registration 3,922.91 SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@14026F48\@BCL@14026F48.xlsxApril 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1742 A - 4 Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx8798 Month:February 2017 K. Mason, Div Mgr xxxx2364 C. Reich, Div Mgr xxxx4959 Credit Card:Visa/U.S. Bank S. Kim, Sr. Business Systems Analyst xxxx1907 C. Johnson, AD xxxx0220 J. Rowley, AD xxxx2391 P. Arrington, AD xxxx3838 I. Renggenathen, AD xxxx2423 R. Radeva, PSA III xxxx1899 Corporate Acct. Number xxxx5045 Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account # Amount Program Purpose/Description 2100 02/22/17 xxxx1907 99.45 Child Care Svs Program Office Exp 99.45 2132 02/22/17 xxxx1907 2,014.29 Child Care Svs Program Minor Computer Equipment 2,014.29 2303 02/22/17 xxxx1907 382.74 Operations (C2AP) Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/17 xxx2364 1,618.80 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 2303 02/22/17 xxx1899 229.90 Child Nutrition Food Svc Other Travel Employees 2,231.44 2467 02/22/17 xxxx4959 25.00 EHS-CC Partnership Training & Registration 2467 02/22/17 xxx1899 174.00 Indirect Admin Costs Training & Registration 2467 02/22/17 xxxx2391 1,015.00 Child Dev Admin Training & Registration 2467 02/22/17 xxxx0220 3,800.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Training & Registration 5,014.00 2477 02/22/17 xxx2423 55.41 Verde Site Costs Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 106.79 FACS Mental Health Program Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 2,990.94 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 190.39 EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 3,343.53 2490 02/22/17 xxx8798 42.02 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/17 xxx1899 268.00 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/17 xxxx0220 107.91 George Miller Concord Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/17 xxxx0220 15.00 Ambrose Park Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 02/22/17 xxxx5045 38.64 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 471.57 Total 13,174.28 COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE Agency: Community Services Bureau 4/10/2017 Page 2 of 4April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1743 Fund Org Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account #Amount Program 1417 2100 02/22/17 xxxx1907 99.45 Child Care Svs Program 1417 2132 02/22/17 xxxx1907 2,014.29 Child Care Svs Program 1874 2303 02/22/17 xxxx1907 382.74 Operations (C2AP) 1834 2303 02/22/17 xxx2364 1,618.80 Child Dev Misc Grants 1482 2303 02/22/17 xxx1899 229.90 Child Nutrition Food Svc 1461 2467 02/22/17 xxxx4959 25.00 EHS-CC Partnership 1401 2467 02/22/17 xxx1899 174.00 Indirect Admin Costs 1803 2467 02/22/17 xxxx2391 1,015.00 Child Dev Admin 1834 2467 02/22/17 xxxx0220 3,800.00 Child Dev Misc Grants 1539 2477 02/22/17 xxx2423 55.41 Verde Site Costs 1530 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 106.79 FACS Mental Health Program 1432 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 2,990.94 HS Basic Grant 1462 2477 02/22/17 xxxx2391 190.39 EHS Basis Grant 1401 2490 02/22/17 xxx8798 42.02 Indirect Admin Costs 1401 2490 02/22/17 xxx1899 268.00 Indirect Admin Costs 1524 2490 02/22/17 xxxx0220 107.91 George Miller Concord Site Costs 1532 2490 02/22/17 xxxx0220 15.00 Ambrose Park Site Costs 1401 2490 02/22/17 xxxx5045 38.64 Indirect Admin Costs April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1744 Purpose/Description Office Exp Minor Computer Equipment Other Travel Employees Other Travel Employees Other Travel Employees Training & Registration Training & Registration Training & Registration Training & Registration Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Educational Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies Misc Services/Supplies April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1745 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 146,354$ 291,503$ 145,149$ 50% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 94,149 203,871 109,722 46% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 8,423 24,800 16,377 34% f. CONTRACTUAL 177,680 764,000 586,320 23% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 24,603 56,699 32,096 43% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 451,209$ 1,340,873$ 889,664$ 34% j. INDIRECT COSTS 56,179 60,956 4,777 92% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 507,388$ 1,401,829$ 894,441$ 36% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)134,000$ 270,207$ 136,207$ 50% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1746 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jul-16 Oct-16 thru thru Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Sep-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 104,323 (8,574) 20,122 26,729 142,599 283,513 140,914 50% Temporary 1013 10,721 (6,967) - - 3,754 7,990 4,236 a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)115,045 (15,541) 20,122 26,729 146,354 291,503 145,149 50% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 69,297 (8,020) 14,151 18,721 94,149 203,871 109,722 46% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)69,297 (8,020) 14,151 18,721 94,149 203,871 109,722 46% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 41 2,010 408 50 2,509 2,800 291 90% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies 3,746 11 1,285 - 5,042 20,000 14,958 25% 4. Other Supplies - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt 544 - 43 - 588 1,200 612 49% Health/Safety Supplies - - - - - - - Miscellaneous Supplies 101 44 17 13 176 400 224 44% Household Supplies 50 22 29 8 109 400 291 27% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)4,482 2,087 1,782 72 8,423 24,800 16,377 34% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - - - 10,000 10,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - - Contra Costa Child Care Council (4,979) 43,500 - 78,897 117,419 318,050 200,631 37% First Baptist (20 slots x $450)- 45,800 9,160 - 54,960 142,950 87,990 38% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)501 200 100 202 1,003 2,000 997 50% Carryover - - 4,298 268,000 263,702 2% Loss of Subsidy - - - - - 23,000 23,000 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)(4,477) 93,798 9,260 79,099 177,680 764,000 586,320 23% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 125 476 1,548 1,161 3,310 4,300 990 77% 4. Utilities, Telephone 534 1,504 708 1,536 4,282 7,400 3,118 58% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 201 1,741 20 21 1,983 1,900 (83) 104% 8. Local Travel (54 cents per mile)823 474 21 43 1,362 2,700 1,338 50% 13. Parent Services - - - - - - - 0% Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - - - - 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - - - 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation 70 - - - 70 1,000 930 7% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - - - - - - 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - Audit - - - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - 500 500 0% Auditor Controllers - - - - - - - Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 288 432 144 145 1,008 1,000 (8) 101% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - - Outreach/Printing - - - - - - - Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - - - - 16. Training or Staff Development - - Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 8,793 278 5 - 9,076 25,907 16,831 35% 17. Other - - - - - - - Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - - - - - - - Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 1,417 649 1,242 446 3,754 5,000 1,246 75% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)(0) (125) (258) 142 (241) 6,992 7,233 -3% h. OTHER (6h)12,250 5,429 3,430 3,494 24,603 56,699 32,096 43% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)196,596 77,754 48,745 128,115 451,209 1,340,873 889,664 34% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 55,674 (4,695) 5,200 56,179 60,956 4,777 92% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 196,596 133,427 44,050 133,314 507,388 1,401,829 894,441 36% Non-federal Match In-Kind 5,000 91,000 12,000 26,000 134,000 270,207 136,207 50% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1747 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 88,148$ 513,707$ 425,559$ 17% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 48,858 352,873 304,015 14% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 367 29,700 29,333 1% f. CONTRACTUAL 10,612 2,422,286 2,411,674 0% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 9,243 76,344 67,101 12% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 157,227$ 3,394,910$ 3,237,683$ 5% j. INDIRECT COSTS 9,740 109,420 99,680 9% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 166,968$ 3,504,330$ 3,337,362$ 5% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)41,742$ 876,083$ 834,341$ 5% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2017 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1748 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-17 Feb-17 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 31,379 47,132 78,511 436,303 357,792 18% Temporary 1013 4,860 4,777 9,637 77,404 67,767 12% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)36,239 51,910 88,148 513,707 425,559 17% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)18,640 30,217 48,858 352,873 304,015 14% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 0 343 343 3,000 2,657 11% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - - - 3,500 3,500 0% 4. Other Supplies - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt- - - 19,500 19,500 0% Health/Safety Supplies - - - 2,500 2,500 0% Miscellaneous Supplies - 23 23 1,200 1,177 2% Household Supplies - - - - - e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)0 366 367 29,700 29,333 1% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - Health Consultant 1,574 1,574 3,149 18,300 15,151 17% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - Interaction - - - 10,500 10,500 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 1,410 1,410 14,000 12,590 10% 8. Other Contracts FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - - - 58,800 58,800 0% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - - - 126,000 126,000 0% Apiranet - - - 379,200 379,200 0% Crossroads - - - 77,000 77,000 0% Martinez ECC 5,600 - 5,600 67,200 61,600 8% Child Outcome Planning & Admini. (COPA/Nulinx)- 454 454 3,000 2,546 15% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.- - - 1,668,286 1,668,286 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)7,174 3,438 10,612 2,422,286 2,411,674 0% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases - 99 99 1,500 1,401 7% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone - 206 206 4,000 3,794 5% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy - 30 30 1,500 1,470 2% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile)729 132 861 6,300 5,439 14% 9. Nutrition Services - - - - Child Nutrition Costs - 115 115 - (115) (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- - - - - 13. Parent Services PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - - - 1,700 1,700 0% Policy Council Activities - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation- - - 1,000 1,000 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement 139 - 139 500 361 28% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Auditor Controllers - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 326 326 2,300 1,974 14% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - 100 100 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)- - - 10,200 10,200 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11- 5,265 5,265 28,244 22,979 19% 17. Other Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 1,560 294 1,853 10,000 8,147 19% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - 72 72 2,000 1,928 4% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 278 278 5,000 4,722 6% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)2,427 6,815 9,243 76,344 67,101 12% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)64,481 92,746 157,227 3,394,910 3,237,683 5% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 9,740 9,740 109,420 99,680 9% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 64,481 102,487 166,968 3,504,330 3,337,362 5% Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)16,120 25,622 41,742 876,083 834,341 5% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2017 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1749 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 662,064$ 4,126,426$ 3,464,362$ 16% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 399,046 2,525,961 2,126,915 16% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 16,464 207,200 190,736 8% f. CONTRACTUAL 27,656 6,860,154 6,832,498 0% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 104,646 1,371,343 1,266,697 8% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 1,209,876$ 15,091,084$ 13,881,208$ 8% j. INDIRECT COSTS 87,602 878,928 791,326 10% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 1,297,478$ 15,970,012$ 14,672,534$ 8% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)104,377$ 3,992,503$ 3,888,126$ 3% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2017 HEAD START PROGRAM February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1750 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-17 Feb-17 Actual Budget Budget YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 292,056 303,157 595,213 3,049,246 2,454,033 20% Temporary 1013 33,861 32,989 66,850 1,077,180 1,010,330 6% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)325,917 336,146 662,064 4,126,426 3,464,362 16% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 189,349 209,697 399,046 2,525,961 2,126,915 399,046 b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)189,349 209,697 399,046 2,525,961 2,126,915 399,046 e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 753 4,681 5,434 50,100 44,666 11% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)- 9,523 9,523 28,200 18,677 34% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement - - - 93,400 93,400 0% Health/Safety Supplies - 765 765 5,500 4,735 14% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - 100 100 0% Miscellaneous Supplies - 742 742 21,200 20,458 4% Emergency Supplies - - - 4,500 4,500 0% Household Supplies - - - 4,200 4,200 0% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)753 15,711 16,464 207,200 190,736 8% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)821 875 1,696 35,000 33,304 5% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - Estimated Medical Revenue from Medi-Cal (Org 1432 - credit)- - - (218,500) (218,500) 0% Health Consultant 3,674 3,674 7,347 45,700 38,353 16% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - - - Interaction - - - 3,000 3,000 0% Diane Godard ($50,000/2)- - - 11,000 11,000 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 1,410 1,410 14,800 13,390 10% 7. Delegate Agency Costs - - - First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 - - - 2,081,154 2,081,154 0% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - - - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership (Wrap)- - - 80,600 80,600 0% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - - - 183,600 183,600 0% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - - - 54,000 54,000 0% Martinez ECC (18 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo)9,000 - 9,000 108,000 99,000 8% YMCA of the East Bay (20 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo) - 4,500 4,500 54,000 49,500 8% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)839 2,863 3,703 17,500 13,797 21% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Program - - - 4,382,300 4,382,300 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)14,334 13,322 27,656 6,860,154 6,832,498 0% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 12,949 40,474 53,423 316,200 262,777 17% 4. Utilities, Telephone 3,623 27,065 30,689 275,000 244,311 11% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - 3,500 3,500 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 717 821 1,538 35,000 33,462 4% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)1,907 1,614 3,521 36,000 32,479 10% 9. Nutrition Services - - - Child Nutrition Costs - 35,584 35,584 450,000 414,416 8% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)(51,262) (20,051) (71,313) (200,000) (128,687) 36% 13. Parent Services - - - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - 700 700 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 99 10 109 5,700 5,591 2% Policy Council Activities - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - 514 514 1,000 486 51% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement 1,123 - 1,123 12,700 11,577 9% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - Auditor Controllers 973 - 973 4,000 3,027 24% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 1,453 1,453 20,000 18,547 7% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - Outreach/Printing - 75 75 - (75) Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- 7,142 7,142 2,000 (5,142) 357% 16. Training or Staff Development - - - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)- - - 10,598 10,598 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 185 7,367 7,552 18,000 10,448 42% 17. Other Site Security Guards - 3,992 3,992 32,000 28,008 12% Dental/Medical Services - - - 1,000 1,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair 6,467 4,388 10,855 77,000 66,145 14% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 283 10,878 11,161 167,000 155,839 7% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - 12,000 12,000 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 6,255 6,255 89,945 83,690 7% h. OTHER (6h)(22,937) 127,583 104,646 1,371,343 1,266,697 8% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)507,417 702,459 1,209,876 15,091,084 13,881,208 8% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 87,602 87,602 878,928 791,326 10% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)507,417 790,061 1,297,478 15,970,012 14,672,534 8% Donación de mercancías y servicios (In- Kind)25,371 79,006 104,377 3,992,503 3,888,126 3% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2017 HEAD START PROGRAM February 2017 Expenditures April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1751 CAO Monthly Report CSBG and Weatherization Programs Year-to-Date Expenditures As of February 28, 2017 1. 2016 LIHEAP WX Contract # 16B-4005 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - Sept. 30, 2017 Amount: WX $ 1,027,911 Total Contract 1,027,911$ Expenditures (734,882) Balance 293,029$ Expended 71% 2. 2016 LIHEAP ECIP/EHA 16 Contract # 16B-4005 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - Sept. 30, 2017 Amount: EHA 16 $ 925,094 Total Contract 925,094$ Expenditures (924,938) Balance 156$ Expended 100% 3. 2015 LIWP (LOW INCOME WX) Contract # 15K-6003 Term: Jan 1, 2015 - May 15, 2017 Amount: $ 287,657 Total Contract 287,657$ Expenditures (284,711) Balance 2,946$ Expended 99% 4. 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Contract # 16F-5007 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - February 28, 2017 Amount: $ 846,479 Total Contract 846,479$ Expenditures (757,057) Balance 89,422$ Expended 89% fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 02-2017April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1752 Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council PUBLIC HEARINGS Every two years, the Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) is required to hold public hearings to gather information on priority needs of our low-income population. Comments from the public are used to inform the County’s Community Action Plan and determine how Community Services Block Grant dollars are spent. *Join us for light refreshments and networking at 6:30 pm. Hearing at 7 pm. For more information contact: Mele Tupou at 925.681.6311 or email mtupou@ehsd.cccounty.us. Visit us at: EOC Website Tuesday, April 4, 2017 7:00 PM—8:30 PM Richmond Public Library 325 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 Thursday, April 6, 2017 7:00 PM—8:30 PM Los Medanos College 2700 East Leland Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:30 PM- 8:30 PM 500 Ellinwood Way, Room A &B Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1753 Condado de Contra Costa Consejo de Oportunidad Económica Audiencia Pública Cada dos años, el Consejo de Oportunidades Económicas del Condado de Contra Costa (EOC) está obligado a celebrar audiencias públicas para reunir información sobre las necesidades prioritarias de nuestra población de bajos ingresos. Los comentarios del público se usan para informar al Plan de Acción Comunitaria del Condado y determinar cómo se gastan los dólares del Community Services Block Grant. Unase a nosotros para refrescos a las 6:30 pm. Audiencia publica comienza a las 7 pm. Para mas information contacte: Mele Tupou 925-681-6311 o correo electronico: mtupou@ehsd.cccounty.us. Visitanos en: Sitio web de EOC Martes 4 de abril de 2017 7:00—8:30 PM Biblioteca Pública de Richmond 325 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804 Jueves 6 de abril de 2017 7:00 —8:30 PM Colegio del Los Medanos 2700 East Leland Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 Miercoles 19 de abril de 2017 7:30 PM- 8:30 PM 500 Ellinwood Way, Habitación A y B Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1754 Camilla Rand, M.S. Director 1470 Civic Court, Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 Tel 925 681 6300 Fax 925 313 8301 www.cccounty.us/ehsd To: David Twa, Contra Costa County Administrator From: Kathy Gallagher, EHSD Director Subject: Community Services Monthly Report Date: March 2017 Good News Update/Accomplishments  Community Services continues to build its childcare partnerships in an effort to serve children in areas with no CSB directly operated centers. Plans are currently in the works to partner with San Ramon USD and Sunshine House in Antioch. The new EHS/CCP partnership funds entering our existing centers will allow CSB to initiate190 new Home Visiting partnership slots with Healthy Families America and Aspiranet. CSB’s Director will also be meeting with Matt Duffy, West CC USD Superintendent, to discuss possible partnership opportunities.  The Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) hosted a Roundtable event for the 2017 awardees of the Community Services Block Grant Funds on March 29th at CSB’s Administration Office in Concord. The purpose of this event was to network and create a system of care among the subcontractors. It was also a call to action regard the President’s recent “Skinny Budget” wherein CSBG funding is completely cut. The EOC will also hold three public hearings to determine the priority areas in addressing poverty in the next 3 to 5 years. (See attachment 09_Public Hearing…)  CSB centers are busy preparing for their Spring Parent & Community Work Day events in April. Families, community partners and neighbors are invited to help spruce-up and beautify the centers, organize materials, and complete other projects with the benefit of volunteer-power. Site Supervisors, with input from staff and parents, organize these Work Day events twice a year as an opportunity for parents and community leaders to engage and build stronger relationships with staff and the program.  Both CSB centers and Child Care Partner programs are well into their planning for Week of the Young Child (WOYC) April 24th – 28th. WOYC is an annual celebration hosted nation-wide with week-long activities that are intended to celebrate early learning, young children, their teachers and families. Centers hold parades, special events, and many, many unique and fun activities for children, staff and families.  Continuing with our effort to become a Trauma Informed agency, CSB will participate in the Trauma Informed 2.0 Train the Trainer training later this spring with the intent to continue deepening staffs understanding of the impact of trauma and best-practice strategies to support those impacted by trauma. Additionally, CSB staff have been provided with information about the impact Adverse Childhood Experiences and how the development of Resilience Factors can support a child to overcome the long-lasting impacts of these adverse experiences as a young child.  Nancy Sparks, who was recently promoted to a Comprehensive Services Manager for the Community Action Program, was accepted into the Leadership for Equity and April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1755 cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Nicole Porter, ACF 2 Opportunity (LEO) program. This is a learning-in-action program that equips a diverse group of community leaders to produce extraordinary results for systemic and equitable change. I. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs)  Head Start enrollment: 100.55 %  Early Head Start enrollment: 100.9%  Early Head Start Child Care Partnership enrollment: 104%  Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 80.9%  Early Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 86.6%  Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Attendance: 86.6%  Stage 2: 329 families and 515 children  CAPP: 84 families and 131 children  In total: 413 families and 646 children  Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 18 families and 24 children  LIHEAP: 419 households have been assisted  Weatherization: 25 units b. Staffing:  During the month of March CSB conducted several interviews to fill vacant positions within various teaching and clerical positions. The Bureau is in the process of hiring an Infant/Toddler Teacher and two bilingual, Spanish speaking, clerks. The Bureau continues to actively recruit to fill the remaining vacancies and increase its substitute pool for teaching positions.  CSB launched a strong recruitment campaign with the intent to seek qualified and diverse candidates. Although CSB continues to struggle to fill bilingual clerical positions, primarily in West County, the increased recruitment efforts/campaign should bring more candidates. c. Union issues:  A Meet and Discuss was held with PEU Local 1 to review the revised Head Start/CSB Standards of Conduct and the Bureau’s plan for refresher trainings for staff. II. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics:  The first draft of the President’s Federal Budget calls for the elimination of two critical CSB programs: The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which provides funding to CBOs that provide safety net services. If these programs are eliminated, $4.5 million will be reduced from the CSB budget. We are awaiting further word in April once the Continuing Resolution expires on any other reductions to other federal programs – this includes Head Start and some Child Development funds. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1756 cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Nicole Porter, ACF 3  The Economic Opportunity Council is concerned about the use of funds to construct a new jail. They are educating themselves on this issue and will forward a formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.  There has been a turnover of EOC members and the Council is looking for 5 seats to fill, including two alternates. The Economic Opportunity Council approved two new members to the Council on 3/1/17, which will now be sent forward for Board of Supervisors approval. They are Samuel Houston: Low Income Sector; and Acaria Almeida: Nonprofit/Private Sector. April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1757 March 2017 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU PRESCHOOL MENU MEATLESS - MONDAY JAMMIN - TUESDAY WACKY - WEDNESDAY VEGGIE - THURSDAY PICNIC - FRIDAY ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1% LOW-FAT MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY MARCH 12TH 1 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHEERIOS LUNCH SLOPPY JOE (ground turkey) MEXICALI CORN FRESH APPLE WHOLE GRAIN HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN FISH CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 2 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON BREAD LUNCH CHIPOTLE BEAN BURRITO (black beans, kidney bean, chunky salsa, & green chilies) SHREDDED CHEESE SHREDDED ROMAINE & DICED TOMATOES FRESH KIWI WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR TORTILLA PM SNACK RED BELL PEPPER STRIPS & CUCUMBER SLICES REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING WHEAT CRACKERS 3 BREAKFAST MAPLE APPLESAUCE TOPPING OVEN BAKED WHOLE WHEAT PANCAKE LUNCH TUNA SALAD STEAMED ORANGE GLAZED CARROTS FRESH OR FROZEN STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT PITA POCKET BREAD PM SNACK FRESH BANANA SUNBUTTER 6 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH EAGLE PIZZA (refried beans) CORN, SPINACH, ROMAINE BLEND, SHREDDED CARROTS FAT FREE SOUR CREAM & SALSA SHREDDED CHEESE FRESH KIWI CORN TOSTADA SHELL PM SNACK BUG BITE CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 7 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE CORN CHEX LUNCH CHICKEN CHILAQUILES WITH CORN TORTILLA CHIPS JICAMA STICKS WITH LIME JUICE & CHILE MANGO CHUNKS PM SNACK FRESH BANANA 1% LOW-FAT MILK 8 BREAKFAST PINEAPPLE TIDBITS WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL LOW-FAT CREAM CHEESE LUNCH *LIMA BEANS, TURKEY HAM & SLICED CARROTS FRESH APPLE SLICES WHOLE GRAIN CORNBREAD PM SNACK SALSA CORN TORTILLA CHIPS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 9 NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BREAKFAST BEARS WHOLE WHEAT BREAD, BANANA, SUNBUTTER, & BLUEBERRIES LUNCH MACARONI CHEESE WITH WHOLE GRAIN MACARONI KALE & BEET SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH TANGERINE PM SNACK BROCCOLI & CAULIFLOWER FLORETS VEGETABLE DRESSING WHEAT THINS 10 BREAKFAST SPICED APPLE TOPPING WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN LUNCH CHICKEN SALAD RAINBOW COLE SLAW WITH CHEESE FRESH ORANGE WHOLE WHEAT PITA POCKET BREAD PM SNACK LETS GO FISHING TRAIL MIX (crispix, pretzels, fish & cheese crackers) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 13 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *VEGETABLE CHILI (kidney beans, tomatoes, bulgur wheat, yogurt, & cheddar cheese) FRESH KIWI WHEAT CRACKERS PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN ANIMAL CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 14 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA KIX CEREAL LUNCH FILIPINO BEEF ADOBO (stew meat, soy sauce & vinegar) BROCCOLI FLORETS REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING FRESH TANGERINE BROWN RICE PM SNACK CUCUMBER SLICES & BABY CARROTS COTTAGE CHEESE DIP 15 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE SLICES WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL LOW-FAT CREAM CHEESE LUNCH TURKEY TACOS WITH CHEESE SHREDDED LETTUCE & DICED TOMATOES MANGO CHUNKS SOFT MINI TACO PM SNACK FRESH ORANGE HARD BOILED EGG 16 BREAKFAST FRESH OR FROZEN STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON BREAD LUNCH BLACKEYE PEAS SPRING SALAD MIX WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH TANGERINE WHOLE WHEAT CORNBREAD PM SNACK CARROTS & ZUCCHINI STICKS REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING WHOLE GRAIN SALTINE CRACKERS 17 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CHEERIOS CEREAL LUNCH SLICED TURKEY & SWISS CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING LEAFY GREEN LETTUCE & SLICED TOMATO FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE ANTS ON A LOG FRESH CELERY STICKS, SUNBUTTER & RAISINS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 20 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH *ARROZ CON QUESO (pinto beans, cheese, rice, & yogurt) FRESH KIWI PM SNACK FRESH APPLE SUNBUTTER 1% LOW-FAT MILK 21 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH TUNA & NOODLES WITH WHOLE GRAIN PASTA (tuna, celery, onion, bell pepper, milk, & whole wheat flour) CARROT STICKS (no dressing) FRESH TANGERINE PM SNACK GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 22 BREAKFAST MANGO CHUNKS BRAN CEREAL LUNCH SWEET & SOUR CHICKEN BROCCOLI SALAD (chopped broccoli, low-fat mayo, red onions, & raisins) FRESH KIWI BROWN RICE PM SNACK NUTRITION EXPERIENCE MY FAVORITE BUG STRING CHEESE PRETZEL STICKS 23 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CINNAMON OATMEAL WITH VANILLA & RAISINS LUNCH PINTO BEANS SPINACH & SHREDDED CARROT SALAD WITH SWEET & TANGY DRESSING FRESH STRAWBERRIES MEXICAN STYLE CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BUILD A BUTTERFLY SALAD LETTUCE LEAF, PINEAPPLE RINGS, CELERY STICKS, YOGURT, RAISINS, & RED BELL PEPPER 24 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT CHEESE TOAST LUNCH *SESAME ASIAN NOODLE CHICKEN SALAD (diced chicken, soy sauce, cabbage, carrots, red onions, whole grain spaghetti) FRESH ORANGE PM SNACK FRUIT SALSA (diced peaches, pineapple tidbits, red bell peppers) CORN TORTILLA CHIPS 27 BREAKFAST FRESH APPLE RICE CHEX CEREAL LUNCH VEGETARIAN BAKED BEANS TOASTED CHEESE SANDWICH CARROT RAISIN SALAD FRESH KIWI PM SNACK WHEAT CRACKERS SUNBUTTER 28 BREAKFAST FRESH ORANGE BRAN CEREAL LUNCH CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP WITH WHOLE GRAIN SPAGHETTI (diced chicken, diced celery, & carrots) BROCCOLI FLORETS REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING MANGO CHUNKS PM SNACK - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BANANA SPLIT SALAD BANANA & TROPICAL FRUIT COTTAGE CHEESE 29 BREAKFAST FRESH KIWI CORN CHEX CEREAL LUNCH *TACO SOUP (ground turkey, tomatoes, salsa, kidney beans, corn) FRESH TANGERINE WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA PM SNACK BUG BITE CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 30 BREAKFAST FRESH BANANA CREAM OF WHEAT LUNCH CUBAN RICE & BEANS STEAMED GREEN BEANS FRESH APPLE PM SNACK BABY CARROTS & CUCUMBER SLICES REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING WHEAT CRACKERS 31 BREAKFAST APPLESAUCE HOMEMADE SWEET POTATO BREAD LUNCH EGG SALAD SANDWICH CARROT STICKS FRESH ORANGE WHOLE GRAIN WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK MANGO SALSA CORN TORTILLA CHIPS April 25, 2017 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Minutes 1758