Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05242016 - Comp Min PktCALENDAR 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 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT MARY N. PIEPHO, VICE CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA, 1ST DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF, 4TH DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, 5TH 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 May 24, 2016                  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, Local1021; 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 Empl. Int’l Union United Health Care Workers West; 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)) Kim Haramaki v. Contra Costa County, WCAB Nos. ADJ7742983; ADJ9591419; ADJ95914261. Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C12-00944 JST 2. County of San Joaquin, et al. v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al., San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. STK-CV-UWM-2016-3596. 3. 9:30 a.m. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "I have long believed that sacrifice is the pinnacle of patriotism." ~ Bob Riley Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor; Karen May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1 Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Mary N. Piepho, 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.145 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 recognizing the "How to be a Conservator Workshop" and the Volunteers supporting this program. (Supervisor Andersen)     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PR.2 PRESENTATION of the “People Who Make a Difference Awards 2016" acknowledging individuals that have significantly contributed towards reducing substance abuse in Contra Costa communities, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (Jill Chioino, Chair, Community Awareness Committee of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover PR.3 PRESENTATION acknowledging the AboutFace: Building Veterans' Self-understanding through Self-portraits Program and the collaboration of the Arts and Culture Commission, Veteran Services Office and the Office of Communication and Media. (Teresa Snook O'Riva, Arts and Culture Commission Chair)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    Consent item C.11 was removed to allow for public comment and subsequently adopted as presented   D.2 CONSIDER waiving the 180-day “sit out period” for Julie Kelley in the Health Services Department, and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the temporary employment of Ms. Kelley, retired Mental Health Program Chief, for the period May 25, 2016 through May 24, 2017. (William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.3 ACCEPT the report from the Health Services Department Public Health Division on policy options to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment, and RECEIVE input on possible modifications to the County's tobacco ordinance. (William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director)       Nati Flores, Monument Impact Concord; Bob Gordon, Contra Costa County Tobacco-Prevention Coalition; Stephanie Ugalde, Courage; Karina Guadalupe, Bay Area Community Resources; Margo Connolly, American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network; Mary Jaccodine, Tobacco Prevention Coalition. ACCEPTED the Health Services Department, Public Health Division, staff report on policy options to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment. APPROVED options A-O as recommended in Attachment II, to include in an May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 2 ordinance regulating tobacco retailers, with an amendment to option C to prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes within 1000 feet of a school; DIRECTED Public Health staff to work with the County Counsel’s Office to draft the ordinance and present it to the Board of Supervisors for the Board’s consideration and present to the Planning Commission, if applicable   D.4 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-11 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Land Use Application fees) (Aruna Bhat, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speaker: Kim Allen, American Tower. CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; ADOPTED the Negative Declaration and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development is the custodian of the documents and other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-11 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County; and DIRECTED the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZED the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to arrange payment of a $50 filing fee to the County Clerk.   D. 5 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker)    There were no requests to speak at Public Comment.   D. 6 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    Supervisor Glover thanked the county staff and members of AT&T that volunteered at the annual Youth Summit.   Closed Session    There were no announcements from Closed Session.   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 11:40 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE the Marsh Creek Gap Closure Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to advertise the Project, Oakley area. (100% Flood Control Zone 1 Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4442 to establish a speed limits on Morgan Territory Road, and RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 1987/3220, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Clayton area. (No fiscal impact)      May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 3   AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute an Encroachment Permit for environmental surveys with East Bay Regional Park District, effective May 24, 2016 through December 31, 2016, with the option to request an extension through October 31, 2017, for the Morgan Territory Road Bridges Scour Project, Clayton area. (100% Local Road Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 4 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4443 to prohibit parking at all times on Nichols Road, and RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 2007/4230, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4444 to prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Port Chicago Highway, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 6 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the amount of $766,942 with Hess Paving & Grading, Inc., for the Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements Project, Bay Point area. (75% Active Transportation Program Funds, 18% Safe Routes to School Funds, and 7% Bay Point Area of Benefit Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 APPROVE the Morgan Territory Road Bridges 4.30 & 4.40 Scour Repair Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Clayton area. (100% Local Road Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 8 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the amount of $1,362,750 with Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, Bay Point area. (35% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Lifeline Transportation Grant Funds, 16% Safe Routes to School Funds and 49% Local Gas Tax Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Hanna Engineering, Inc. (dba The Hanna Group), in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for construction management services for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, for the period May 24, 2016 through the project closeout, Bay Point area. (35% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Lifeline Transportation Grant Funds, 16% Safe Routes to School Funds and 49% Local Gas Tax Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 4 C. 10 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Pacific Gas & Electric work agreement for the Hazel Avenue Storm Drain Repair, East Richmond Heights area. (100% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 APPROVE the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge 28C-141) and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Clayton area. (88% Federal Highway Bridge Program, 12% Local Road Funds) (Continued from May 10, 2016)       Speakers: Linda Dortzbach-Hudlin on behalf of property owners Richard & Wrenatta Dortzbach; James Gray, P.E, resident of Concord (handout attached).     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/369 accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for subdivision SD08-09165, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon, (Dougherty Valley) area. (100% Developer Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 13 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/373 approving the annual county miles in the Total Maintained Mileage for County Roads Report, 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 Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/376 accepting Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes, for road acceptance RA06-01208 and RA06-01210, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 15 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with J. Ted Schroder IV for a T-hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective May 3, 2016 in the monthly amount of $394.10. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 5 C. 16 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with WEST Consultants, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $75,000 to a new payment limit of $175,000, for on-call consulting services to provide hydrology and hydraulic engineering services, with no change to the original term of July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2017, Countywide. (100% Flood Control District Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 17 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with John Hayes for a shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective May 12, 2016 in the monthly amount of $177.07. (100% Airport Enterprise Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 18 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of James Cavin vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $90,000, as recommended by the Risk Manager. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Stacy McPherson vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $115,000, as recommended by the Risk Manager. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 DENY claims filed by Christopher Burish, Pedro Chavez, Luis Leon Zacapa Delgado, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, Shanti Kotecha, Timothy McCarthy III, Margarita Sanchez-Reyes, and Kimberly Vasquez.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period April 1, 2016 through April 30, 2016.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a $4,500 settlement agreement with the Marine Shale Processors Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to accept, on behalf of the County, a settlement    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 6 C. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to accept, on behalf of the County, a settlement reached by the California Attorney General in the class action lawsuit, State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-515784), as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 24 APPROVE Board meeting minutes for April 2016, as on file with the Office of the Clerk of the Board.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 ACCEPT Board members' meeting reports for April 2016.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 26 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/147 recognizing the "How to be a Conservator Workshop" and the volunteers who support this program, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Hearing Dates   C. 27 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/371 declaring the intention to form Zone 2504 within County Service Area P-6 in the Rodeo area of the County, and fixing a public hearing for June 21, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. to consider public input regarding the establishment of Zone 2504 and the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-13 authorizing the levy of a special tax within Zone 2504 to fund police protection services, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Developer Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 28 ACCEPT the resignation of Derek Jansen, DECLARE a vacancy in the At Large Alternate 1 seat on the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 REAPPOINT Stacey Howard to the District II seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.      May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 7   AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 30 REASSIGN Jason Dudum from the 1st Alternate Seat of the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee to the Appointee 6 Seat, DECLARE a vacancy in the Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post a vacancy, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 REAPPOINT Andrew Bryant to the District IV At-Large Seat, Lesley Hunt to the City of Walnut Creek Seat, Christopher Learned to the City of Pleasant Hill Seat, and Rosanne Nieto to the City of Concord Seat on the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 ACCEPT resignation of Edi Birsan, DECLARE a vacancy in the Economic Opportunity Council Private/Non-Profit Sector No.2 seat, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appropriation Adjustments   C. 33 District Attorney (0242): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5073 authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $50,000 in the District Attorney's Officer (0242) for the Underserved Victim Advocacy and Outreach Grant from the State of California, increasing total funding of this grant from $125,000 to $175,000. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 District Attorney (0242): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5074 authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $17,650 in the District Attorney's Office (0242) for the Human Trafficking Advocacy Program Grant from the State of California, increasing total funding from $32,350 to $50,000. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations   C. 35 ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2642 (E. Garcia): Removing Barriers to Employment Act, a bill that would create a grant program to help individuals receive the remedial education and work readiness skills to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship or employment opportunities, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 8 C. 36 ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2128 (Achadjian): Marriage, a bill that would amend existing law that allows a member of the Armed Force of the United States who is unable to appear for the license and solemnization of marriage to enter into that marriage by the appearance of an attorney in fact, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 ADOPT an "Oppose" position on SB 1170 (Wieckowski) Public Contracts: Water Pollution Prevention Plans, a bill that would prohibit a public entity, charter city, or charter county from delegating to a contractor the development of a plan to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works contract, or to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of a plan developed by that entity, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Personnel Actions   C. 38 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21859 to increase the hours of one permanent intermittent Information Systems Assistant II (represented) position to permanent full time status in the Health Services Department. (Third party revenues)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21863 to add one Community Health Worker II position (represented) and cancel one Clerk-Senior level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (Cost savings)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21864 to increase the hours of one Clerk-Specialist Level (represented) position from part time (28/40) to full time status in the Health Services Department. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21861 to add six Clerk-Experienced Level positions (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Mental Health Realignment Act funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21862 to increase the hours of one Network Technician I (LNWA) (represented) position from part time (20/40) to full time status, in the Department of Information Technology. (100% Departmental User fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 9   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, effective July 1, 2015, to increase the reimbursement to the County by $16,599 to a new limit of $782,810 to provide pest detection service for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the State of California Employment Development Department, including modified indemnification language, to pay County an amount not to exceed $1,669,928 from Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds, for WIOA youth services, for the period April 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal; no County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/370 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice grant in an amount not to exceed $398,608 for the purchase of bullet proof vests, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2018. (50% Federal, 50% County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the City of Richmond, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and increase the amount payable to the County by $50,000 to a new payment limit of $150,000, to provide pre-apprenticeship programs in the construction and energy-efficient fields of employment. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/377 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in an amount not to exceed $804,699 to fund two Deputy Sheriff positions for street-level and school resource officer programs to address truancy and violence in middle and high schools in the West Contra Costa County for a three-year period with an additional one-year retention period by the County. (43% Federal, 57% County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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 grant agreement with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to pay the County an amount not to exceed $139,047 to provide the Environmental Health Waste Tire Enforcement Program for the period June 29, 2016 through September 30, 2017. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 10  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to accept a grant award in an amount not to exceed $50,000 from John Muir Health for the County’s Behavior Health Services Division Homeless Services, to support the Philip Dorn Respite Center, for the period January 1 through December 31, 2016. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to apply for grant funding in an amount not to exceed $4,510,000 from the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services to support the County’s Public Health Accountable Health Community Project, for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $206,460 for the continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program, for the period June 30, 2016 through August 15, 2019. (No County match)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 ADOPT Resolution No, 2016/356 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, DNA Program Backlog Reduction Grant in an initial amount of $164,932 to reduce the number of backlogged DNA tests in the Sheriff's Criminalistics Laboratory, for the period January 1, 2017 through the end of the grant period. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $28,000 to provide food services to the childcare program at El Concilio Preschool, for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract, including mutual indemnification, with the City of Oakley, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $2,100 to provide access to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications system for the period of May 6 through July 31, 2016. (100% User fee revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $253,538 from the Contra Costa County Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to fund one Deputy Sheriff position for the Bay Point School Resource Officer Program, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund)    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 11     AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Contra Costa County Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to purchase an automated license plate reader. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $253,538 from the Contra Costa County Keller Mitigation Trust Fund to fund one Deputy Sheriff position for the Bay Point Resident Deputy program, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $8,500 from the Contra Costa Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to host a free community holiday party and toy giveaway for the residents of Bay Point. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $20,000 from the Contra Costa Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to purchase two electronic child identification systems. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount not to exceed $4,000 from the Contra Costa County Keller Mitigation Trust Fund to provide bicycle helmets, repair, safety classes and bicycle raffles as part of the Street Smarts Program. (100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, including full indemnification of the State of California, to pay the County an initial allocation of $36,800 for the instruction of accredited Driving Simulator and Force Option Simulator courses for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 12 C. 62 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract, including modified indemnification language, with the Oakland Private Industry Council in an amount not to exceed $704,494 to serve as the procurement and pay agent for training vendors on behalf of all EASTBAY Works partner agencies, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with First Carbon Solutions, to increase the payment limit by $24,200 to a new payment limit of $333,039, with no change to the original term of September 10, 2014 through September 9, 2018, for services required to complete the Environmental Impact Report for the Tassajara Parks Project in the Tassajara Valley, San Ramon area. (100% applicant fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Monument Impact Corporation in an amount not to exceed $296,549 to provide job services to limited English proficient CalWORKs clients, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (39% Federal, 61% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The English Center in an amount not to exceed $114,000 to provide job skills and placement services for limited English speaking and non-English speaking California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 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 $225,000 to provide Child Welfare Redesign Differential Response Program services in East and Central Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with FBC Community Outreach, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $232,662 to provide Child Welfare Redesign Differential Response Program services in East and Central Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lao Family Community Development, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $365,000 to provide job skills and placement services for limited English speaking and non-English speaking California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (30% Federal, 70% State)      May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 13  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 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 $509,494 to provide family preservation support services to families referred from existing child welfare cases and/or County Probation Department who are at risk of having their children placed in out-of-home care, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (30% County, 70% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Catholic Charities of the East Bay in an amount not to exceed $269,333 to provide Child Welfare Redesign Differential Response Program services in Contra Costa County, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Violence Solutions, effective April 1, 2016, to extend the term from June 14, 2016 through September 30, 2016 with no change in the payment limit of $179,639, to provide additional shelter services to victims of human trafficking. (100% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $317,125 to provide domestic violence support services to California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Interim County Probation Officer, a purchase order with Cellebrite, Inc., in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of mobile forensic hardware, software, training, and support for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with John Roark, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $291,800 to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 14 C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., effective July 1, 2015, to modify the fee/rate schedule to include wheelchair van transportation services with no increase in the payment limit of $575,000 and no change in the original term of August 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $2,391,657 to a new payment limit of $4,754,049 to provide additional levels and rates for certain categories, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St. Francis Electric, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide traffic signal inductive loop repair and maintenance service for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31 2019, Countywide. (50% Local Road and 50% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $285,684 to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center patients in the Patch Program, for the period April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (100% County Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Aspiranet in an amount not to exceed $176,130 to provide therapeutic behavioral services for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $88,065. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Loving Campos Associates, Architects, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $455,913 to provide architectural services for the New Fire Station No. 16 Project, 4007 Los Arabis Road, Lafayette. (100% Fire Protection Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Treasurer-Tax Collector, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with KUBRA America West, Inc., effective July 1, 2016, to extend the term from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no increase to the payment limit, for the processing of the County’s customers’ credit/debit card and electronic check payments. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 15  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 82 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, a purchase order with AT&T Datacomm in an amount not to exceed $115,000 for the acquisition of Cisco equipment in support of a hosted communication system for Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office, located at 625 Court Street in Martinez. (100% County General Fund, Budgeted)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 83 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels, effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $14,040 to a new payment limit of $51,828 to provide additional home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016; and to increase the automatic extension amount by $4,580 to a new payment limit of $14,027 through September 30, 2016. (100% Title III-C 2 of the Older Americans Act funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 84 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $400,000 to provide claims processing and negotiations services for the Contra Costa Health Plan, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% contingency fee from savings)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 85 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Appian Imaging, LLC (dba Northbay MRI Center), in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide diagnostic imaging services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 86 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Comprehensive Psychiatric Services, a Medical Group, in an amount not to exceed $220,000 to provide psychiatry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 87 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mission Recruiting, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide physician recruitment services for Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 88 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with S.   May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 16 C. 88 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with S. Ming Chang, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $225,000 to provide pediatric primary care services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 89 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Daniel L. Zimmerman, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $975,000 to provide obstetrics and gynecology services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 90 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee, to execute a contract with ImageTrend, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $147,750 to provide software and services to the County’s Emergency Medical Services Agency, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019. (100% Measure H funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 91 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with La Clinica de la Raza, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $412,000 to provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed children in East County for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017; with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $206,000. (50% Mental Health Realignment; 50% Federal Financial Participation)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 92 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a Contract with West Contra Costa Unified School District in an amount not to exceed $578,710 to provide wraparound services to severely emotionally disturbed children for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017; with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $286,855. (49% Federal Financial Participation, 50% Mental Health Realignment and 1% West Contra Costa Unified School District)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 93 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with Cresco Equipment Rentals in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for rental of equipment for road, flood control and facilities maintenance activities, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019, Countywide. (75% Local Road and Flood Control Funds, 25% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 94 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 17 C. 94 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, including modified indemnification language, with Richmond Elementary School, Inc., effective July 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $14,016 to a new payment limit of $210,816 to provide State Preschool services, with no change to term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% State)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 95 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, including modified indemnification language, with Little Angels Country School, LLC, effective July 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $11,687 to a new payment limit of $213,334, to provide State Preschool and Head Start program services, with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (81% State, 19% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 96 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, including modified indemnification language, with We Care Services for Children, effective July 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $14,717 to a new payment limit of $221,357, to provide State Preschool services, with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 97 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa ARC (dba Commercial Support Services), a California nonprofit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $350,000 to provide packet fulfillment services for Print and Mail Services, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018, Countywide. (100% Department User Fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 98 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation in an amount not to exceed $300,000 for rental of equipment for road, flood control and facilities maintenance activities, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019, Countywide. (75% Local Road and Flood Control Funds, 25% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 99 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to provide moving and furniture installation services for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019, Countywide. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.100 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Up To Date, Inc., in the amount of $125,752 for access by physicians at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers to an online database, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)      May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 18  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.101 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with CDW Corporation in an amount not to exceed $460,000 for scanners, printers, mobile devices, laptops, and minor computer hardware, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.102 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execurte, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with R-Computer, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $1,440,000 for Hewlett Packard personal computer systems, mobile devices, printers, and computer hardware accessories, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.103 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Buck Consultants, LLC, effective July 1, 2016, to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no change to the payment limit of $200,000, to provide pension planning consulting services. (Surcharges to all departments)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.104 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, (1) a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $342,747 with Carousel Industries of North America, Inc., for the purchase of Avaya switching system support for the period August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018, and (2) a Channel Service Agreement with Avaya, Inc., including modified indemnification language, for switching system support for the period August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018. (10% County; 45% State; $45% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.105 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer-Department of Information Technology, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with E-3 Systems, to extend the term from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $1,500,000 to a new payment limit of $3,250,000 to continue to provide, on an as-needed basis, installation and maintenance of telecommunications cabling. (100% Department User fees)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.106 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Diablo Valley Signs, to increase the payment limit by $101,000 to a new payment limit of $200,000, to provide signs for the Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, with no change to the original term of October 1, 2015 through September 20, 2016. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.107 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract,   May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 19 C.107 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract, including mutual indemnification, with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $4,875 to provide specialized training for the County Behavioral Health Services Division, Mental Health unit for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Mental Health Services Act)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.108 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, 2016 through May 31, 2017. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.109 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract, including modified indemnification, with the Regents of the University of California on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $25,000 to provide endocrinology services for patients at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.110 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order amendment with Food Service Partners, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $300,000 to a new payment limit of $574,003 for meals for patients and staff at the Contra Cost Regional Medical Center while the cafeteria and kitchen are being renovated. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.111 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Spike's Produce in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide fresh produce and related items as needed by the three County adult detention facilities for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.112 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract, including modified indemnification, with AccuFund, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $25,600, to provide a hosted information services budget solution, for the period March 1 through December 31, 2016. (10% County; 45% State; 45% Federal)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.113 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Olympus America, Inc., in the amount of $700,000 for repairs, parts and maintenance on all gastrointestinal scopes at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 20  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.114 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with the California Department of Public Health, Genetic Disease Branch, in the amount of $275,000 for newborn genetic screening tests at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.115 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 care services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients at First Hope located in Concord for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (25% 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 Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.116 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Susan Martinez (dba God’s Grace Homes) in an amount not to exceed $238,800 to provide augmented board and care services for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Mental Health Realignment funds.)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.117 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Child Therapy Institute of Marin in an amount not to exceed $325,000 to provide mental health services to seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in east and west county for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017; with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017 in an amount not to exceed $162,500. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% County Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.118 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with BioRad Laboratories, Inc., in the amount of $300,000 for reagents and supplies for the Clinical Laboratory at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.119 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bryan Ristow, M.D., effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $206,000 to a new payment limit of $1,711,000 to provide additional hours of cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical 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 Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.120 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 21 C.120 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Alice Del Rosario, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $116,480 to provide outpatient psychiatric care services to children and adolescents in east county for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% Mental Health Realignment)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.121 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute contract with Paul S. Chard, M.D., Ph.D., in an amount not to exceed $132,000 to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.122 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 care at Juvenile Hall and East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (25% Federal Financial Participation; 25% State Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment; 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.123 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Robin Asher, M.D., effective November 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $66,560 to a new payment limit of $199,680 to provide an additional day per week of psychiatric coverage at Children’s Mental Health Clinic in Central County, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (50% Federal Financial Participation and 50% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.124 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, (1) a purchase order with Applied Computer Solutions in the amount of $589,003 for software licenses and support, and (2) a Support and Subscription Services Agreement with VMWare, Inc., for support services, for the period April 3, 2016 through April 2, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C.125 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/353 amending the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon, and; AUTHORIZE and APPROVE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute the Third Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.126 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16,   May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 22 C.126 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.127 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Department of Conservation and Development to initiate a General Plan Amendment study to consider amending Land Use Element Policy 3-98 to increase the development limit for a three-acre portion of the vacant County-owned property located between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive from 18,500 square feet to 52,300 square feet (within Buchanan Field Airport), Assessor's Parcel No. 125-010-023. (100% Airport Enterprise Funds)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.128 APPROVE clarification of board action which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 2015 (C.38) with Pittsburg Unified School District, to change the term of the contract from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2020, to September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020, in an amount not to exceed $125,000 to provide services to the Teenage Pregnancy Project students. (100% Federal Department of Health and Human Services)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.129 ACCEPT the Canvass of Votes for the May 3, 2016 special election, showing that the measure for police services in County Service Area P6, Zone 1515, Supervisorial Districts 2 & 4 unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, passed, as recommended by the Clerk-Recorder. (Additional police services tax revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.130 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 Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.131 ACCEPT the April 2016 update of the operations 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 Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.132 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contract amendments with the Town of Danville and the cities of Lafayette and Orinda requiring each city to maintain and insure patrol vehicles owned by that city, effective May 1, 2016. (No immediate fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.133 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to seek    May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 23 C.133 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to seek reimbursement from California Department of Education in an amount not to exceed $2,000 to maintain Child Days of Enrollment during a one-day emergency closure due to a broken water pipe at a childcare partner site on February 10, 2016. (100% State funding)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.134 AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign County subvention Program Certificates of Compliance for the County subvention and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance programs administered by the California Department of Veterans Affairs, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.135 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to expend $2,160 for costs associated with employee Kristi Butterfield's attendance at the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy for the period July 11 through September 16, 2016. (100% General Fund)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.136 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/378 approving the designation of the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County as the authorized partner of the State-Local Partnership Program of the California Arts Council for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, as recommended by the County Administrator.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.137 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an Unpaid Student Training Agreement with Sonoma State University, to provide supervised field instruction to nursing students in the County’s Public Health Division for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (Non-financial agreement)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.138 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on April 29, 2016, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.139 ACCEPT reports from the Health Services Department on the Continuum of Care Plan for the Homeless and the Health Care for the Homeless, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.140 ACCEPT the report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the CalFresh Program, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 24  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.141 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Animal Services Department, or designee, to conduct an biennial License Amnesty event to allow residents without valid dog licenses to comply with state law without facing any back penalties or late fees.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.142 RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1605, entitled "Caring for the Victims: Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Contra Costa County (attached), and FORWARD to the County Administrator for response. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.143 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/381 delegating authority to the County Administrator and his designees to authorize, compromise, or settle claims, including workers' compensation claims, up to a maximum of $50,000, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.144 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/382 authorizing the County Administrator to participate in a regional effort to evaluate the feasibility of a countywide taxicab regulation process and DIRECT the County Administrator to make regular updates to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee as the process moves forward, as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. (No fiscal impact)        AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C.145 RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1602, entitled "Protecting Our Groundwater Resources" and refer to the County Administrator and Assessor for response, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 25 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 STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets quarterly on the fourth Monday of the month at 12:30 p.m. at Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the first Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal Glover) To be determined The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen 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. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Federal D. Glover) meets on the second Monday of the month at 11:00 a.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Mary N. Piepho) meets on the first Thursday of the month at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez. Airports Committee See above Family & Human Services Committee See above Finance Committee See above May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 26 Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee See above Internal Operations Committee See above Legislation Committee See above Public Protection Committee See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee 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 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 27 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 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 28 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 WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 29 RECOMMENDATION(S): Presentation of the “People Who Make a Difference Awards 2016" by members of the Board of Supervisors. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Once a year the Alcohol and other Drugs Advisory Board of Contra Costa County acknowledges both volunteer and non-volunteer individuals and groups that have significantly contributed towards reducing alcohol and Other Drugs in Contra Costa communities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Fatima Matal Sol PR.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:PEOPLE WHO MAKE DIFFERENCE AWARDS 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 30 ATTACHMENTS PWMD Summaries May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 31 People Who Make a Difference 2016 Summary Page 1 of 2 PEOPLE WHO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AWARDS 2016 As approved by the Contra Costa County Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board at the April 27, 2016 Monthly Meeting. NON-VOLUNTEER INDIVIDUAL District IV - Supervisor Karen Mitchoff LINDA PETE Linda Pete has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy to fully support the implementation of the Tobacco-Use Prevention Education (TUPE) Program at the Mt Diablo Unified School District. Linda was able to identify Site Coordinators at all 22 participating middle schools, high schools and continuation schools. She supported the recruitment of nearly 150 middle and high school Peer Educators who now lead peer-to-peer presentations and school- wide events. The TUPE researched based curriculum is inclusive of the consequences of alcohol and other drug use. NON-VOLUNTEER INDIVIDUAL District II– Supervisor Candace Andersen OFFICER DAVE WILLIAMS For three years, Officer Dave Williams has been an active member of the San Ramon Valley Alcohol Policy Coalition. Officer Williams works as a Youth Resource Officer for the San Ramon Valley Police Department and his primary role is to work with first time juvenile offenders. He recently observed a successful diversion program that incorporated mental health assessment and counseling. By sharing the information he gleaned from this diversion program with the coalition, he was able to establish a unique collaboration with the Discovery Counseling Center to implement a similar program. YOUTH LEADERSHIP INDIVIDUAL District II- Supervisor Candace Andersen PUNYA SINGH For three years Punya Singh has been a member of the Monte Vista Friday Night Live (FNL) Chapter. She has created a survey for both youth and adults regarding the Social Host Ordinance and has presented to the Danville Youth Council. Punya has also assisted in the planning of focus groups that have been convened at Monte Vista High School intended to upgrade the language of the Social Host Ordinance in Danville to include Prescription Drugs and Marijuana. Punya also dedicates her time to the California Youth Council and CourAGE. YOUTH LEADERSHIP GROUP District V- Supervisor Federal Glover RIVERVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE CHAPTER The Riverview Middle School Friday Night Live Chapter in Bay Point implemented a youth survey regarding bullying as it relates to alcohol and other drug use. FNL Chapter members received over 200 completed surveys during their collection period. Several members completed store assessments which gave them the opportunity to observe the marketing strategies used by the alcohol industry to promote products to youth. The youth will present the findings and recommendations of the store assessment to local middle schools and school administration. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 32 People Who Make a Difference 2016 Summary Page 2 of 2 YOUTH LEADERSHIP GROUP All Districts CouRAGE HEALTH COALITION CourAGE (See Our AGE- Advocacy, Generation & Education) members are representatives from schools from throughout Contra Costa County and they have addressed multiple topics that affect their diverse communities. They have surveyed stores about alcopops, developed an educational presentation on Marijuana and its effects and they have gathered information and testimonies regarding the impact of flavored tobacco products. The coalition implemented a PSA contest on the topics of alcopops, marijuana and tobacco and they judged the submissions. CourAGE is preparing to host a “Film Festival” which will include an Awards Night to recognize the PSA winners. YOUTH LEADERSHIP GROUP All Districts EAST BAY YOUTH COALITION The East Bay Youth Coalition planned and organized the Youth-Led Marijuana Prevention Policy Summit to raise awareness about marijuana and youth use in their communities. The coalition members conducted various research projects on marijuana and youth perceptions of harm in Contra Costa County. The coalition developed policy recommendations aimed at decreasing youth use of marijuana and they presented those recommendations at the Youth Summit as well as to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board. VOLUNTEER GROUP District V- Supervisor Federal Glover DISCOVERY HOUSE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION The Discovery House Alumni Association provides ongoing volunteer support to men in recovery and who are new treatment. The Alumni Organization is comprised of volunteers who organize various fundraising events and camping trips throughout the year. They utilize their past experiences to motivate Discovery House clients who are going through the recovery process to show that they too can overcome addiction. The Discovery House Alumni Association includes families and significant others who are committed to help others thrive and to remind them that Recovery is possible and that Treatment works . NON-VOLUNTEER GROUP District IV - Supervisor Karen Mitchoff UJIMA CENTRAL Ujima Central is located in Concord and serves substance abusing mothers and their children. Ujima provides women with alcohol and drug education, relapse prevention, parenting, and life skills while addressing the impact of trauma exposure within the family. Ujima programs treat addiction as a family disease while treating the mind, body and spirit. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 33 RECOMMENDATION(S): . FISCAL IMPACT: . BACKGROUND: . APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: PR.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Presentation on the AboutFace Project May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 34 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. FIND that the appointment of Julie Kelley is necessary to fill an important need; and 2. WAIVE the 180-day “sit out period” for Julie Kelley in the Health Services Department, and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the temporary employment of Ms. Kelley, retired Mental Health Program Chief, for the period May 25, 2016 through May 24, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: If the request is granted, there will be salary and employment tax payments up to a maximum of $61,450 for up to 960 hours per year. These costs will be offset by savings due to the vacancy of the permanent position. There is no additional fiscal impact. Salary costs are budgeted in the Hospital Enterprise Fund. BACKGROUND: Ms. Kelley retired from the Health Services Department on March 30, 2016. During her tenure with the County, Ms. Kelley assisted in managing the detention mental health system. With Ms. Kelley’s nearly 20 years of experience in this area, it is important for the Department to be able to use Ms. Kelley’s expertise to coordinate and assist the transition of the oversight of jail mental health services. The Department has no other staff who possess Ms. Kelley’s specialized technical and business knowledge of the County's detention mental health system to best coordinate and assist in the transition of her position. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor, Enid Mendoza, Senior Deputy County Administrator D.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Employment Period for County Retiree Julie Kelley May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 35 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Disapproval of the request will deprive the Department of needed expertise in the transition of knowledge and experience. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 36 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Health Services Department, Public Health Division, staff report on policy options to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment. DETERMINE which policy options, as recommended in Attachment II, to include in an ordinance regulating tobacco retailers. DIRECT Public Health staff to work with the County Counsel’s Office to draft the ordinance and present it to the Board of Supervisors for the Board’s consideration and present to the Planning Commission, if applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: Should the Board direct the development of a revised ordinance, minimal fiscal impacts associated with staff time costs, including County Counsel and other departments to develop the ordinance itself are expected. A portion of the Prop 99 funding Contra Costa Health Services receives for its Tobacco Prevention Program could be allocated to coordinating and implementing directions provided by the Board of Supervisors. Tobacco Retailer licensing fees, currently $287 per retailer, can also be used to conduct outreach, education and compliance inspections to tobacco retailers on the ordinance amendments and new requirements. These activities can be conducted with current funded staff. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Tracey Rattray D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Staff Report on Policy Options for Protecting Youth from Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 37 BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors accepted a Health Services Report on Policy Options to Protect Youth from Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment, which was forwarded from the Family and Human Services Committee for discussion. The report highlighted how the tobacco retail environment influences youth smoking behavior and described a range of fifteen optional policy provisions that would serve to strengthen the County’s ordinance to protect youth from tobacco influences and to help prevent youth from initiating tobacco use. Recommendations were made for which policy options were among the most impactful in reducing youth tobacco influences in the retail environment. The report also referenced the results from the 2013 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Store Survey, which was accepted by the he Board at the May 5, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting. Based on the recommendations from the Family and Human Services Committee and the subsequent acceptance of the recommendation by the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2015, the Board directed staff to work with the affected County Departments to evaluate these options as modifications to the County’s existing ordinances, and to address fiscal and implementation considerations. Public Health staff met with staff from County Counsel and the Department of Conservation and Development to review all of the options discussed with the Board at the July 21, 2015 meeting. This report provides the requested information as well as policy options deemed to be the most effective to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment, including strengthening the County’s Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance. Since 90% of smokers begin smoking by the age of 18, tobacco use has been determined to be “fundamentally a pediatric disease” by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In order to protect health and public safety, Health Services has presented the following policy options for consideration as modifications to existing county code to address youth tobacco influences in the retail environment: Most Impactful Provisions to Reduce Youth Tobacco Influences in the Community a) Revise the definition of “tobacco products” in the Tobacco Retailer License Ordinance to be inclusive of newer electronic smoking devices and “liquids” that currently fall outside of the definition. b) Prohibit the sale of flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products c) Prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes at least within 500 feet of schools d) Require a minimum pack size of ten (10) for little cigars and cigarillos. e) Prohibit new tobacco retailers from operating within 1000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries f) Prohibit new tobacco retailers from operating within 500 feet of new or existing tobacco retailers. g) Prohibit the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies Condition of License Suspension if a Violation of the Law Occurs h) Require tobacco retailers who have their license suspended to remove tobacco advertising during license suspension periods i) Expand the time period reviewed for prior violations of the license (the “look-back” period) from 24 months (2 years) to 60 months (5 years) when considering the length of a license suspension for retailers found to be in violation of the law. Other Policy Considerations: j) Prohibit new “Significant Tobacco Retailers”, including “vape” shops, hookah bars or smoke shops k) Require tobacco retailers to comply with state and local storefront signage laws l) Require tobacco retailers to comply with drug paraphernalia sales laws m) Require tobacco retailers to check ID of customers who appear younger than 27 n) Limit or “cap” the number of retailers that can sell tobacco products at current number of licenses issued by the County o) Prepare a board order at a later date to adjust Tobacco Retailer Licensing fees to better capture and recover updated and real costs associated with education, enforcement and monitoring of implementing the ordinance. The summary table on Policy Options for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment (Attachment II) has been updated to reflect CA jurisdictions that have adopted similar provisions in the interim period since our last report. Those provisions that were recommended by the department as the most impactful are in shaded boxes. Regulation of menthol cigarettes has been included since the last report among those that are most impactful, since being upheld in the courts. The option to raise Tobacco Retailer Licensing Fees to fully May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 38 cover law enforcement costs through licensing fees has been modified as County Counsel reports that it was not allowable as proposed. Each provision found in Attachment II, as well as fiscal and implementation issues, are discussed in more detail in Attachment I, Health Services Report on Policy Options and Recommendation for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Action is not approved, the public's health may not be protected to the extent possible. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Tobacco products are still being promoted to children through availability of youth-friendly flavored tobacco products and inexpensive small packs of these products; exposure to tobacco marketing in the retail environment; and the sale and marketing of tobacco products near schools and other youth sensitive areas. Policy options exist to amend County Code to address these issues and will discourage youth from tobacco use and promote healthier communities. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Nati Flores, Monument Impact Concord; Bob Gordon, Contra Costa County Tobacco-Prevention Coalition; Stephanie Ugalde, Courage; Karina Guadalupe, Bay Area Community Resources; Margo Connolly, American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network; Mary Jaccodine, Tobacco Prevention Coalition. ACCEPTED the Health Services Department, Public Health Division, staff report on policy options to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment. APPROVED options A-O as recommended in Attachment II, to include in an ordinance regulating tobacco retailers, with an amendment to option C to prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes within 1000 feet of a school; DIRECTED Public Health staff to work with the County Counsel’s Office to draft the ordinance and present it to the Board of Supervisors for the Board’s consideration and present to the Planning Commission, if applicable ATTACHMENTS Attachment I Attachment II Attachment III Attachment IV Attachment V powerpoint May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 39 ∎ Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services ∎ Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services ∎ Contra Costa Environmental Health ∎ Contra Costa Health Plan ∎ ∎ Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs ∎ Contra Costa Mental Health ∎ Contra Costa Public Health ∎ Contra Costa Regional Medical Center ∎ Contra Costa Health Centers ∎ Daniel Peddycord ATTACHMENT I WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR DANIEL PEDDYCORD, RN, MPA DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH C ONTRA C OSTA P UBLIC H EALTH 597 CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 125 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 PH (925) 313-6808 FAX (925) 313-6840 To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors From: Daniel Peddycord, RN, MPA, Public Health Director, Contra Costa Health Services Re: Policy Options and Recommendations to Protect Youth from Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment Date: May 24, 2016 I. Background On July 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors accepted a Health Services Report on Policy Options to Protect Youth from Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment, which was forwarded from the Family and Human Services Committee for discussion. The report highlighted how the tobacco retail environment influences youth smoking behavior and described a range of fifteen optional policy provisions that would serve to strengthen the County’s ordinance to protect youth from tobacco influences and to help prevent youth from initiating tobacco use. Recommendations were made for which policy options were among the most impactful in reducing youth tobacco influences in the retail environment. The report also referenced the results from the 2013 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Store Survey, which was accepted by the he Board at the May 5, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting. Based on the recommendations from the Family and Human Services Committee and the subsequent acceptance of the recommendation by the Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2015, the Board directed staff to work with the affected County Departments to evaluate these options as modifications to the County’s existing ordinances, and to address fiscal and implementation considerations. Public Health staff met with staff from County Counsel and the Department of Conservation and Development to review all of the options discussed with the Board at the July 21, 2015 meeting. This report provides the requested information as well as policy options deemed to be the most effective to protect youth from tobacco influences in the retail environment, including strengthening the County’s Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance. Since 90% of smokers begin smoking by the age of 18, tobacco use has been determined to be “fundamentally a pediatric disease” by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1 In order to protect health and public safety, Health Services has presented the following policy options for consideration as modifications to existing county code to address youth tobacco influences in the retail environment: Most Impactful Provisions to Reduce Youth Tobacco Influences in the Community a) Revise the definition of “tobacco products” in the Tobacco Retailer License Ordinance to be inclusive of newer electronic smoking devices and “liquids” that currently fall outside of the definition. b) Prohibit the sale of flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products c) Prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes at least within 500 feet of schools d) Require a minimum pack size of ten (10) for little cigars and cigarillos. e) Prohibit new tobacco retailers from operating within 1000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries 1 Hilts, Philip J. “FDA Head Calls Smoking a Pediatric Disease.” The New York Times 9 Mar 1995. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 40 2 f) Prohibit new tobacco retailers from operating within 500 feet of new or existing tobacco retailers. g) Prohibit the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies Condition of License Suspension if a Violation of the Law Occurs h) Require tobacco retailers who have their license suspended to remove tobacco advertising during license suspension periods i) Expand the time period reviewed for prior violations of the license (the “look-back” period) from 24 months (2 years) to 60 months (5 years) when considering the length of a license suspension for retailers found to be in violation of the law. Other Policy Considerations: j) Prohibit new “Significant Tobacco Retailers”, including “vape” shops, hookah bars or smoke shops k) Require tobacco retailers to comply with state and local storefront signage laws l) Require tobacco retailers to comply with drug paraphernalia sales laws m) Require tobacco retailers to check ID of customers who appear younger than 27 n) Limit or “cap” the number of retailers that can sell tobacco products at current number of licenses issued by the County o) Prepare a board order at a later date to adjust Tobacco Retailer Licensing fees to better capture and recover updated and real costs associated with education, enforcement and monitoring of implementing the ordinance. The summary table on Policy Options for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment (Attachment II) has been updated to reflect CA jurisdictions that have adopted similar provisions in the interim period since our last report. Those provisions that were recommended by the department as the most impactful are in shaded boxes. Regulation of menthol cigarettes has been included since the last report among those that are most impactful, since being upheld in the courts. The option to raise Tobacco Retailer Licensing Fees to fully cover law enforcement costs through licensing fees has been deleted as County Counsel reports that it is not allowable under the law. Each provision found in Attachment I, as well as fiscal and implementation issues, are discussed in more detail in this report. II. Contra Costa County and Tobacco Prevention Efforts Contra Costa County has been a leader in protecting the health of its residents, workers and visitors, and youth in particular, from the devastating consequences caused by tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure. In 2003, the Board adopted what was then a model Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance to address illegal sales of tobacco to minors, requiring all tobacco retailers to purchase a local license in order to sell tobacco products, and allowing for a suspension of the license if tobacco sales laws, such as the no sales to minors law, were violated. In 2006, the Board adopted what was one of the strongest and most comprehensive secondhand smoke protections ordinances at the time, prohibiting smoking in many outdoor areas and in certain areas of multi-unit housing properties. Most recently in 2013 the Board amended the code to require a tobacco retailer license to sell electronic cigarettes and to prohibit the use of these devices where smoking is prohibited. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 41 3 While we have made good progress in Contra Costa in reducing adult and youth tobacco use2, 3, 4, youth are still exposed to tobacco industry influences in their communities. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, in their fact sheet on Key State Specific Tobacco-Related Data and Rankings, reports that 16,800 youth begin smoking in CA every year5 and 3.9 million Californians still smoke6. In 2011, the tobacco industry spent $605 million7 advertising and promoting tobacco products in California, with 90% of its marketing budget spent in the retail store environment.8 Exposure to tobacco marketing in stores increases tobacco experimentation and use by youth9 and has been shown to be more powerful than peer pressure.10 Research also shows that the number of stores selling tobacco in a community can lead to higher rates of youth smoking. In addition to advertising and marketing influences, some Contra Costa cities have illegal tobacco sales rates to youth that are as high as 26%.11 III. The Problem of Youth Tobacco Use and the Retail Environment In summer, 2013, in order to get a picture of what tobacco industry influences look like in Contra Costa, Public Health’s Tobacco Prevention Project participated in a county-wide tobacco survey. Over 300 stores that sell tobacco throughout the county were part of the randomized sample for the Contra Costa Store Survey, including convenience, supermarket, liquor, tobacco, small market, discount, drug and big box stores. Stores that prohibited youth from entry or that require membership were excluded from the survey. Photos of these products can be found in the accompanying powerpoint. The Contra Costa Store Survey12 findings confirmed that tobacco is still being promoted to youth and that:  Over 80% of stores near schools in Contra Costa sell flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products like “watermelon” and “tropical blast” flavored cigarillos and little cigars. Many of these products sell for under a dollar, making them very attractive and affordable for youth.  Over eight in 10 stores sell packs of 5 or less of cigarillos/little cigars, and close to 70% of stores sell these products as "singles". These products are also available very cheaply, making them affordable for youth. Eighty-five percent of tobacco retailers sell the most popular brand of cigarillos for under $1. 2 Gilpin EA, Emery SL, Farkas AJ, Distefan JM, White MM, Pierce JP. The California Tobacco Control Program: A Decade of Progress, Results from the California Tobacco Surveys, 1990-1998. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego; 2001. 3 Max W, Rice DP, Zhang X, Sung H-Y, Miller L. The Cost of Smoking in California, 1999, Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, 2002. 4 Max W, Sung H-Y, Shi Y, & Stark B. The Cost of Smoking in California, 2009. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco, 2014. 5 Based on the 2011 Federal Trade Commission Report and California state estimate methodology used by Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/california. 6 Max W, Sung H-Y, Shi Y, & Stark B. The Cost of Smoking in California, 2009. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco, 2014. 7 Based on the 2011 Federal Trade Commission Report and California state estimate methodology used by Campaign For Tobacco Free Kids: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/california 8 U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2007 and 2008, 2011, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/07/110729cigarettereport.pdf. FTC, Smokeless Tobacco Report for 2007 and 2008, 2011, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/07/110729smokelesstobaccoreport.pdf. Data for top 6 manufacturers only. 9 DiFranza, J.R., Wellman, R.J., Sargent, J.D., Weitzman, M., Hipple, B.J., Winickoff, J.P., Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics, 2006. 117(6): p. e1237-1248. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/6/e1237.abstract%20(25 and National Cancer Institute, The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use: TobaccoControl Monograph No. 19, 2008, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/19/index.html 10 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Toll of Tobacco in the United States of America. 2011. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf. 11 California Department of Public Health, Food and Drug Branch, youth decoy operation results 2009. 12 2013 Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community (HSHC) Survey, California Department of Public Health. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 42 4  Close to half of all stores that sell tobacco in Contra Costa sell e-cigarettes. The number of stores that are selling e-cigarettes statewide has quadrupled, from just over 10% in 2011 to over 45% in 2013. Electronic cigarette use among middle and high school youth tripled between 2013 and 201413. Many of these products are attractive to youth because they are relatively cheap and come in flavors like cherry-limeade and mint.  Seven in 10 stores in Contra Costa have exterior advertising for unhealthy products like tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks. This compares with 1 in 10 stores with exterior advertising for healthy items including fruits, vegetables and non-fat/low-fat milk. Information on the location and density of stores selling tobacco across the county was also collected and mapped. This data revealed that:  34% of stores selling tobacco throughout the County are located within 1000 feet of a school. One-third of youth who buy tobacco purchase these products within 1000 feet of school.14 Every school day, youth are exposed to tobacco influences such as advertising and product promotions on their way to and from school. Many of the Contra Costa communities with high numbers of stores selling tobacco near schools are low-income. Low-income communities have high rates of smoking and tobacco-related diseases like heart disease, cancers and stroke. The 2013 Contra Costa Store Survey provides concrete, scientific evidence on how the tobacco industry continues to target youth and lower-income communities through the retail environment. IV. Policy Considerations to Reduce Youth Tobacco Influences The CA Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Program and the statewide Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Campaign recommend several effective policies to consider in reducing youth tobacco influences in the community: a) Include Electronic Smoking Devices and other emerging products in the definition of “Tobacco Products”. In 2013, Contra Costa was among the first in the state to revise its existing definition of tobacco products to include electronic cigarettes, requiring retailers who sell these products to have a license in order to sell them, and prohibiting use where smoking of conventional tobacco products is prohibited. Since then, new products have emerged such as “vape pens”, electronic hookah, and refillable “mods” and “tanks” that fall outside of the current definition and continue to be unregulated and may or may not contain nicotine. These products are attractive to youth, mimic smoking, undermine community norms related to smoking, and serve as “starter products” to a lifetime of addiction15. As such, The Family and Human Services Committee directed staff to revise the definition of “Tobacco Products” at its April 15, 2015 Committee Meeting. b) Prohibit the sale of flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products, such as candy, fruit and spice characterizing flavors in little cigars, hookah tobacco and dissolvable tobacco products, as well as in electronic smoking devices and vapor solutions for these devices. Under the federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, it is illegal for manufacturers to make cigarettes that contain “characterizing flavors” other than that of tobacco. This includes flavors such as 13 Arrazola R, Singh T, Corey C, et al, Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students – United States, 2011-2014. MMWR. 4/17/2015; Vol. 64 (#14): pp 381-385. 14 Lipton R, Banerjee A, Levy D, Manzanilla N, Cochrane M., The spatial distribution of underage tobacco sales in Los Angeles. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(11):1594-614. 15 Ji-Yeun P., Dong-Chul S., and Hsien-Chang L.. E-Cigarette Use and Intention to Initiate or Quit Smoking Among US Youths. American Journal of Public Health: April 2016, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp. 672-678. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302994 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 43 5 strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, and vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa or chocolate. The Act was adopted in 2009 largely because these flavored products were attractive and marketed to youth and young adults,16,17,18,19 and younger smokers were more likely to have tried these products than older smokers.20 (Menthol flavoring in cigarettes was exempted and is discussed in more detail below.) Though there is a federal ban on flavored cigarettes (excluding menthol) flavored non-cigarette tobacco products are not prohibited under federal law. They have become increasingly common and are available in a variety of flavors that appeal to children and young adults.21 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Surgeon General have stated that flavored tobacco products are considered to be “starter” products for youth and help establish smoking habits that can lead to long- term addiction.22 Adding flavorings to tobacco products such as little cigars, cigarillos, and smokeless tobacco can mask the natural harshness and taste of tobacco, making these products easier to use and increasing their appeal among youth.23 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students tripled between 2013 and 2014.24 Nicotine solutions, which are consumed via electronic smoking devices such as electronic cigarettes, are sold in dozens of flavors that appeal to youth, such as cotton candy and bubble gum.25 The California Attorney General has stated that electronic cigarette companies have targeted minors with fruit-flavored products.26 16 Carpenter CM, Wayne GF, Pauly JL, et al. 2005. “New Cigarette Brands with Flavors that Appeal to Youth: Tobacco Marketing Strategies.” Health Affairs. 24(6): 1601–1610; 17 Lewis M and Wackowski O. 2006. “Dealing with an Innovative Industry: A Look at Flavored Cigarettes Promoted by Mainstream Brands.” American Journal of Public Health. 96(2): 244–251. 18 Connolly GN. 2004. “Sweet and Spicy Flavours: New Brands for Minorities and Youth.” Tobacco Control. 13(3): 211–212. 19 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, p. 537, www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf. 20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, p. 539, www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf. 21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, p. 164, 205, www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf; Morris DS and Fiala SC. 2013. “Flavoured, Non-cigarette Tobacco for Sale in the USA: An Inventory Analysis of Internet Retailer s.” Tobacco Control. [Electronic publication ahead of print], http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/08/08/tobaccocontrol-2013-051059.full. 22 Food and Drug Administration. 2011. Fact Sheet: Flavored Tobacco Products, www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/FlavoredTobacco/UCM183214.pdf; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta: U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, p. 539, www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf. 23 King BA, Dube SR, and Tynan MA. 2013. “Flavored Cigar Smoking Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2009–2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 15(2): 608–614; Nelson DE, Mowery P, Tomar S, et al. 2006. “Trends in Smokeless Tobacco Use Among Adults and Adolescents in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health. 96(5): 897–905. 24 Arrazola R, Singh T, Corey C, et al, Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students – United States, 2011-2014. MMWR. 4/17/2015; Vol. 64 (#14): pp 381-385. 25 Cameron JM, Howell DN, White JR, et al. 2013. “Variable and Potentially Fatal Amounts of Nicotine in E-cigarette Nicotine Solutions.” Tobacco Control. [Electronic publication ahead of print], http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/12/tobaccocontrol-2012-050604.full; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, p. 549, www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf. 26 Press Release, State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Brown Announces Electronic Cigarett e May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 44 6 Jurisdictions have the authority to prohibit the sale of these products in the entire jurisdiction, and in the interest of public health and to protect youth from these products, the Department recommends that any flavored tobacco product regulations apply to the entire unincorporated area. In the Bay Area, El Cerrito and Santa Clara County have adopted laws to restrict the sale of flavored (non- cigarette) tobacco products throughout the entire jurisdiction, and Yolo County is currently considering such regulations. Federal district courts outside of California have upheld similar bans, and the cities of New York, Providence, Rhode Island and Manhattan Beach, CA also prohibit the sale of these products throughout the entire city. c) Prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes within 500 feet of schools. In a Resolution signed on October 26, 2010, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors urged the Food and Drug Administration to ban menthol in cigarettes and in other tobacco products, stating the Board’s “commitment to the health and well-being of its residents and particular concern about preventing tobacco use among youth and in reducing health disparities.” Due to intense lobbying from the tobacco industry, menthol flavored cigarettes were excluded from the federal ban on flavored cigarettes, even though a 2006 study published in the Journal of Nicotine and Tobacco Research showed that 50% of youth start smoking with menthol flavored cigarettes, and that these are “starter” cigarettes for many youth to go on to become regular smokers. Youth who smoke menthol cigarettes are significantly more likely to show signs of nicotine addiction than their peers who smoke non- menthol brands.27 The tobacco industry has also targeted African Americans with mentholated tobacco products and as a result nearly 83% of African American smokers smoke menthol, compared with 24% of White smokers28,29,30. The City of Chicago and the City of Berkeley are the two jurisdictions in the country that have adopted ordinances that prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes within a certain distance of schools (Chicago within 500 feet and Berkeley within 600 feet.) A federal district court has upheld Chicago’s ordinance. Berkeley’s ordinance has not been challenged. Should the Board wish to prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes in the unincorporated County, it would be the first County to do so in the nation. County counsel reports that the county’s police power appears to authorize the County to prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes in the entire unincorporated County, or to regulate the sale of these products within a certain distance of schools, following similar actions taken by Chicago and Berkeley. Currently, there are a total of 93 licensed tobacco retailers in the unincorporated county, and nineteen of these stores lay within 500 feet of a school. The table on Stores Selling Tobacco in Contra Costa, 2015 (Attachment III) provides information on the number of stores selling tobacco products that are within 500 feet of schools for each of the unincorporated communities. d) Require a 10/pack minimum pack size for sale of cigars, including cigarillos and little cigars. Small packages of tobacco products make these products more affordable and therefore more Maker's Agreement to Stop Deceptive Marketing and Sales to Minors (Aug. 3, 2010), oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-announces- electronic-cigarette-makers-agreement-stop-deceptive-marketing. 27 Hersey JC, Ng SW, Nonnemaker JM, et al. Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth? Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2006;8:403-413. 28 Moolchan E. Adolescent menthol smokers: Will they be a harder target for cessation? Nicotine Tob Res (2004) 6(Suppl 1): S93-S95 doi:10.1080/14622203310001649522. 29 The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network. Blacks and Menthol Fact Sheet. http://naatpn.org/resources/Blacks%20&%20Menthol.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2010. 30 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. The NSDUH Report: Use of Menthol Cigarettes. Rockville, MD. November 19, 2009. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 45 7 accessible to youth. Youth are generally price-sensitive to the purchase of tobacco products. Although federal and state law ban the sale of individual cigarettes, neither restrict the sale of individual little cigars, cigarillos and cigars. These products are typically sold individually, making them more affordable and appealing to youth.31 Health Services recommends exempting premium cigars (those that retail for $5 or more each) from a minimum pack size ordinance. The cities of El Cerrito, Hayward, Huntington Park and Sonoma currently require a minimum pack size of 5/pack, however since cigarillos and little cigars currently sell for as low as “3 for 99 cents”, a 10/pack minimum pack size may be a consideration if the Board decides to adopt this provision. e) Prohibit any new tobacco retailers to be located within 1000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, and libraries. Research has demonstrated that youth are more likely to experiment with tobacco products when retailers are located near schools, and that the number of tobacco retailers in a community affects youth smoking behaviors.32 The density of tobacco retailers, particularly in neighborhoods surrounding schools, has been associated with increased youth smoking rates.33 Restricting the location of all tobacco retailers near schools and other youth sensitive areas, as well as within a certain distance to each other, creates tobacco-free zones and reduces tobacco influences in the community. Twenty-five California cities and counties have adopted similar laws, including El Cerrito, Santa Clara County and Union City. Other youth sensitive areas, such as youth centers, could be added to this provision. Maps illustrating a 1000 foot buffer around schools, parks, playgrounds and libraries were developed for one community in each of the Supervisorial districts (Attachment IV). District I: El Sobrante District II: Saranap District III: Byron and Discovery Bay* District IV: Contra Costa Centre District V: Bay Point *As requested at the 7/21/15 meeting, the two retailers selling tobacco products at the intersection of Byron Highway and Route 4 are approximately 3500 feet from Excelsior Middle School. The maps also illustrate boundary areas within 500 feet of existing retailers, which is discussed below as another policy option. f) Reduce the density of tobacco retailers by prohibiting the location of new tobacco retailers within 500 feet of existing tobacco retailers (density relative to other retailers). High density of tobacco retailers has been associated with increased smoking rates, particularly among youth.34 A study of California neighborhoods found that the density and proximity of tobacco retailers influence smoking behaviors, including number of cigarettes smoked per day.35 Of additional concern, widespread presence of tobacco in retail settings normalizes the use of tobacco products and triggers 31 California Department of Public Health. (2012). Tobacco in the Retail Environment, www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Tobacco%20Retail%20Environment%20Fact%20Sheet_Easy%20Print.pdf 32 McCarthy, W.J., Mistry, R., Lu, Y., Patel, M., Zheng, H., Dietsch, B., Density of tobacco retailers near schools: effects on tobacco use among students. American Journal of Public Health, 2009. 99(11): p. 2006 2013. 33 Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, et al. 2008. “Is Adolescent Smoking Related to Density and Proximity of Tobacco Outlets and Retail Cigarette Advertising Near Schools?” Preventive Medicine 47: 210-214. 34 Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, et al. 2008. “Is Adolescent Smoking Related to Density and Proximity of Tobacco Outlets and Retail Cigarette Advertising Near Schools?” Preventive Medicine 47: 210-214. 35 Chuang YC, Cubbin C, Ahn D, et al. 2005. “Effects of Neighbourhood Socioeconomic Status and Convenience Store Concentration on Individual Level Smoking.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 568-573. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 46 8 smoking urges among former smokers and those attempting to quit.36 California law limits alcohol licenses based on density, and this policy applies that same rationale to tobacco retailers. Nine cities and counties in CA have adopted similar laws.37 g) Prohibit the sale of tobacco products in Pharmacies. A recent gallop poll showed Pharmacists are perceived by many as among the most trusted of health care professionals. Research indicates that by selling tobacco products, pharmacies reinforce positive social perceptions and send a message that it is not so dangerous to smoke38,39. Children and young people are particularly influenced by cues suggesting that smoking is acceptable. The American Pharmacists Association, the California Pharmacists Association, and the California Medical Association have called for state and local laws prohibiting tobacco sales in drugstores and pharmacies because doing so supports the public health and social welfare of the communities in which they practice. In the Bay Area, Richmond, San Francisco, Berkeley, Marin County, Daly City and Santa Clara County prohibit the sale of tobacco products in all pharmacies. A federal district court has upheld San Francisco’s ordinance prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. Of the nine (9) licensed pharmacies in the unincorporated county, there are currently six (6) that currently sell tobacco products. Conditions of License Suspension if violation of the law occurs h) Amend the County’s Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance to require retailers to remove tobacco advertising during the license suspension period. Over 60 jurisdictions, including Richmond, Albany, Oakland, Pacifica, and Santa Clara County, require this provision during license suspension period, when sales of tobacco products are prohibited, and it is now considered a best practice provision to further support prevention of tobacco sales to minors. The adoption of the Tobacco Retailer Licensing program has proved to be a very effective means of reducing illegal sales of tobacco to minors. Sales in the unincorporated area of the County decreased from 37% to 7% within the first year of enforcement. i) Amend the County’s Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance to expand the time period reviewed for prior violations of the license from 24 months (2 years) to 60 months (5 years) when considering the length of the license suspension. Nearly 70 other CA jurisdictions include this provision, as it serves as a strong incentive for retailers to fully comply with tobacco control laws over time. Other Policy Considerations j) Prohibit new “Significant Tobacco Retailers”, businesses that primarily sell tobacco products, (defined by a certain percentage of gross revenue or floor space dedicated to tobacco products) including hookah lounges, vape shops and tobacco shops, from obtaining a tobacco retailer license. Over 8 percent of all tobacco retailers statewide were witnessed unlawfully selling to minors in 2012, and tobacco stores (defined as businesses in which at least 80 percent of merchandise was tobacco products) 36 McDaniel PA and Malone RE. 2011. “Why California Retailers Stop Selling Tobacco Produ cts, and What Their Customers and Employees Think About It When They Do.” BMC Public Health 11: 848. 37 “Matrix of Local Ordinances Restricting Tobacco Retailers Near Schools, July 2013”, Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing. 38 Katz MH. 2008. “Banning Tobacco Sales in Pharmacies: The Right Prescription.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(12):1451-1453. 39 Hudmon KS, Fenlon CM, and Corelli RL. 2006. “Tobacco Sales in Pharmacies: Time to Quit.” Tobacco Control, 15(1): 35 -38. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 47 9 sold to minors at a much higher rate than the statewide average, as high as 20.5 percent.40 In the Bay Area, El Cerrito and Richmond prohibit new significant tobacco retailers; Pittsburg has imposed a moratorium on new “smoke shops” or “smoking lounges”; Antioch prohibits new significant tobacco retailers from certain locations; and Concord prohibits new hookah shops. k) Require compliance with local and state laws regarding storefront signage. This provision allows for suspension of a retailer’s license if a retailer violates the state or local law setting a maximum percentage of window space that can be covered by signs at retail establishments. Maximum allowable signage laws have been enacted as a safety measure, as they may allow for law enforcement to view into an establishment. This provision provides another mechanism for communities to bring retailers into compliance with existing health and safety laws. Santa Clara County has a similar provision. l) Making violations of state laws regarding drug paraphernalia or controlled substances a violation of a tobacco retailer license. Many cigarette, tobacco, and other shops sell items that are commonly known to be drug paraphernalia, including bongs and pipes used to smoke methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, and claim that such items are intended for tobacco use. If adopted, drug paraphernalia would be defined as it is in state law. m) Require tobacco retailers to check ID of customers who appear younger than 27. Current law requires tobacco retailers and their employees to check the age of purchasers up to the age of 18, the legal age for tobacco product sales. Clerks and/or store owners who sell to minors sometimes appeal a citation based on a claim that the customer “looked like” they were 18 or older. This claim would not be allowable if this provision is adopted. n) Cap the number of Tobacco Retailer Licenses issued at the current number of issued licenses. In 2003 when the County’s Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance was first instituted, there were 107 tobacco retailers in the unincorporated County. The number of retailers selling tobacco has gradually decreased to 92 licensed tobacco retailers in 2015, with an average of 1-2 new retailers applying for licenses annually. In the Bay Area, the city of Sonoma recently adopted a law that restricts new tobacco retailers to the 15 existing licensed tobacco retailer locations. San Francisco has adopted an ordinance which caps the total number of tobacco retailers at the current level for each of the supervisorial districts. V. Fiscal Impacts. Minimum fiscal impacts to the County are expected. Should the Board direct development of a revised ordinance there will be cost in staff time, including County Counsel and other county departments to develop the ordinance itself. A portion of the Prop 99 funding Contra Costa Health Services receives for its Tobacco Prevention Program could be allocated to coordinating and implementing directions provided by the Board of Supervisors. Tobacco Retailer licensing fees, currently $287 per retailer, can also be used to conduct outreach and education to tobacco retailers on the ordinance amendments and new requirements. These activities can be conducted with current funded staff. The July 21, 2015 report to the Board included the option to increase the Tobacco Retailer License Fee to fully cover the cost of enforcement and monitoring of all tobacco control laws, including youth decoy 40 Chapman R. 2012. State Health Officer’s Report on Tobacco Use and Promotion in California. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program, p. 8, www.cdph.ca.gov/Documents/EMBARGOED%20State%20Health%20Officers%20Report%20on%20Tobacco.pdf May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 48 10 operations. The current Tobacco Retailer License fee reflects costs related to administration of the license and site compliance checks. It does not cover the cost of youth decoy operations through the Sheriff’s Office for enforcement of the “no sales to minors” law, which are funded at approximately $18,000 annually with County general funds. County Counsel reports that fees may be charged to recover reasonable regulatory and administrative costs for issuing licenses and performing inspections. Fees may not be charged for general governmental services, including law enforcement services. Given that multiple jurisdictions are funding enforcement efforts through tobacco retailer licensing fees, the Department recommends that a Board Order be presented at a later date adjusting the fee to better capture and recover updated and real costs. Location and density policy options under consideration restrict new tobacco retail establishments only from locating within a certain distance of schools and other youth sensitive areas and of each other. If location restrictions are adopted, (prohibiting new tobacco retailers to be located within 1000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, and libraries; prohibiting new tobacco retailers to be located within 500 feet of an existing tobacco retailer; and/or prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes within a certain distance of schools) County Counsel has recommended that these provisions be included in the County’s Zoning Code. As such, the County’s Department of Conservation and Development will be included in the process of reviewing and approving new tobacco retailers in the County. If any of the location restrictions are adopted, the applicant would need to first get approval through the Department of Conservation and Development, which will also apply an administration fee to the applicant. Retailer Industry Concerns. Staff were directed to respond to concerns expressed in a letter dated July 16, 2015 to the Board from representatives of the tobacco retail industry, most specifically the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association (APCA), indicating their concerns over the financial impact of placing restrictions on flavored tobacco products and prohibiting the sale of tobacco products within 1000 feet of youth sensitive areas. Their correspondence cites that, on average, 30% of annual sales come from tobacco. The density and location policy options discussed in this report apply to new retailers only, which appears to address this concern from this retail association. However, there may be associated financial impacts on some retailers, especially on small businesses that rely primarily on sale of flavored non-cigarette tobacco products throughout the county, and possibly for those selling menthol cigarettes within 500 feet of schools This is balanced against the significant medical cost and human toll that tobacco related disease continues to exact on counties and their corresponding communities, which have resulted in over $334 million annually in excess healthcare costs in our county alone41. Some tobacco retailer associations also point to adults buying flavored products and small pack sizes. This may be true in some cases, however it is also true that these products target youth in Contra Costa communities. While the tobacco industry is prohibited from directly marketing and advertising to young people by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, brightly packaged, flavored tobacco products are a way to indirectly appeal and attract youth tobacco and e-cigarette users. Prohibiting flavored cigars and requiring minimum pack size will reduce tobacco use by creating an environment that has fewer tobacco influences and supports a tobacco-free community. Resources are available to assist small businesses in revising their business plans in order to comply with any new regulations, and County staff will continue to identify additional resources to support small businesses in this transition. (Attachment V) 41 Max W, Sung H-Y, Shi Y, & Stark B. The Cost of Smoking in California, 2009. San Francisco, CA: Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, San Francisco, 2014. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 49 11 VI. Implementing new tobacco prevention provisions If adopted, most of proposed new regulations for sales of tobacco products will be included in the current Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance, which is administered and enforced through the County’s Public Health Division. An educational approach to compliance will be prioritized over the first year including a mailing to all affected tobacco retailers following final Board adoption of any new regulations, notifying retailers of the requirements under the new ordinance. The department recommends that most of the provisions go into effect within 30 days of adoption of an ordinance, with the exception of the provisions prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, menthol cigarettes and small packs of cigars. A longer implementation period of 180 days for these provisions will allow retailers to sell off product that they currently stock, as well as develop any alternative business plans, if necessary to comply with new health and public safety regulations. Implementation, including outreach and education activities would be integrated into ongoing Tobacco Retailer Licensing implementation activities conducted by Tobacco Prevention Program staff. Specifically, implementation would include: --developing an educational materials for direct mailing to all existing licensed tobacco retailers, including information on resources available to address business planning to comply with the new regulations. --working with the affected County departments to develop operational protocols and to assure that any intersecting ordinances requirements are addressed in communications to the public. --work with the Business License Office to review new license applications for approval and to provide educational materials through the Business License Office application and renewal mechanisms to both current and new retailers. --updating and maintaining the Tobacco Prevention Program webpages with the new regulations and educational materials, as well as both State and County information on Tobacco Retailer Licensing and requirements. --conducting site inspections, education and follow-up with owners if stores are not compliant with the new regulations. -- promoting and responding to calls received on the Tobacco Violations Reporting Line--collaborating with the Sheriff’s Office to plan retailer compliance inspections. The Sheriff’s Office will continue to conduct youth decoy operations through an MOU with Health Services -- continuing to coordinate license suspension hearings for those retailers that have been found to be in violation of the law. Implementation of Tobacco Retailer Density and Location Restrictions. Public Health staff has met with County Counsel and Department of Conservation and Development staff to discuss options for implementation of the proposed tobacco retailer density and location restrictions. County Counsel reports that State law authorizes the county to establish density and location restrictions in its Zoning Code. Therefore, the Department of Conservation and Development will have a role in license approval through determining distance to schools, other youth sensitive areas, and to other retailers, if these provisions are adopted. However, Health Services staff has recommended that the density and location restrictions be reference in the amended Tobacco Retailer License Ordinance. The Public Health Department will maintain coordination of all aspects of the license approval process to assure that all tobacco related regulations are complied with prior to annual licensing of tobacco retailers and over the annual licensing period. Communication with the Cities. Members of the Board expressed interest in communications with the cities on these policies. The Public Health Department will make every effort to make a presentation to the May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 50 12 Mayors Conference on any new ordinance provisions that are adopted, and staff will provide information and technical assistance to those cities that are interested in protecting health and public safety through addressing youth tobacco influences in the retail environment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 51 Policy Options for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment Contra Costa Health Services, Public Health Division For Presentation to Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, May 24, 2016 Most Impactful Policies for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment Provision Description CA Jurisdictions with Similar Protection a. Require a Tobacco Retailer License for all retailers selling traditional and/or emerging tobacco products. Revises definition of “Tobacco Product” to include all “emerging products” including all electronic smoking devices (whether or not they contain nicotine). Current definition fails to capture a number of vaping products that have emerged since the County tobacco retail ordinance was adopted. If adopted, the new definition would cover all electronic devices which mimic smoking or can be used to deliver a dose of nicotine or other substances, and all components, parts or accessory of a “tobacco product”. El Cerrito, Richmond, Albany, Oakland, San Jose and Santa Clara County for a total of close to 100 jurisdictions in CA. Family and Human Services Committee directed staff to develop updated definition for current ordinance at 4/13/15 Committee Meeting. b. Prohibit the sale of flavored (non- cigarette) tobacco products Prohibits the sale of flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products within the entire unincorporated County. The Food and Drug Administration has banned candy, fruit and spice as characterizing flavors for cigarettes only. Other tobacco products (smokeless, little cigars, hookah tobacco, and dissolvable tobacco products) with these flavors are exempt from the federal ban. If adopted, the ban on flavored product would extend to these other non-cigarette tobacco products. El Cerrito, Berkeley, Santa Clara County, Hayward, Manhattan Beach and Sonoma (Also New York City; Providence Rhode Island, and Chicago.) Under consideration in Yolo County. c. Prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes near schools (added to “most effective” list since the 7/21/15 report based on recent court decision) Would prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes within a certain distance of a school. The Food and Drug Administration has exempted “menthol” flavor from its ban on “characterizing flavors” in cigarettes. Staff recommends a distance no less than 500 feet. If adopted, this provision would affect 19 tobacco retailers across the unincorporated county. Berkeley (within 600 feet of schools) Also Chicago (within 500 feet of schools) d. Require minimum pack size for cigars Although federal and state law ban the sale of individual cigarettes, neither restrict the sale of individual cigars, including cigarillos and little cigars. Options include requiring minimum pack size (current regulation for cigarettes is 20) for all cigars. Staff recommend a package size of 10. Could exempt premium cigars that cost $5 or more. El Cerrito, Hayward, Sonoma, Huntington Park, Gardena, Union City. e. Restrict location of new tobacco retailers near schools and other “youth-sensitive” areas such as parks, playgrounds and libraries. Prohibits a license to new tobacco retailers if located within a certain distance (e.g., 500-1500 feet) of a school or other area frequented by youth (e.g., playground, church, recreation center, park, etc.). Staff recommend a distance of 1000 feet, which is consistent with multiple jurisdictions. Near Schools and other Youth Sensitive Areas: El Cerrito, Antioch, Berkeley, Dublin, Union City, Vallejo, Albany, Oakland, Marin County, and San Rafael (plus 14 other jurisdictions). Near schools only: San Francisco, Santa Barbara County, Sacramento, Santa Clara County, Manhattan Beach, plus 5 other jurisdictions. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 52 f. Prohibit new tobacco retailers from locating within certain proximity of other retailers This density measure would restrict new tobacco retailers from locating within a certain distance (e.g., 500-1500 feet) of another new or existing tobacco retailer. Staff recommends 500 feet, which is consistent with multiple jurisdictions. El Cerrito, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Hayward, Dublin, Santa Clara County, Union City, Vallejo, Fairfield, Saratoga, Rohnert Park, Temple City, Westminster, Selma, El Cahon g. Prohibit sale of tobacco products in pharmacies Prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies is consistent with the public’s perception of pharmacies as a place to go for health-related service and advice. Of the 9 pharmacies in the unincorporated county, three have already made corporate decisions to not sell tobacco products (2 CVS stores and Park Rexall). Richmond, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Berkeley, Healdsburg, Daly City, Hollister, Marin County Conditions of License Suspension if violation of law occurs: h. Remove tobacco advertising during license suspension Requires retailers to remove or cover all tobacco-related advertising, in addition to tobacco products, during the period that their tobacco retailer license is suspended. Would also apply to Electronic Smoking Devices and paraphernalia if definition of “tobacco products” is revised. Richmond, Concord, Albany, Oakland, Pacifica, Santa Clara plus 56 other jurisdictions i. Expand time period reviewed for prior violations of license Would expand time period reviewed for prior violations of license from 24 months (2 years) to 60 months (5 years) when considering length of license suspension. El Cerrito, Richmond, Albany, Oakland plus 64 other jurisdictions Other Policy Considerations: j. Prohibit new “Significant Tobacco Retailers” Prohibits a new “Significant Tobacco Retailer”—a business that primarily sells tobacco products—from obtaining a tobacco retailer license. Definition of “Significant Tobacco Retailer” is based on either amount of floor space or percentage of sales devoted to tobacco products. Would also apply to retailers selling Electronic Smoking Devices and paraphernalia if definition of “tobacco products” is revised, as recommended above. This provision would effectively prohibit any new ‘vape’ shops, hookah bars, or tobacco shops. El Cerrito; Huntington Park; Richmond; Carpinteria; Concord (no new hookah shops); Dublin (no vapor lounges or hookah bars); Hayward (no vapor lounges); Union City (no vapor lounges or hookah bars); and Pittsburg (moratorium on any new “smoke shops”) k. Require tobacco retailers to comply with storefront signage laws Allows for suspension of retailer’s license if a retailer violates the state law or local law setting a maximum percentage of window space that can be covered by signs at retail locations. These laws exist for safety purposes, as they provide for more visibility into stores for law enforcement. This would provide a means to bring retailers into compliance with health and safety laws. Santa Clara County l. Require tobacco retailers to comply with drug paraphernalia sales laws Makes violations of state laws regarding drug paraphernalia or controlled substances a violation of a tobacco retailer license. Definition of what constitutes drug paraphernalia would be as defined in state law. Oakland, Richmond, Union City plus 8 other cities and counties (Firebaugh, Grass Valley, Huntington Park, Montebello, Parlier, Riverbank, Santa Cruz County, and Watsonville) (as of June, 2012) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 53 m. Require tobacco retailers to check ID of customers who appear younger than 27 Requires retailers to check the age of purchasers who appear to be under the age of 27. This measure helps insure that tobacco is not sold to youth and will become even more relevant should the State advance the legal age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 years of age. Concord, Richmond, Albany, Oakland, Santa Clara (age 30) plus 35 other jurisdictions n. Limit or “cap” the number of retailers that can sell tobacco products. This density measure, limits the total number of tobacco retailer licenses that are issued. At present time there are 92 tobacco retailers in the Unincorporated area of the county. The Cap recommended by staff is 92. Sonoma, Orville, Lynwood, Huntington Park, San Francisco o. Increase the Tobacco Retailer License Fee to fully cover the cost of education, enforcement and monitoring of any new provisions adopted by the County. The current Tobacco Retailer License was set at $287 in 2010. It reflected the cost at that time related to the administration of the license and some site compliance checks. Staff recommend that a separate board order be presented at a later date adjust the license fee to better capture and recover updated and real cost. Fees may be charged to recover reasonable regulatory and administrative costs for issuing licenses and performing inspections. Fees may not be charged for general governmental services, including law enforcement services. 98 of 110 jurisdictions in CA have Tobacco Retailer Licensing enforcement programs, including youth decoy operations, that are fully funded through tobacco retailer licensing fees (as of September, 2013). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 54 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 55 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 56 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 57 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 58 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 59 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 60 ATTACHMENT V Prepared by Tobacco Prevention Project on 4.20.16 Resources for Small Business Owners in CC County The following resources are currently available to small business owners in Contra Costa County: Contra Costa County Small Business Development Center The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) offers free workshops and advising on a variety of business topics, including:  Adapting a business practice in response to new laws  Support in navigating licensing and permit issues  Accessing loans  Sales and marketing  Strategic planning  Identifying resources SBDC also provides personalized, one-on-one advising and access to experts in many fields that can help business adapt to changes in the business environment, such as laws restricting sales of certain tobacco products. Services are provided free of charge to all small business owners in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa SBDC is grant funded and assesses each business for eligibility before one-on-one services are offered. Tobacco retailers interested in the individualized advising services would be assessed for the potential to achieve economic impact (such as job retention) in the next 6-12 months, then a Scope of Work would be developed for individualized services. The expectation is that for every hour the Center invests in a project, the retailer will work approximately 5 hours. For example, the retailer should plan to spend 25 hours working on their goals (such as a business plan to diversify products sold) in exchange for five hours of individual consulting. The Contra Costa County SBDC advising services are available to small businesses, such as businesses with less 500 employees and less than $15M annual revenue. More information about applying for advising services with Contra Costa SBDC is available on their website: http://contracostasbdc.org/node/20289 “Professional guidance as you grow your business is critical to success. Our team of advisors is at your service to assist with the opportunities and issues related with growing your business. This service is free to all owners of existing businesses and entrepreneurs who are actively launching a business.” – SBDC Contact: Oscar Dominguez, Contra Costa SBDC Director Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa 300 Ellinwood Way, Suite 300 Pleasant Hill, California 94523 925-602-6810 odominguez@ehsd.cccounty.us May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 61 ATTACHMENT V Prepared by Tobacco Prevention Project on 4.20.16 Small Business Administration (SBA) https://www.sba.gov/ The SBA offers general and technical assistance to new and established businesses. Services include loan programs, business counseling, management training, conferences, referrals and reference libraries. Small Business Information Center: (800) 827-5722 national answer desk Email: answerdesk@sba.gov Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) Retired business professionals volunteer to provide free counseling to individuals starting small businesses. Counseling and workshops are available at a cost. (510) 273-6611 http://eastbayscore.org/ Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center The Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center is a non-profit that works to increase the entrepreneurial capacities of individuals, and thereby strengthen communities through the creation of sustainable new businesses, new jobs, and the promotion of financial self-sufficiency. They offer classes, workshop and one on one consulting in Richmond. Their beginner class, “Start Smart” is a 4-week program (12 hours) and costs $120 with financially-based scholarships available. Their intermediate class, “Business Prep” is a nine-week program (27 hours) and costs $240 with financially-based scholarships available. They also offer workshops for advanced entrepreneurs (people who have launched their business) ranging from Quickbooks to e-commerce to social media marketing. Contact: Bret Alexander Sweet, Program Manager Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center - Richmond 1500 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond, CA 94801 510-221-2002 bsweet@rencenter.org www.rencenter.org May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 62 Policy Options for Addressing Youth Tobacco Influences in the Retail Environment Contra Costa Health Services, Public Health Division For Presentation to Contra Costa Board of Supervisors May 24, 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 63 Vape penMechanical modsBox modE-cigarE-HookahsCigalikesE-cigarettes Mods/tanksVape pens Includes cigalikes, e- hookah, e-cigars and cartridges E-liquids Cartridges a. Require a Tobacco Retailer License for all retailers selling traditional and/or emerging tobacco products. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 64 b. Prohibit the sale of flavored (non-cigarette) tobacco products Candy or liquid nicotine? May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 65 c. Prohibit the sale of menthol flavored cigarettes near schools May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 66 d. Require minimum pack size for cigars May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 67 e. Restrict location of tobacco retailers near schools and other youth sensitive areas f. Prohibit new tobacco retailers from locating within certain proximity of other retailers May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 68 Insert map here May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 69 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on Ordinance No. 2016-11; RECEIVE testimony and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. FIND that, on the basis of the whole record (including the initial study and any comments received), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. 3. ADOPT the Negative Declaration and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. 4. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-11 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. 5. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZE the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to arrange payment of a $50 filing fee to the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: 925-674-7783 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing to Consider Adopting Ordinance No. 2016-11 to Regulate Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the Unicorporated Area of Contra Costa County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 70 FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of preparing this ordinance has been funded by the Department of Conservation and Development's Land Development Fund. The costs of processing wireless telecommunication facilities will be 100% funded by application fees. BACKGROUND: On October 25, 2011, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to conduct a study of the 1998 Telecommunications Policy and the current federal and state laws as a basis for creating a new Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance. Federal and State Laws In preparing this ordinance, DCD staff reviewed relevant federal and state law that regulates wireless telecommunication facilities, including the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act, and recent federal and state laws that affect the wireless telecommunication industry. The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act affected regulations on the communications industry that had been in place since the federal Communications Act of 1934. In response to the Telecommunications Act and the attendant changes in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Board adopted the Contra Costa County Telecommunications Policy in July 1998. This policy has been the only County adopted document that provides guidance to staff for processing wireless telecommunication facilities. Since the Board’s adoption of the 1998 Telecommunications Policy, a number of federal and state laws have been enacted, such as: Government Code section 65850.6, which provided for ministerial approval of collocation facilities; FCC rulings in 2009, 2010, and 2014 on the approval process for wireless facilities by local governments and the allowable time period (the “Shot Clock”) for consideration. Title 47 of the United States Code, section 1455 which affects local government processing of modifications to existing wireless facilities, and Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1.40001, effective May 18, 2015, that clarified the rules for facilitation of wireless deployment under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1, which provide a statewide franchise to telecommunications companies to locate facilities in public rights of way, subject to time place and manner restrictions. These federal and state laws have added requirements for the permitting of wireless facilities that are not in the Telecommunications Policy. The proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance is consistent with applicable federal and state law regulating wireless telecommunications service. Purpose of the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance The Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance is intended to facilitate the provision of high quality wireless telecommunications by the various service providers in the County while avoiding adverse visual and aesthetic impacts, as well as protecting and enhancing public health, safety, and welfare. Upon its adoption by the Board, the ordinance will supersede the County’s 1998 Telecommunications Policy. Description of the Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance The proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance would add Chapter 88-24 to the County Code. This Chapter sets forth criteria for the processing and approval of wireless facilities throughout unincorporated May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 71 Contra Costa County. The proposed ordinance allows for four types of wireless telecommunication facilities permits, including a land use permit, a wireless facility access permit for a facility within a County right-of-way, a minor wireless facility alteration permit, and a wireless facility collocation permit. A land use permit is required for a new facility or substantial modification to an existing facility that does not qualify for any other type of permit. A minor alteration permit is required for any change to an existing facility that qualifies as a minor alteration under federal laws and regulations. A collocation permit is required to collocate a new facility on an existing collocation-eligible facility, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65850.6. A wireless facility access permit is required for a new facility or a substantial modification to an existing facility located within the County's rights of way. The proposed ordinance includes specific location and design requirements for wireless telecommunication facility applications such as distance restrictions for new towers, placement of a wireless facility on a scenic ridge, siting of high-visibility facilities, reduction of visual and aesthetic impacts, and considerations for location in or within 300 feet of a residential district. Existing towers and other existing wireless facilities are exempt from the Ordinance. The Ordinance does not require changes to any existing facility, and moreover, does not terminate any approved permit. The Ordinance would only apply if a wireless service provider or tower owner is proposing to modify, remove, replace, or relocate the facility or if the existing land use permit has expired. Staff has reviewed comments received on the Negative Declaration prepared for the Ordinance, and comments received at the July 21, 2015 and December 15, 2015 meetings of the County Planning Commission. Staff also had a series of meetings, discussions and communications with representatives of the wireless service providers, including Verizon, AT&T, Crown Castle, and American Tower, as well as with other interested members of the public. Public input resulted in significant modifications to various early drafts of the proposed Ordinance in order to address issues/concerns raised, such as definitions of substantial change and minor alterations, the submittal requirements for permits, and location and design criteria for wireless facilities. County Planning Commission Hearing On July 21, 2015, DCD staff introduced the proposed ordinance at a meeting of the County Planning Commission. Four comment letters were received on July 21, 2015, and therefore, the County Planning Commission continued its consideration of the proposed ordinance. Staff discussed the comments received from representatives of Verizon, AT&T, American Tower, and Crown Castle and made certain revisions to the ordinance based on the comments received. On December 15, 2015, DCD staff returned to the County Planning Commission and made a presentation of the proposed ordinance to the Commission. The Commission then opened the public hearing and took testimony from two persons, including a representative of Verizon and a representative of American Tower. Prior to the meeting, staff received three comment letters, including a letter in support of the ordinance from the Delta Protection Commission, and letters from Verizon and Crown Castle requesting further changes to the ordinance. As requested by staff, the County Planning Commission continued the hearing to February 9, 2016 in order to allow further staff sufficient time to review the additional comments. After reviewing the additional comments received, staff revised the proposed ordinance. On February 9, 2016, the County Planning Commission took testimony from the representatives of Verizon and American Tower, and then voted to recommend approval of the ordinance. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 72 California Environmental Quality Act On March 12, 2013, a Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study (ND) was circulated for 30-day public review period that ended on April 11, 2013. The Draft ND included an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed ordinance and a finding that there would be no significant adverse impacts. DCD staff received a total of four letters and one email during the public review period. One additional letter was received after the close of the public review period. A Final ND, dated December 8, 2015, has been prepared that includes responses to all comments received on the adequacy of the Draft ND. Consideration of some of the comments received and staff revisions of the proposed ordinance have resulted in five text revisions, which are included in the Final ND; however, there are no substantive changes to the Draft ND and the findings of the Draft ND are unchanged. On February 9, 2016, the County Planning Commission found the Negative Declaration, consisting of the Draft ND and Final ND, to be adequate and complete, prepared in compliance with the California Environment Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and reflected the County's independent judgement and analysis, and recommended that the Board certify the Negative Declaration. Application Fees Applicants seeking permits under this Ordinance will be required to pay fees and deposits consistent with those currently required for land use permits and encroachment permits. Staff is preparing a subsequent recommendation to the Board that will be considered in June to create new fee and deposit amounts for wireless facility access permits, collocation permits, and minor alteration permits. Conclusion and Recommendation The Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance is consistent with federal and state law that governs how local jurisdictions regulate such facilities. The proposed ordinance includes locational standards for where wireless facilities are located, as well as standards that regulate the design of these facilities, in order to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the County. In addition, adoption of the proposed ordinance will not result in a significant impact on the environment. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt Ordinance No. 2016-11 for establishing and locating wireless telecommunication facilities within unincorporated areas of the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have an ordinance that regulates wireless telecommunication facilities. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Kim Allen, American Tower. CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis; ADOPTED the Negative Declaration and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development is the custodian of the documents and other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-11 to regulate wireless telecommunication facilities in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County; and DIRECTED the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZED the Director of Conservation and Development, or his designee, to arrange payment of a $50 filing fee to the County Clerk. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS CPC Resolution 7-2016 Ordinance No. 2016-11 Staff Report - County Planning Commission 12-15-15 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 73 Staff Report - County Planning Commission 02-09-16 Draft ND ZT13-0001 03-12-13 Final ND ZT13-0001 12-08-15 PowerPoint Presentation MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2016-11 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 74 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 75 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 76 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 77 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 78 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 79 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 80 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 81 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 82 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 83 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 84 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 85 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 86 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 87 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 88 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 89 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 90 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 91 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 92 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 93 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 94 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 95 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 96 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 97 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 98 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 99 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 100 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 101 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 102 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 103 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 104 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 105 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 106 Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Tuesday, December 15, 2015 – 7:00 .P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance Chapter 88-24 County File(s): ZT13-0001 Applicant/Owner: Contra Costa County Zoning/General Plan: Countywide Site Address/Location: Countywide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Negative Declaration SCH #2013032035 Project Planner: Stan Muraoka, AICP, Senior Planner (925) 674-7781 Staff Recommendation: Adopt a motion recommending Board of Supervisors approval (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY This is a County initiated proposal to adopt an amendment to the County Ordinance Code Chapter 88-24 that will establish procedures, conditions, and requirements for the establishing and locating wireless telecommunication facilities within unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 107 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 2 of 11 A. CERTIFY the Negative Declaration, California State Clearinghouse Number #2013032035, finding it to be adequate and complete, finding that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and finding that it reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. B. FIND that the proposed zoning amendment, Code Chapter 88-24, is consistent with the County General Plan. C. ADOPT the proposed zoning amendment that adds Chapter 88-24, to the County Ordinance Code. D. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III. BACKGROUND The Telecommunications Act was approved by the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The Telecommunications Act affected regulations on the communications industry that had been in place since the Communications Act of 1934. The Act purported to facilitate competition in communication markets, reduce local government regulation, and promote better service for consumers. In response to the Telecommunications Act and the attendant changes in the wireless telecommunications industry, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Telecommunications Policy in July 1998. The 1998 Telecommunications Policy has been the only County adopted document that provides guidance to the public and to County staff for processing wireless telecommunication facilities. Since the Board adoption of the 1998 Telecommunications Policy, a number of federal and state laws have been enacted that have affected the telecommunications industry, such as:  California Senate Bill SB1627 approved in September 2006, which provided for ministerial approval of collocation facilities; May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 108 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 3 of 11  Various FCC rulings in 2009, 2010, and 2014 on the approval process for wireless facilities by local governments and the allowable time period (the “Shot Clock”) for consideration. Among other requirements, this Act, requires jurisdictions to make a decision on a wireless facility project within 150 days (for new facilities) and within 60 days (for existing ones).  Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act approved in February 2012) that affects local government processing of modifications to existing wireless facilities, and FCC Report and Order 14-153 released in October 2014 that clarified the rules for facilitation of wireless deployment under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. In essence Section 6409 states that a local jurisdiction shall not deny a non- substantial change to an eligible wireless facility. The federal and state laws that have been adopted since adoption of 1998 County Telecommunications Policy have added requirements for the permitting of wireless facilities that are not in the Telecommunications Policy. On October 25, 2011, the Board authorized the Department of Conservation and Development to conduct a study of the 1998 Telecommunications Policy and the current federal and state laws as a basis for creating a new Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance. The Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance was scheduled for consideration by the County Planning Commission on July 21, 2015. Prior to the meeting, staff received four comment letters on July 21 on the proposed Ordinance from the Busch Law Firm on behalf of American Tower, Paul O’Boyle on behalf of Crown Castle, Mackenzie & Albritton on behalf of Verizon Wireless, and AT&T. Previously, on July 17, 2015, staff received a comment letter from Save Mount Diablo. The County Planning Commission continued the proposed Ordinance in order to consider the four comment letters that were submitted on the day of the July 21 meeting. The comment letters are attached as Exhibit 6. Staff has reviewed the submitted comments, and has met with some of the commenters regarding the issues raised in the comments. Subsequently, staff has revised some portions of the proposed Ordinance in order to address issues/concerns raised. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 109 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 4 of 11 IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study (ND), State Clearinghouse SCH #2013032035, was prepared for the proposed Ordinance pursuant to applicable CEQA Guidelines. The Draft ND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on March 12, 2013 and extended to April 11, 2013. The Draft ND assessed potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could arise from implementation of the Ordinance and included a determination that the proposed Ordinance could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (See Exhibit 3 – Draft Negative Declaration). A total of four letters and one email were received by the Department in response to the publication of the Draft ND. During the March 12 to April 11, 2013 public review period, staff received three letters and one email. After the close of the public review period, one additional letter was received on January 5, 2015. A Final ND, dated December 8, 2015, (See Exhibit 2 – Final Negative Declaration) has been prepared which includes a response to all the comments received. The comment letters and email are included as attachments to the Final ND. Consideration of some of the comments received and staff revisions of the proposed Ordinance have resulted in five text revisions of the Draft ND. The text revisions are also included in the Final ND; however, there are no substantive changes to the Draft ND and the findings of the ND are unchanged. V. AGENCY REVIEW The public review draft Ordinance and Draft ND were made available for public and agencies’ review on March 12, 2013. Since then, staff has made changes to the original draft Ordinance in order to address concerns raised by agencies and comments received on the environmental document. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance (Chapter 88-24 of the County Code) that sets forth criteria for the location, design, and approval of wireless facilities throughout Contra Costa County. The Ordinance provides processing guidelines for the application and approval of planning permits for wireless facilities. The Ordinance is intended to facilitate the provision of high quality wireless telecommunications by the various service providers in the County while avoiding adverse visual and aesthetic impacts, as well as protecting and enhancing public health, safety, and welfare. The Ordinance is consistent with May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 110 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 5 of 11 applicable federal and state law regulating wireless telecommunications service. Upon its adoption by the Board of Supervisors, the Ordinance will supersede the County’s 1998 Telecommunications Policy. The Ordinance covers various topics, among which are the following items. Exempt Facilities. Certain telecommunication facilities are exempt from the proposed Ordinance, such as amateur radio facilities, microwave/satellite dish antennas that only receive signals, and facilities operated by public emergency providers/911. Existing towers and other existing wireless facilities are also exempt from the Ordinance. The Ordinance would only apply to an existing facility if a wireless service provider or tower owner is proposing to modify, remove, replace, or relocate the facility or if the existing land use permit has expired. The Ordinance does not require changes to any existing facility, and moreover, does not terminate any approved permit. Permit Types. As illustrated on the table on the following page, the proposed Ordinance allows for a total of four types of wireless facilities permits, including a land use permit, a wireless facility access permit for a facility within a County right- of-way, a minor alteration permit (alteration permit), and a collocation permit. The two permits that the County currently processes are land use permits and condition of compliance reviews (alteration permits). This Ordinance adds two new permits: Access Permit: The wireless facility access permit (access permit) is specifically for a wireless facility within a County right-of-way. Currently, a wireless service provider seeking to locate a facility in the right-of-way is required to obtain a land use permit and an encroachment permit. The access permit would be the only County permit required for the placement and maintenance of a facility within a County right-of-way. An example of where a wireless facility access permit could be applied is an application to update an existing facility within County right-of-way mounted on a PG&E utility pole with new antennas and new equipment. A wireless facility access permit may be approved ministerially after notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the proposed facility site; however if a public hearing is requested, the access permit may be approved at a public meeting of the Zoning Administrator. Collocation Permit: The collocation permit facilitates approval of applications to place a wireless service provider’s antenna and equipment on an existing antenna support structure of another service provider, pursuant to recently adopted federal May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 111 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 6 of 11 and state law. An example of where a collocation permit could be applied is for a monopole (antenna support structure) for a wireless service provider that has been established with a land use permit and with an adopted negative declaration that includes environmental assessment of multiple antenna locations on the monopole. A second wireless service provider may submit a collocation permit application to locate antennas and equipment on the monopole at a location that has been addressed in the negative declaration. A collocation permit, like the minor alteration permit, can be approved ministerially as long as a facility is found to be a collocation eligible facility. Permit Type Eligibility for Permit Permit Pre-requisites Public Notification Ministerial Approval Existing Permits: Land Use Permit New facility or a substantial change to an existing facility. Valid land use permit required for a substantial change to an existing facility Yes No Alteration Permit Minor alteration to an existing facility. Valid land use permit No Yes New Permits: Access Permit New facility or substantial change to an existing facility within a County right- of-way. Valid land use permit* required for a substantial change to an existing facility (*valid wireless facility access permit required upon adoption of Ordinance) Yes Yes, unless hearing is requested Collocation Permit Collocation of a wireless service provider's antenna and equipment on a collocation-eligible facility of another wireless service provider. (1) Valid land use permit (2) Certified environmental document No Yes May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 112 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 7 of 11 Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts: No new high visibility facility or new tower is allowed in or within 300-foot from residential districts; however a low visibility facility can be located in or within 300 feet of a residential district. As defined in the Ordinance a low visibility facility is:  A ground-mounted antenna or antenna support structure that does not exceed 10 feet in height,  A roof-mounted antenna or antenna support structure that does not extend more than 10 feet above the surface of the roof or exceed the maximum height for the zoning district by more than 10 feet,  A facade-mounted antenna that does not extend more than 36 inches above the roofline,  A facility or antenna installed on an existing high-voltage electricity transmission tower or on an existing electricity distribution pole,  A stealth facility or antenna,  A distributed antenna system (DAS) facility, and  A minor alteration to an existing facility. Specific Location and Design Requirements That Would Apply in Any Zoning District:  Encouragement of Collocation facility. A collocation-eligible facility is a facility that is designed to accommodate future collocation that has been issued a valid permit and has undergone CEQA environmental review [Section 88-24.204(e)].  No new wireless telecommunications tower may be located within 1,000 feet of an existing tower, unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the tower will have less than significant aesthetic and visual impacts and also that collocation is not possible. [Section 88-24.406(b)].  No wireless facility may be located on a peak or ridge unless the facility is required to close a significant coverage gap, as determined by the Zoning Administrator based on information provided by the applicant in accordance with the Ordinance. Further, no wireless facility may be located within 50 feet of any scenic ridge, including any ridge or peak within the Mount Diablo area, and any scenic ridge located in a non-urban area, unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the facility will have less than significant aesthetic and visual impacts [Section 88-24.406(c)]. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 113 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 8 of 11  Siting of a high-visibility facility would be required to be sited at a location that the Zoning Administrator determines will have the least visual and aesthetic impact to surrounding properties [Section 88-24.406(e)].  A facility must limit visual and aesthetics impacts with a non-reflective finish and be painted/texture to match predominant background; portion of the facility that is visible to the sky must be painted light gray, or similar color, with reflectivity less than 55%, and/or camouflaged [Section 88-24.408(a)].  A tower and any equipment enclosure and all ancillary equipment must be screened and surrounded by a wall or fence, at least 6 feet in height [Section 88-24.408(e)].  Facilities within the County Right-of-way must be designed to not impede traffic, parking, and pedestrian circulation, restricted to have up to four antennas on a single pole within or adjacent to residential zone. Equipment must be installed underground or camouflaged if above ground, and restricted from exceeding more than 10 feet of the height of the pole [Section 88-24.408 (f)]. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Consistency with General Plan: The proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance allows wireless facilities in any General Plan land use designation. The Ordinance implements a number of General Plan goals and policies, such as the following:  Land Use Goal 3-A: To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County's quality of life. In such an environment all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage.  Land Use Goal 3-C: To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. The proposed Ordinance outlines the requirements and procedures for any type of application permit. Application requirements, including engineered drawings, visual simulations or images, and information on facility site selection, together with location requirements such as required setbacks May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 114 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 9 of 11 and design requirements to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts and to blend in with the surrounding area. These requirements will assist the implementation of the land use goals and policies for residential areas.  Roadway and Transit Policy 5-5: Right of way shall be preserved to meet requirements of the Circulation Element and to serve future urban areas indicated in the Land Use Element. The proposed Ordinance includes application requirements for obtaining a wireless facility access permit such as submittal of a traffic control plan and documentation of how the facility would be installed and maintained without interfering with traffic and circulation within the County right-of- way. The Ordinance also includes design requirements for a facility within a County right-of-way such as a limit of no more than four antennas per utility pole and prohibiting an antenna from extending over the paved street travel. These requirements implement the roadway and transit policy.  Open Space Goal 9-B: Carefully study and review any development projects which would have the potential to degrade the scenic qualities of major significant ridges in the County or the bay and delta shoreline.  Scenic Resources Goal 9-11: To protect major scenic ridges, to the extent practical, from structures, roadways, or other activities which would harm their scenic qualities.  Scenic Resources Policy 9-21: The construction of new structures on the top of major scenic ridges or within 50 feet of the ridgeline shall be discouraged. The proposed Ordinance includes location requirements that restrict the proximity of a telecommunication tower within 1,000 feet of an existing tower and the location of a facility within 50 feet of a scenic ridge or to extend above the height of the scenic ridge or peak. The Ordinance also includes design requirements for a non-reflective finish, camouflaging or painting, and low light-reflectivity to limit the facility’s aesthetic and visual impacts. These requirements implement the open space and scenic resources goals and policy.  Safety Element Goal 10-N: To provide for a continuing high level of public protection services and coordination of service in a disaster. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 115 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 10 of 11 The proposed Ordinance includes exemption to facilities that are owned or operated by one or more federal, state, or local government, including but not limited to any regional emergency communication systems, and any facility for a 911 system. Allowing exemption to these facilities will provide for lower costs and allow for expeditious installation of facilities that are related to the public emergency system. B. Consistency with Zoning: A wireless telecommunication facility has not been restricted from any of the zoning districts throughout the County, either within private or public properties, and this will remain with the proposed Ordinance. Within private properties, a land use permit will be processed for either a new or substantially modified facility. For a non-substantial change to an existing facility, a collocation permit and minor alteration permit may be processed accordingly. For a facility within a County right-of-way, the Department will process an access permit, after which Public Works issues an encroachment permit. The wireless access permit will be approved administratively, except that the public would have an opportunity to request a public hearing on the application. As proposed, the new ordinance provides for clear parameters for the location and design components of a wireless facility to ensure health, safety and general welfare of the community and it will not conflict in any manner with the County Zoning Code. C. Appropriateness of Use: Adoption of the Ordinance will provide for the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities with minimal visual and aesthetic impacts, and for facilities in a County right-of-way, without interfering with traffic and circulation. As assessed in Negative Declaration, the adoption of the proposed Ordinance will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. VIII. CONCLUSION The proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance includes criteria for the location, design, and approval of wireless facilities in a manner consistent with enacted federal and state law. Staff recommends adoption of a motion to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the Ordinance. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 116 Planning Commission, December 15, 2015 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1: December 2015 Draft Ordinance Exhibit 1a: Definition of “Substantial Change” Exhibit 2: December 2015 Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study Exhibit 3: March 2013 Draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study Exhibit 4: March 2013 Draft Ordinance Exhibit 5: 1998 Telecommunications Policy Exhibit 6: Comment Letters received prior to the July 21, 2015 County Planning Commission Meeting G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Zoning Text Amendments\ZT13-0001\ZT13-0001 STAFF 121515 CPC.docx May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 117 Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Tuesday, February 9, 2016 – 7:00 .P.M. (Continued from December 15, 2015) STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance Chapter 88-24 County File(s): ZT13-0001 Applicant/Owner: Contra Costa County Zoning/General Plan: Countywide Site Address/Location: Countywide California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Negative Declaration SCH #2013032035 Project Planner: Stan Muraoka, AICP, Senior Planner (925) 674-7781 Staff Recommendation: Adopt a motion recommending Board of Supervisors approval (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY This is a County initiated proposal to adopt an amendment to the County Ordinance Code Chapter 88-24 that will establish procedures, conditions, and requirements for the establishing and locating wireless telecommunication facilities within unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 118 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 2 of 8 A. CERTIFY the Negative Declaration, California State Clearinghouse Number #2013032035, finding it to be adequate and complete, finding that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and finding that it reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. B. FIND that the proposed zoning amendment, Code Chapter 88-24, is consistent with the County General Plan. C. ADOPT the proposed zoning amendment that adds Chapter 88-24, to the County Ordinance Code. D. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III. BACKGROUND The County Planning Commission opened the public hearing and took testimony on the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance on December 15, 2015. Prior to the meeting, staff received three comment letters, including a letter in support of the Ordinance from the Delta Protection Commission dated December 14, 2015, and letters requesting changes to the Ordinance from Mackenzie & Albritton on behalf of Verizon Wireless dated December 14, 2016 and from Paul O’Boyle on behalf of Crown Castle dated December 15, 2016. At the December 15 meeting, staff made a presentation on the proposed Ordinance and responded to questions from the County Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony from two persons, including representatives for Verizon Wireless and American Tower. The Commission continued its consideration of the proposed Ordinance to February 9, 2016 in order to provide an opportunity for staff to consider the oral and written comments received and to discuss the comments with the commenters for the wireless service providers. Staff has reviewed the oral and written comments, and held a conference call with the commenters for the wireless service providers regarding the issues raised in the comments. Subsequently, staff has revised some portions of the proposed Ordinance in order to address issues/concerns raised. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 119 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 3 of 8 IV. MAIN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS Following are the main comments of the commenters for the wireless service providers and staff responses to the comments. A. Comment on Access Permits: The regulation of the County right-of-way should be handled by the Department of Public Works, other jurisdictions handle wireless facility applications in the right-of-way through their Public Works Departments, state law gives wireless service providers the right to use the right-of-way, Title 8 of the County Code does not apply to public utility infrastructure, and utilities should be treated equally. Response: Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (CPUC) Section 7901, a wireless service provider may install a wireless facility in a County right-of-way; however, pursuant to CPUC Section 7901.1, local jurisdictions have the right to determine the “time, place, and manner” of use of the right -of-way. Thus, the draft Ordinance provides for the wireless facility access permit for a facility proposed in a County right-of-way. Normally, use of a County right-of-way requires an encroachment permit, issued by the Department of Public Works. Under the proposed Ordinance, an encroachment permit is processed as part of the access permit, and a separate encroachment permit is not required. As stated in draft Ordinance Section 88- 24.402(a)(2) (Facilities within a County right-of-way), County Code Chapters 1002-4 (Encroachments: Permits) and 1002-8 (Encroachments: Requirements) apply to a wireless facility in a County right-of-way; however, if there is any conflict between this Ordinance and Chapters 1002-4 and 1002-8, the requirements of the Ordinance shall govern. Regarding the application of Title 8 of the County Code to public utilities, the revised draft Ordinance amends Section 82-2.010 of the County Code (Utilities and pipelines) to clarify that this Ordinance applies to wireless telecommunication facilities. Staff reviewed ordinances regulating wireless telecommunications facilities in public right-of-ways that have been adopted by other jurisdictions, including Alameda County, City of Glendale, City and County of San Francisco, and Ventura County. This comparison is illustrated on the following table. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 120 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 4 of 8 Jurisdiction Submittal to: Administrative or Discretionary Required review by: Notice required: Hearing required: Contra Costa County Planning Administrative Public Works Yes Only if requested Alameda County Public Works Discretionary Planning Yes No City of Glendale Public Works Discretionary Yes Yes, in residential zones and historic districts City and County of San Francisco Public Works Discretionary Planning Yes for Tier III* Only if requested Ventura County Public Works Discretionary Yes No *A facility is a Tier III facility based on the size of the antenna enclosures, affects the character of a neighborhood, is proposed for a Planning Protected location, or is proposed for a Park Protected location. A Planning Protected Location is a location within a historic district or adjacent to a historic resource, or along a significant street or a scenic route. A Park Protected Location is a location adjacent to a City park or open space. All of the above jurisdictions:  Require submittal of an application to Public Works.  Application may be approved, denied, or modified.  Require public notice.  Two jurisdictions require review by the Planning Department, including: o Alameda County. o City and County of San Francisco for a Planning Protected Location or a Zoning Protected Location.  Two jurisdictions require a public hearing: o City of Glendale for applications in residential zones and historic districts. o City and County of San Francisco for Tier III facility, only if requested. City and County of San Francisco also requires:  Review by Department of Public Health.  Review ty Recreation and Park Department for a Park Protected Location.  Finding of General Plan Consistency by Planning Department. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 121 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 5 of 8 In comparison to the ordinances of these other jurisdictions, the proposed Ordinance:  Requires submittal of an application to Conservation and Development.  Application may be approved, or modified.  Requires public notice.  Requires review by Public Works.  Requires public hearing only upon written request. As discussed above, the processing of an access permit in Contra Costa County would be essentially the same as the process followed by other jurisdictions. Notably, the permit application may be approved, modified, or denied in the other jurisdictions prior to going to a public hearing. In this County, the access permit will only be approved or modified under the proposed Ordinance by the Department of Conservation and Development prior to a public hearing. Further, all jurisdictions have noticing requirements, whether the application for use of the right-of-way is handled by Public Works or by Conservation and Development. Accordingly, staff believes the processing of an access permit as provided in the proposed Ordinance is appropriate and analogous to that of other jurisdictions. Regarding the comment that utilities should be treated equally, utilities such a s telecommunications and cable companies that currently provide land line service are treated equally. The proposed Ordinance specifically addresses wireless telecommunications service and not land line service. Under the proposed Ordinance, any utility that provides wireless telecommunications service would be subject to the Ordinance and will be treated equally. B. Comment on pole-mounted equipment: The provisions in the Ordinance for equipment enclosures may prohibit small pole-mounted equipment. The Ordinance should allow pole-mounted equipment, and a specific standard should be provided for pole-mounted equipment. Response: Staff concurs with the commenters. The definition of equipment enclosure in Section 88-24.204(h) of the proposed Ordinance (Definition: equipment enclosure) has been revised so as to not specify the location of the equipment enclosure. Also, Section 88-24.408(f)(2)(B) of the proposed Ordinance (Design requirements: County right-of-way) now clarifies that an equipment enclosure must be installed below ground or at grade. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 122 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 6 of 8 In addition, a new subsection has been added to the draft Ordinance to specifically address pole-mounted equipment: Section 88-24.408(f)(2)(G) has been added that states that “ancillary equipment not enclosed in an equipment enclosure must be installed at a location the zoning administrator determines will minimize visual and aesthetic impacts, to the greatest extent feasible.” C. Comment on the term of minor alteration permits and collocation permits: The County cannot limit the duration of any permit for a wireless facility to less than 10 years. At a minimum, delete the phrase “whichever is shorter” in Sections 88 - 24.616(b) and 88-24.620(b)(5). Response: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65964(b), a local jurisdiction cannot unreasonably limit the duration of a wireless facility permit, and a term of less than 10 years is considered unreasonable unless there is a public safety or substantial land use reason. As defined in the Ordinance and in federal law, minor alterations are the replacement and removal of existing antennas and/or ancillary equipment on an existing wireless facility, and collocations are the addition of antennas and/or ancillary equipment on an existing facility. If the land use permit for the existing facility expires, there is no longer a permitted facility to locate or collocate on, which would constitute a substantial land use reason. The former wireless service provider or a collocating wireless service provider can submit an application for a land use permit that will allow the existing facility and existing antennas and/or ancillary equipment to remain on the facility site. To allow for such an occurrence, Section 88-24.616(b) (Permit duration: minor alteration permit and collocation permit) of the proposed Ordinance has been revised to clarify that the term is the shorter of 10 years or the duration, including any renewal period, of the permit for the existing facility. D. Comment on traffic signals: The County should allow wireless service providers to locate wireless facilities on traffic signals. Response: The Department of Public Works has the responsibility to maintain traffic signals. The traffic signal is a right-of-way control device, and therefore, the Public Works has major concerns about public safety and County liability, and will not allow the installation of a wireless facility on a traffic signal. Also, the wireless facility on the traffic signal pole will need a power source independent of the power source for the traffic signals. In some instances, a May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 123 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 7 of 8 signal pole installation will include a street light as part of the overall system, where additional safety measures are warranted, since the electrical and power systems are interconnected. V. REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance has been revised based on staff review of the oral and written comments of the December 15, 2015 Commission meeting and subsequent discussion with the commenters for the wireless service providers. The revisions include the following pages and sections: Page 2, Section 88-24.204 (Definition: equipment enclosure) has been revised to delete location below ground or at grade. Page 10, Section 88-24.408(f)(2) (Design requirements: County right-of-way) has been revised as follows: (B) Equipment enclosure is below ground or at grade. (C) No antenna may extend, rather than exceed, above the height of the pole or facility by more than 10 feet. (D) No antenna may extend over the vehicular, rather than improved, path of travel. (G) A new subsection is added to address pole-mounted equipment. Page 12, Section 88-24.414(f) (Building standards, maintenance, and operational requirements) has been revised to provide 30 days, rather than 10 days, for the permittee to notify the zoning administrator of a change in the facility license. Page 16, Section 88-24.604(d)(4) (Application requirements: access permits) has been revised to require visual simulations from areas within a visual sightline of the proposed facility, rather than from each lot within a visual sightline. Page 16, Section 88-34.606 (Financial assurance) has been revised such that “the zoning administrator will determine the reasonable cost to remove the facility and restore the site”, rather than “will determine the cost.” Page 21, Section 88-24.616(b) (Permit duration: minor alteration permit and collocation permit) has been revised such that the term of a minor alteration permit and a collocation permit is the shorter of either 10 years or the duration, including any renewal period, of the underlying land use or access permit, rather than “whichever is shorter”. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 124 Planning Commission, February 9, 2016 County File #ZT13-0001 Page 8 of 8 Page 25, 82-2.010 (Utilities and pipelines) has been revised to clarify that development projects involving hazardous waste and hazardous materials are subject to the land use permit regulations of County Code Chapter 84-63 and that wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to the requirements of this draft Ordinance. VI. CONCLUSION The proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance includes criteria for the location, design, and approval of wireless facilities in a manner consistent with enacted federal and state law. Staff recommends adoption of a motion to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1: January 2016 Draft Ordinance (redlined) Exhibit 2: Comment Letters received prior to the December 15, 2015 County Planning Commission Meeting G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Zoning Text Amendments\ZT13-0001\ZT13-0001 STAFF 020916 CPC.docx May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 125 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 126 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 127 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 128 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 129 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 130 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 131 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 132 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 133 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 134 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 135 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 136 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 137 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 138 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 139 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 140 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 141 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 142 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 143 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 144 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 145 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 146 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 147 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 148 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 149 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 150 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 151 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 152 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 153 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 154 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 155 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 156 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 157 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 158 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 159 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 160 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 161 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 162 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 163 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 164 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 165 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 166 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 167 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 168 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 169 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 170 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 171 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 172 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 173 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 174 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 175 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 176 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 177 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 178 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 179 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 180 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 181 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 182 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 183 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 184 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 185 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 186 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 187 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 188 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 189 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 190 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 191 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 192 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 193 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 194 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 195 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 196 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 197 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 198 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 199 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 200 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 201 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 202 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 203 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 204 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 205 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 206 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 207 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 208 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 209 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 210 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 211 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 212 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 213 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 214 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 215 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 216 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 217 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 218 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 219 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 220 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 221 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 222 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 223 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 224 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 225 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 226 Proposed Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance addresses how Contra Costa County regulates wireless telecommunication facilities (cell sites) Replaces the Contra Costa County 1998 Telecommunications Policy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 227 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 228 HOW IS THE NEW ORDINANCE DIFFERENT FROM THE 1998 TELECOMUNICATIONS POLICY? May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 229 Complies with new State and federal laws for regulating wireless facilities Adds definitions consistent with State and federal laws Collocation-eligible facility Minor alteration Low-visibility facility Substantial change May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 230 Addresses expedited processing of: Wireless facility in a County right of way Minor alteration of an existing wireless facility Collocation of a new wireless facility on an existing facility Provides requirements for facilities in the County right-of-way May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 231 Provides location and design criteria for wireless facilities in or near residential districts No new high-visibility facility or new tower in or within 300 feet of a residential district Requires a low-visibility in a residential district May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 232 Provides four different types of wireless facility permits Land Use Permit (on private property) Access Permit (within County right of way) Alteration Permit (on private property and within County right of way) Collocation Permit (on private property and within County right of way) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 233 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 234 QUESTIONS? May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 235 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes236 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes237 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes238 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes239 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes240 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes241 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes242 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes243 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes244 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes245 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes246 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes247 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes248 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes249 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes250 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes251 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes252 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes253 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes254 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes255 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes256 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes257 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes258 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes259 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes260 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Morgan Territory Road Bridges 4.30 & 4.40 Scour Repair Project (Project) and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Clayton area. [County Project No. 0662-6U4145, DCD-CP# 15-30] (District III) DETERMINE the Project is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1(c) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is funded 100% Local Road Funds. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alex Nattkemper, (925) 313-2364 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liza Mangabay, Leigh Chavez, Jenna Caldwell C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Morgan Territory Road Bridges 4.30 & 4.40 Scour Repair Project and related actions under the CEQA, Clayton area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 261 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project is to repair scour damage and bank erosion at two bridges located on Morgan Territory Road. Bridges 4.30 and 4.40 are similar structures that cross Marsh Creek and are located approximately 200 feet apart from each other. The project consists of installing rip rap (rock) on embankment slopes, placing a reinforced concrete slab in the channel below each bridge, filling voids in the boulder abutments with mortar, removal of trees where stability has been undermined due to erosion, repairing and replacing existing bridge railings with timber posts and guardrail system barriers, and installation of guardrail at the bridge approaches. These improvements will strengthen the bridge abutments and extend the service life of the existing bridges. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design, construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS CEQA Attachments May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 262 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 263 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 264 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 265 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 266 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 267 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Marsh Creek Gap Closure Project (Project) and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to advertise the Project, Oakley area. [County Project No. 7521-6D8465, DCD-CP# 16-14] (District III). DETERMINE the Project is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 4(c) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15304(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Flood Control Zone 1 Fund (Fund 252100). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Alex Nattkemper, (925) 313-2364 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: L. Mangabay, Finance, L. Chavez, Environmental Services, Jeff Valeros C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Marsh Creek Gap Closure Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 268 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project is to address the need for additional flood capacity at the Parklands Subdivision in the City of Oakley. Based on a hydrology model for Marsh Creek, there are flood protection deficiencies at this subdivision. Two gaps exist in the 3-foot floodwalls at the end of Arches Court and Crater Lake Court that would allow floodwaters from a 100-year storm to enter the subdivision. These gaps were left to create Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) points from East Bay Regional Park District’s (EBRPD) Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which runs parallel to Marsh Creek and the subdivision, but due to site constrictions, they cannot function as intended. The project consists of removing the gates at the two EVA access points and installing hydroseeded earthen berms in order to address the flood capacity issues at these locations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design, construction, and may jeopardize funding. ATTACHMENTS Marsk Creek Gap CEQA May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 269 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 270 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 271 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 272 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 273 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 274 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 275 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 276 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 277 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge 28C-141) and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise the Project, Clayton area. [Project No. 0662-6R4079, DCD-CP#15-39 (District III), and FIND, on the basis of the whole record (including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received and responses contained herein), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 6, Section 15070(a), (the custodian of which is the Department of Conservation and Development Director who is located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) and DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of $2,210.25 for California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees, a $50 fee to the County Clerk APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Leigh Chavez, (925) 313-2366 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: May 24, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 11 To: From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 278 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) for filing the Notice of Determination, and a $25 fee to Department of Conservation and Development for processing. FISCAL IMPACT: 88% Federal Highway Bridge Program, 12% Local Road Funds BACKGROUND: The purpose of this Project is to replace an existing bridge along Marsh Creek Road that carries traffic over Marsh Creek. The Project consists of bridge replacement; The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. The bridge deck would be approximately 43 feet, 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders, and an approximately 1.5-foot-wide concrete barrier on each side of the new bridge. The proposed bridge would be constructed of reinforced concrete on pre-cast and pre-stressed I-girders. The reinforced concrete bridge abutments would be supported by spread footings. The existing structure includes tall, reinforced concrete walls that restrict the flows of Marsh Creek under the bridge. These existing walls would be removed as part of the project to open up the channel where Marsh Creek flows under the bridge. The channel work would require that Marsh Creek be dewatered in accordance with regulatory permits. Dewatering would likely be accomplished using coffer dams according to methods acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Water would be routed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Along with replacing the bridge, the horizontal alignment of Marsh Creek Road would be shifted north on a parallel alignment to accommodate the wider bridge structure, and earthwork would be required along both sides of the existing roadway. In order to meet the hydraulic design standards, the vertical profile of the bridge would be slightly raised. The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Staging of construction materials and equipment would occur in two potential locations north and south of the road in the center of the project site. The northern staging area would occur within an undeveloped vegetated area, and the southern staging would occur entirely within paved parking areas. Standard construction equipment would be used for constructing the proposed project, including but not limited to: excavators, graders, scrapers, loaders, sweepers/scrubbers, compactors, rollers, backhoes, cranes and paver's. The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Construction would be sequenced in a manner to minimize traffic impacts during construction. Two phases of bridge construction are expected: The first phase would partially construct the new bridge with traffic using the existing bridge; The second phase shifts both directions of traffic onto the new bridge so the existing bridge can be demolished and the new bridge can be built to full width. During construction, the project is expected to accommodate one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction on Marsh Creek Road through the project site throughout construction, with short, infrequent periods of one lane traffic controls. Construction would take up to two seasons, likely starting in the summer of 2017 and finishing by the fall of 2018, pending Cal-trans and Federal approvals. Utility relocation and right-of-way transaction will be necessary in support of the project. Tree and shrubbery removal and trimming will be necessary. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project may result in a delay of design and construction, and may jeopardize funding. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Linda Dortzbach-Hudlin on behalf of property owners Richard & Wrenatta Dortzbach; James Gray, May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 279 Speakers: Linda Dortzbach-Hudlin on behalf of property owners Richard & Wrenatta Dortzbach; James Gray, P.E, resident of Concord (handout attached). AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Response RWQCB CEQA documents Initial Study & Notice of Determination Response - Dortzbach Response - Hirsch Response - Save Mt Diablo MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 280 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 281 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 282 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 283 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 284 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 285 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 286 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 287 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement 28C_0141\CEQA\CEQA to DCD\Bridge 141 NOD_2016.doc Form updated December 2014 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# Project Title: 0662-6R4079 and CP#15-39 Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Location: The project is located two miles east of Morgan Territory Road, located in the eastern area of Contra Costa County in the community of Clayton [Figures 1-2]. Project Description: The purpose of this project is to replace an existing bridge along Marsh Creek Road that carries traffic over Marsh Creek. The Project consists of bridge replacement; The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. The bridge deck would be widened to provide a width of approximately 43 feet, with 12- foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders, and an approximately 1.5-foot-wide concrete barrier on each side of the new bridge. The proposed bridge would be constructed of reinforced concrete on pre-cast and pre- stressed I-girders. The reinforced concrete bridge abutments would be supported by spread footings. The existing structure includes tall, reinforced concrete walls that restrict the flows of Marsh Creek under the bridge. These existing walls would be removed as part of the project to open up the channel where Marsh Creek flows under the bridge. The channel work would require that Marsh Creek be dewatered in accordance with regulatory permits. Dewatering would likely be accomplished using coffer dams according to methods acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Water would be routed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Along with replacing the bridge, the horizontal alignment of Marsh Creek Road would be shifted north on a parallel alignment to accommodate the wider bridge structure, and earthwork would be required along both sides of the existing roadway. In order to meet the hydraulic design standards, the vertical profile of the bridge would be slightly raised. The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Staging of construction materials and equipment would occur in two potential locations north and south of the road in the center of the project site (Figure 2). The northern staging area would occur within an undeveloped vegetated area, and the southern staging would occur entirely within paved parking areas. Standard construction equipment would be used for constructing the proposed project, including but not limited to: excavators, graders, scrapers, loaders, sweepers/scrubbers, plate compactors, rollers, backhoes, and pavers. The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Construction would be sequenced in a manner to minimize traffic impacts during construction. Two phases of bridge construction are expected: The first phase would partially construct the new bridge with traffic using the existing bridge; The second phase shifts both directions of traffic onto the new bridge so the existing bridge can be demolished and the new bridge can be built to full width. During construction, the project is expected to accommodate one 12- foot-wide travel lane in each direction on Marsh Creek Road through the project site throughout construction, with short, infrequent periods of one lane traffic controls. Construction would take up to two seasons, likely starting in the summer of 2017 and finishing by the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and Federal approvals. Utility relocation and right-of-way transaction will be necessary in support of the project. Tree and shrubbery removal and trimming will be necessary, in order to minimize damage to trees, any roots exposed during construction activities will be clean cut and tree branches will be trimmed. 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 Mitigated 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. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 288 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement 28C_0141\CEQA\CEQA to DCD\Bridge 141 NOD_2016.doc Form updated December 2014 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, or the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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 - $3,070.00 Total Due: $ 2,285.25 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $2,210.25 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: Hillary Heard County Clerk - $50 Receipt #: Environmental Services Division Conservation & Development - $25 Phone: (925) 313-2022 *Notice of Determination may be sent by fax to (916) 323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 289 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 290 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 291 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 292 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 293 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 294 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 1 151184-01.02 Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C- 0141) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Hillary Heard, Planner Environmental Services Division Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 313-2022 4. Project Location: Two miles East of Morgan Territory Road Clayton, Contra Costa County, California 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 6. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Lands (AL) 7. Zoning: A-2 (General Agriculture) and F-R (Forestry-Recreation) 8. Description of Project: Contra Costa County Public Works (CCCPWD), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes to replace the existing Marsh Creek Road Bridge (Bridge No. 28C-0141) in Contra Costa County, California (hereafter referred to as the proposed project). Marsh Creek Road is a narrow, two-lane rural major collector road that is widely used by commuters as an alternate to the heavily congested State Route 4. The road winds through a series of tight turns in rolling terrain, serving as a vital transportation link between Central and East Contra Costa County for passenger vehicles, heavy trucks, and vehicles with trailers (Contra Costa County 2013). The proposed project site is located approximately 2 miles east of Morgan Territory Road in the Clayton Area (Figures 1 and 2). The project site falls within the Antioch South 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, within the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 01N, Range 01E of the Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and is located at NAD 83 UTM 37.891635, -121.848997. The existing bridge has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing single-span bridge with a new single-span bridge that meets current design standards. The new bridge would be designed to meet current design standards (i.e., CCCPWD, Caltrans, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and would include wider shoulders and wider lanes. The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. The bridge deck would be widened to provide a width of approximately 43 feet, with 12-foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders, and an approximately 1.5-foot-wide concrete barrier on each May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 295 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 2 151184-01.02 side of the new bridge. The proposed bridge would be constructed of reinforced concrete on pre-cast and pre-stressed I-girders. The reinforced concrete bridge abutments would be supported by spread footings. The existing structure includes tall, reinforced concrete walls that restrict the flows of Marsh Creek under the bridge. These existing walls would be removed as part of the project to open up the channel where Marsh Creek flows under the bridge. The channel work would require that Marsh Creek be dewatered in accordance with regulatory permits. Dewatering would likely be accomplished using coffer dams according to methods acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Water would be routed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Along with replacing the bridge, the horizontal alignment of Marsh Creek Road would be shifted north on a parallel alignment to accommodate the wider bridge structure, and earthwork would be required along both sides of the existing roadway. In order to meet the hydraulic design standards, the vertical profile of the bridge would be slightly raised. The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Overhead electric, phone, and cable lines cross the creek along the south side of the road. An underground water line is attached to the downstream (north) side of the bridge. The overhead electric line poles and the water line attached to the existing bridge will be relocated. Staging of construction materials and equipment would occur in two potential locations north and south of the road in the center of the project site (Figure 2). The northern staging area would occur within an undeveloped vegetated area, and the southern staging would occur entirely within paved parking areas. Standard construction equipment would be used for constructing the proposed project, including but not limited to: excavators, graders, scrapers, loaders, sweepers/scrubbers, plate compactors, rollers, backhoes, and pavers. The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Construction would be sequenced in a manner to minimize traffic impacts during construction. Two phases of bridge construction are expected:  The first phase would partially construct the new bridge with traffic using the existing bridge.  The second phase shifts both directions of traffic onto the new bridge so the existing bridge can be demolished and the new bridge can be built to full width. During construction, the project is expected to accommodate one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction on Marsh Creek Road through the project site throughout construction, with May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 296 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 3 151184-01.02 short, infrequent periods of one lane traffic controls. Construction would take up to two seasons, likely starting in the summer of 2017 and finishing by the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and Federal approvals. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project location is approximately 6 miles east of the town of Clayton. The area surrounding the site is a mix of rural residential, recreation, and grazing lands. Throughout the project area, Marsh Creek Road is flanked on either side by rolling hills and ridgelines, providing a rural scenic backdrop from the town of Clayton to the town of Byron to the east. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Federal Highway Administration, California Department of Transportation The proposed project will be partially funded through the Federal Highway Bridge Program. Caltrans, on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, is the lead agency for the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the proposed project has been approved by Caltrans for National Environmental Policy Act compliance (September 2015). East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Federal Endangered Species Act, California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act The proposed project is located within the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) inventory area and is a covered activity (Bridge Replacement). The HCP/NCCP is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources and special-status species recovery in eastern Contra Costa County while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on these species and associated habitats. The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are authorized incidental take of HCP/NCCP-covered special status species subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Sacramento District Clean Water Act, Section 404, Regional General Permit Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands. A drainage ditch and a perennial stream channel are in the project area. There would be temporary and permanent impacts to these May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 297 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 4 151184-01.02 resources during construction. This type of activity would be authorized under a Regional General Permit program for HCP/NCCP-covered projects (USACE 2015). Therefore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Sacramento District will be notified for authorization. Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region Clean Water Act, Section 401, Water Quality Certification Section 401 of CWA also regulates projects that discharge dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and waters of the state, including wetlands when a federal permit or license will be issued (RWQCB 2015). As noted above, a drainage ditch and seasonal wetland adjoin the project area, and would sustain minimal temporary impacts during construction. Therefore, a Water Quality Certification will be obtained from the RWQCB. State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2012-0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit) Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil or disturbs less than one acre but are part of a larger development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under this permit (SWRCB 2015). If the project disturbs less than 5 acres, the permit allows for a waiver certification if the project will occur when the rainfall erosivity factor value is less than five (i.e., typically occurring in dry seasons when rains are less frequent and less force). At this time, it is anticipated that the proposed project would disturb approximately 4.5 acres. Therefore, a waiver certification will be requested from the State Water Resources Control Board. California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Fish and Game Code The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code, which contains several provisions potentially relevant to construction projects. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements are required whenever project activities will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated as such by CDFW. Therefore, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement will be obtained from CDFW for the proposed project. The California Fish and Game Code also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW. These take permits do not allow “incidental take” and are more restrictive than the take allowed under Section 2081 of the California ESA. Fully Protected species are listed in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code, while Protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 298 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 5 151184-01.02 Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions, along with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Non-native species, including European starling, house sparrow, and rock pigeon, are not afforded any protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code. The proposed project will comply with all provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 299 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 300 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 7 151184-01.02 I. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Environmental Setting Within its boundaries, Contra Costa County (County) identifies scenic ridges and waterways as the two main scenic resources, in addition to many localized scenic features. Scenic ridges include hillsides and rock outcroppings and scenic waterways include the San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays. Throughout much of the County, there are significant topographic variations in the landscape. The largest and most prominent of these are the hills that form the backdrop for much of the developed portions of the area. Views of these major ridgelines help to reinforce the rural feeling of the County’s rapidly growing communities. These major ridges provide an important balance to current and planned development (Contra Costa County 2005). The proposed project location is approximately 6 miles east of the town of Clayton. The area surrounding the site is a mix of sparse residential, recreation, and grazing lands. Throughout the project area, Marsh Creek Road is flanked on either side by rolling hills and ridgelines, providing a rural scenic backdrop from the town of Clayton to the town of Byron to the east. These features have led the County to designate Marsh Creek Road as a scenic route for providing high visual value of the rolling hills and ridgelines (Contra Costa County 2005). There are no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important visual resources within the project area as reported in the technical studies prepared for this project (LSA Associates 2015; Contra Costa County 2015a). a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The County has designated two main resources as exhibiting important scenic vistas: scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings and the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system (Contra Costa County 2005a). The project area lies in a valley floor flanked by large rolling hills within a rural setting and therefore would not interfere with scenic vistas of scenic ridgelines, hillsides or rocking outcroppings. There are no scenic vistas of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system within the project area. The new bridge would be located within the same general footprint as the existing bridge, but would be May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 301 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 8 151184-01.02 wider. Approximately 36 trees would be removed as a result of the proposed project; however, these changes are not expected to affect the existing scenic vista of the site. The new bridge and bridge approaches would remain at existing elevations; therefore, existing views to and from the bridge would not be substantially altered. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? While Marsh Creek Road is listed as a scenic route, it is not designated or eligible as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2015). In addition, the approximately 36 trees proposed for removal by the proposed project are not considered heritage trees or trees of local significance. There are also no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important scenic resources within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic resources. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project would remove up to approximately 36 trees and expand the footprint of the new bridge. The amount of trees being removed is localized and considered relatively minor compared to the amount of remaining vegetation through the corridor. These effects are not expected to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on the site’s visual character would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is not expected to provide a new substantial source for light and glare. The vertical alignment of the new bridge is not expected to change from that of the existing bridge, so the proposed project would not change the perspective of existing views. However, the width of the bridge would increase in size from 30.5 to 47 feet in width. This increase in square footage of concrete could potentially increase glare during certain times of the day depending upon the location of the sun, due to the light color of concrete when compared to the surrounding visual character. However, the increase is expected to be negligible. No new lighting is proposed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact related to light and glare. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 302 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 9 151184-01.02 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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 non-agricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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))? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Regulatory Setting Consistent with the state of California, the County has seen a significant decrease in the amount of acreage in farm production. The majority of the decline has been attributed to urbanization of the region, which over time gradually converts agricultural lands to other uses. Within the County, this has resulted in a reduction in both crop and grazing lands (Contra Costa County 2005). A project that would convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity would normally have a significant effect on the environment. No set acreage of prime farmland conversion has been determined by case law or regulatory framework which would constitute a significant impact (California Department of Conservation 2015). Several programs and regulations have been established to better minimize and manage the conversion of farmland. Programs and policies applicable to the proposed project are described in the following paragraphs. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines require a project to address potential impacts to both farmland conversion and the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for parcels exceeding 100 acres. The cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is an action considered to be of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance, and thus is subject to CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b)(3)). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 303 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 10 151184-01.02 California’s Farm Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 in response to a critical need for assessing the location, quality, and quantity of farmlands and conversion of these lands over time. FMMP is a non-regulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Creation of the FMMP was supported by the Legislature and a broad coalition of building, business, government, and conservation interests (California Department of Conservation 2015). California Land Conservation Act of 1965. This act is commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, and it enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive a reduced property tax assessments based on open space use, versus highest and best use value (California Department of Conservation 2015). Contra Costa County General Plan. The County has identified agricultural resources as very valuable and important. The County has established goals and policies in their General Plan (2005) to enhance and protect farmlands and minimize conflicts with other land uses. a) Would the project 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 non-agricultural use? The project area is located in the foothills near Mt. Diablo. The topography is not conducive for commercial farming practices and no active farming has been observed. There are two soil units within the project area: Los Oso clay loam, which is not considered to support prime farmland, and Zamora silty clay loam, which could be classified as prime farmland if irrigated (NRCS 2015). Based on review of the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2012) and visual observations, no irrigation for crop production has been documented nearby; therefore, the lands within the project area are not considered prime, unique, or of statewide significance (Anchor QEA 2015). There are no lands within the project area that are designated as prime or unique farmland or farmlands of statewide significance. Therefore, the project would have no impact on these regulated types of farmlands. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? Under the Williamson Act, land may be enrolled under the “Prime Agricultural Land” designation if it meets economic or production criteria. A review of the FMMP as well as County zoning information indicates that there are two parcels (parcel number 078130008 and 078130020) to the east of the proposed project boundary that are currently enrolled in the Williamson Act program (Figure 3): parcel 078130008 (approximately 318 acres) and parcel 078130020 (approximately 100 acres). Because each parcel is larger than 100 acres, they are both precluded from being converted to non-eligible uses. Both parcels are zoned A4, which is classified as “Agricultural Preserve” (Contra Costa County 2015a). The proposed project would not extend into these parcels and would therefore not convert any of these lands into non-farmland use. Therefore, the project would have no impact on Williamson Act- contracted lands. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 304 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 11 151184-01.02 c and d) Would the project 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))? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The proposed project does not involve activities within areas that are zoned as forest land. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on timberlands. 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 area is within three classified farmland categories: farmland of local importance, grazing land, and other land. Technical soil ratings and current land use are used as the basis for determining the classification within the Important Farmland Maps of these lands. The minimum land use mapping unit is 10 acres unless specified. Smaller units of land are incorporated into the surrounding map classifications. In order to most accurately represent the Natural Resources Conservation Service digital soil survey, soil units of one acre or larger are depicted in Important Farmland Maps (California Department of Conservancy 2015). Farmland of Local Importance. This classification includes land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county's local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of Supervisors. Farmland of local importance is either currently producing, or has the capability of production, but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Grazing Land. This classification is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. (California Department of Conservancy 2015). Other Land. This includes land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as “other land.” A portion of the site has been designated as farmland of local importance due to the band of Zamora silty clay loam that traverses the project area. This band ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet wide within the project area. The proposed project may permanently affect a small portion of this soil type just east of where the roadway crosses the stream. However, this area has already been converted to residential use and is not irrigated; therefore, the proposed project would have only minor effects on farmland of local importance and is not expected to impact the overall potential agricultural production as none exists today on that land. The proposed project may also result in the need for CCCPWD to acquire a small portion of grazing land along the north side of the roadway just west of the bridge crossing for staging and permanent right-of- way acquisition. The staging would be temporary and the land would be reverted back to its pre-project condition after construction. The right-of-way acquisition would be needed in order to straighten out the existing curve that is considered a safety hazard. The land acquisition is not expected to affect the May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 305 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 12 151184-01.02 overall ability for the parcel to be grazed nor significantly reduce the overall production of the grazing land. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on farmland of local importance and grazing land would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 306 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 13 151184-01.02 III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. 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 (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Regulatory Setting The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) currently focus much of their air pollutant control efforts on five major air pollutants: ozone, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. These are the most prevalent air pollutants emitted nationwide and statewide, and they are known to be harmful to human health when their ambient levels exceed certain concentrations. Consequently, federal and state ambient air quality standards have been set for each of these pollutants (known as “criteria” air pollutants”) at levels protective of human health, with an added margin of safety to afford additional protection to the young, the old and the infirm (i.e., sensitive receptors), who are more susceptible to their adverse health effects. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) emitted into the air are also regulated as such to limit their adverse impacts to human health and welfare. In the State and in the Bay Area, the majority of the estimated carcinogenic/chronic health risks from TAC exposures have been attributed to relatively few TACs, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (DPM), which is responsible for about 80% of the cumulative cancer risk from all airborne TAC exposures. Following the identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998, CARB developed the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan as a comprehensive strategy to control DPM emissions. The overall goal of the Plan is to reduce DPM emissions by 75% by 2010 and 85% by 2020. Such reductions were to be achieved by a combination of approaches including more stringent emission regulations for new diesel engines, a low-sulfur fuel program, and control measures for various categories of in-use on- and off-road diesel engines. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 307 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 14 151184-01.02 The recommended in-use control strategies are generally based on the following types of controls:  Retrofitting engines with emission control systems, such as diesel particulate filters or oxidation catalysts  Replacement of existing engines with new-technology diesel engines or natural gas engines  Restrictions placed on the operation of existing equipment In July 2007, CARB approved the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (as part of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan cited above), which applies the following controls to in-use off-road diesel engines used in construction equipment:  Imposes limits on construction equipment idling, requires a written idling policy from the fleet owner, and requires a disclosure of its emission potential when selling equipment  Requires all construction equipment to be reported to CARB using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System (DOORS) and for each piece of equipment to be labeled as to its emission potential as listed in DOORS  Restricts the adding of older equipment into construction fleets  Requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS; i.e., exhaust retrofits) The air quality analysis in this document was performed using the methodologies recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines1 (BAAQMD 2012). The criteria air pollutants evaluated in this analysis include: carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (both being precursors to ozone formation), inhalable particulates (PM10), and fine particulates (PM2.5). Health risks associated with project- specific and cumulative exposures to DPM are also evaluated. The following thresholds were considered in this analysis:  According to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, any project would have a significant potential for causing/contributing to a local air quality standard violation or making a cumulatively considerable contribution to a regional air quality problem if its criteria pollutant emissions during construction or operations would exceed any the thresholds presented in Table 1.  Also, there would be significant operational CO impacts if CO emissions from motor vehicle traffic or from cumulative traffic congestion resulting from a project would exceed the Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS) of 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average).  Finally, the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines establish a relevant zone of influence for an assessment of project-level and cumulative health risk from TAC exposure to an area within 1,000 feet of a 1 The BAAQMD’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit . Although the BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judici al actions, the County of Contra Costa has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009) provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the County of Contra Costa has determined the BAAQMD 2010 thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 308 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 15 151184-01.02 project site. Project construction-related or operational TAC impacts to sensitive receptors within the zone that exceed any of the following thresholds are considered significant - An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million - A non-cancer hazard index greater than 1.0 - An incremental increase of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) or greater to annual average PM2.5 concentrations Cumulative impacts from TACs emitted from freeways, state highways, or high volume roadways (i.e., the latter defined as having traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and from all BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources within the zone to sensitive receptors within the zone that exceed any of the following thresholds are considered cumulatively significant: - A combined excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million - A combined non-cancer hazard index greater than 10.0 - A combined incremental increase in annual average PM2.5 concentrations of 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter air (μg/m3) or greater Table 1 CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Construction Average Daily (lb/day) Operational Average Daily (lb/day) Maximum Annual (tons/year) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 54 10 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 54 54 10 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 (exhaust) 82 15 Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (Fugitive Dust) BMPsa N/A N/A Notes: a. If BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control are implemented during construction, the impacts of such residual emissions are considered to be less than significant. BMPs = Best Management Practices lb/day = pounds per day N/A = Not Applicable Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011 May (Revised), California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Environmental Setting The project site is located in a transitional area between the Diablo Valley and Livermore Valley climatological sub-regions of the Bay Area (as identified by the BAAQMD in their CEQA Guidelines, Appendix C). The air pollution potential is high in both sub-regions, especially in the summer and fall May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 309 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 16 151184-01.02 when high temperatures increase the potential for ozone build up. The valleys not only trap locally generated pollutants, but can receive ozone and ozone precursor intrusions from surrounding areas. During the winter, strong surface-based temperature inversions often occur. When this happens, pollutants such as carbon monoxide and particulate matter, generated by motor vehicles, fireplaces/woodstoves and agricultural burning, can become concentrated. The San Francisco Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national (1-hour and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM10 standards, for state and national (annual average and 24- hour) PM2.5 standards. It is “attainment” or “unclassifiable” with respect to AAQS for other criteria pollutants. The BAAQMD maintains a number of air quality monitoring stations, which continually measure the ambient concentrations of major air pollutants throughout the Bay Area. Data from the monitoring station in Livermore, about 15 miles south of the project site shows that violations of both the ozone and particulate standards have been recorded on a few days in each year over the last three years. Contra Costa County contains a great number of stationary industrial/commercial air pollution sources that have air pollutant emissions substantial enough to require that they operate under BAAQMD air permits (i.e., their locations, types and TAC health risks can be displayed using the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool in Google Earth), but none of these are located closer than 1,000 feet from the project site. Traffic volumes on Marsh Creek Road are not high enough to put this roadway in the class of substantial roadway TAC emitters, and no other roadways in that class pass closer than 1,000 feet from the project site. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The BAAQMD adopted its 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, and TACs in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented. The primary goals of the CAP are to attain/maintain AAQS, and to reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area. Compliance with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance are the conditions for determining that a project would be consistent with all adopted CAP control measures and would not substantially interfere with the attainment of CAP goals. Also, the proposed project would replace an existing bridge that does not meet current Caltrans traffic and seismic safety standards with a new bridge that would have the same traffic carrying capacity. Thus, it does not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, transportation, and/or population projections within the Bay Area Air Basin. As the following analysis demonstrates, the proposed project would not have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts because it meets all BAAQMD CEQA thresholds with the exception of the PM2.5 emissions threshold. As is described further under checklist item d, the proposed project’s annual PM2.5 concentration from construction would be 0.65 µg/m3, which exceeds the project-level CEQA significance threshold. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be implemented to reduce the proposed project’s maximum annual PM2.5 emissions. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 310 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 17 151184-01.02 Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures The construction contractor will implement the following BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for Project Construction Equipment measures to further reduce construction- related exhaust emissions:  All off-road construction equipment will meet the following requirements: - All engines will meet or exceed USEPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or - All engines will be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 VDECS device. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce the proposed project’s maximum annual PM2.5 concentration increment to 0.28 µg/m3, which is below the threshold. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Construction-Related Impacts The proposed project would replace an existing substandard bridge with a new bridge with the same carrying capacity that meets all Caltrans traffic and seismic safety standards. Project construction, expected to take about seven months, would generate temporary emissions of criteria pollutants and TACs in equipment exhaust, and fugitive dust from equipment and material movement. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to the CEQA significance thresholds. Thus, the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2) was used to quantify construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require a number of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust, and the use of paints and coatings compliant with BAAQMD volatile organic compounds (VOC) control regulations. Thus, the following basic fugitive dust control measures must be implemented by the construction contractor:  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 surfaces 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.  A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 311 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 18 151184-01.02 Table 2 provides the estimated short-term emissions from construction equipment, truck, and worker vehicle commute resulting from the proposed project. The maximum daily construction period emissions were compared to the CEQA significance thresholds. All construction-related emissions would be well below the thresholds; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Pounds per Day) Construction Period ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Year 2017 1.2 13.6 0.7 0.6 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic compounds NOx = Nitrogen oxide Operational Impacts The BAAQMD has identified the following screening criteria for determining whether project-related motor vehicle CO emissions would likely cause CO AAQS to be exceeded:  The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or  The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per day; or  The project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per day where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). Since the proposed project would replace an existing substandard bridge with a new one with the same carrying capacity and meeting all current safety standards, it would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would have a less than significant effect on traffic flow locally and regionally. Thus, the proposed project’s operational ambient CO impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project 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 (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As discussed previously, proposed project-related construction and operational emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not make cumulatively considerable contributions to the Bay Area’s regional problems with ozone or particulate matter. Thus, cumulative emission impacts would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 312 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 19 151184-01.02 d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Ambient TAC concentrations produced by the proposed project and other significant local TAC sources within 1,000 feet of a project site are considered substantial if they exceed the CEQA health risk thresholds at sensitive receptors within this zone. The nearest existing residential land use is north of Marsh Creek Road about 200 feet from east end of the existing bridge. Construction-Related TAC Impacts Cancer risk is the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Following health risk assessment guidelines established by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the BAAQMD in Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, incremental cancer risks were estimated by applying established toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations. The maximum cancer risk from DPM generated from construction of the proposed project for the closest residential receptor would be 2.8 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to proposed project construction activities would be below the BAAQMD threshold of ten per million and less than significant. Adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured using a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the proposed project’s incremental TAC exposure concentration to a published reference exposure level as determined by OEHHA. If the HI is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant. The non-cancer reference exposure level for DPM as determined by OEHHA is 5 µg/m3. The non-cancer HI from construction of the proposed project would be 0.1, well below the BAAQMD threshold of one and less than significant. The modeled maximum annual PM2.5 concentration from construction of the proposed project would be 0.65 µg/m3, which exceeds the project-level CEQA significance threshold of 0.3 µg/m3 for PM2.5 (Table 3). Table 3 Construction Criteria Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Prior to Mitigation Construction Period Hazard Index PM 2.5 (µg/m3) Year 2017 0.1 0.65 Significance Thresholds 1 0.3 Significant Impact? No Yes Note: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meters air Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be implemented to reduce the proposed project’s maximum annual PM2.5 emissions: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures The construction contractor will implement the following BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for Project Construction Equipment measures to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions:  All off-road construction equipment will meet the following requirements: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 313 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 20 151184-01.02 - All engines will meet or exceed USEPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or - All engines will be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 VDECS device. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce the proposed project’s maximum annual PM2.5 concentration increment to 0.28 µg/m3, which is below the threshold (Table 4). Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Table 4 Construction Criteria Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts after Mitigation Construction Period Hazard Index PM 2.5 (µg/m3) Year 2017 0.1 0.28 Significance Thresholds 1 0.3 Significant Impact? No No Note: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meters air The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; included as Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, the parties that will be responsible for ensuring implementation of these measures, and implementation of the measures will be verified. Operational TAC Impacts The proposed project would not add any motor vehicle traffic to Marsh Creek Road. Thus, the incremental cancer risk, non-cancer hazard, and PM2.5 from operations would be zero and less than significant. Cumulative TAC Impacts The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines method for determining cumulative TAC health risk requires the tallying of risk from project sources and all permitted stationary sources and major roadways within a 1,000 feet of a project site and adding them for comparison with the cumulative health risk thresholds. A database of permitted stationary emissions sources, major roadways, and their associated health risks is available online from the BAAQMD through the Stationary Source and Highway Screening Analysis Tools. There are no such listed sources within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Thus, cumulative TAC impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose substantial sensitive receptors to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. With respect to the proposed project, diesel-fueled construction equipment exhaust would be odorous in close proximity to the source. However, these emissions typically dissipate quickly with distance. With only one existing residential receptor within 200 feet of the bridge site, substantial on-going odor May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 314 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 21 151184-01.02 impacts of the 7-month construction period would be unlikely. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 315 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 22 151184-01.02 IV. Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c. 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? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ This section evaluates both the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project on biological resources. Identification of species with the potential to occur in or adjacent to the project area was based on field surveys conducted by qualified biologists from LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) during summer of 2013 and spring 2014. Biologists also conducted a review of existing biological resource evaluations for projects in the region; a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; CDFW 2013); a review of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013); a review of the online database maintained by the Sacramento USFWS office (USFWS 2013) for the Antioch South, Clayton, Diablo, Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, and Brentwood USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles; and review of Special-Status Species Proposed for Coverage in the ECCC HCP/NCCP, Vol. 1/Table 3-8 and Vol. 2/Appendix D (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 316 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 23 151184-01.02 Regulatory Setting The proposed project is located within the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP inventory area and is a covered activity as described in Section 2.3 of the HCP/NCCP: Transportation Projects – Bridge Replacement, Repair or Retrofit (Rural infrastructure Projects). The HCP/NCCP is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources and special-status species recovery in eastern Contra Costa County while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on these species and associated habitats. The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of ESA, and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are authorized incidental take of HCP/NCCP-covered special-status species subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Habitat Conservancy), a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). For the purposes of this evaluation, special-status plant and wildlife species are defined as those species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under the ESA as amended (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 50, Section 17), and/or species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code [USC] 703-712); the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; June 8, 1940) as amended; California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5); California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1901, 2062, 2067, 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515); animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by the CDFW; plant species assigned California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2013); and/or Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, and species covered under the HCP/NCCP. Special-status species also include locally rare species defined by CEQA guidelines 15125(c) and 15380, which may include species that are designated as sensitive, declining, rare, locally endemic or as having limited or restricted distribution by various federal, state and local agencies, organizations and watch lists. Their status is based on their rarity and endangerment throughout all or portions of their range. Environmental Setting Qualified biologists conducted planning surveys and biological assessments to identify habitats within and around the project area to determine if sensitive habitats, natural communities, and jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. occur as well as potential presence of special-status species. Natural communities and land cover types were classified in accordance with the HCP/NCCP (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2), which describes land cover types based on literature by Jones & Stokes Associates (1996), Holland (1986), Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988; 1999), and the first edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). A wetland delineation study was conducted within the Biological Study Area (BSA) on August 30, 2013, following the methods outlined in USACE’s Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Supplement, USACE 2006). The delineation included areas meeting USACE criteria for wetlands and other waters of the United States subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA, as well as potentially jurisdictional waters of the State of California under the Porter-Cologne May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 317 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 24 151184-01.02 Water Quality Control Act. The findings and conclusions of the jurisdictional delineation were submitted to the USACE for verification on March 7, 2014. The HCP/NCCP bases creek impacts on the area of creek from top of bank to top of bank, excluding portions of the stream mapped as urban land cover (i.e., under the existing bridge). In compliance with the HCP/NCCP, a Planning Survey Report (PSR) was completed by CCCPWD to identify potentially present special status species, potential project impacts on those species, and appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, a Natural Environment Study (NES) was prepared for Caltrans in support of this project. Based on results of the resource information search and field surveys, biologists determined the special-status species identified in Table 5 could potentially occur in BSA. The BSA is defined as the boundary surrounding the footprint of the proposed project, including right-of-way limits, areas potentially needed for driveway realignments, and potential staging areas. The entirety of the BSA is 6.333 acres. Natural communities (as defined in the HCP/NCCP) are described on the basis of vegetation characteristics, such as dominant species and vegetation structure (Figures 4a and 4b). Natural communities within the BSA are classified as oak savanna, oak woodland, riparian woodland, chaparral/scrub, and native grassland. The potential for these species to occur within the BSA was assessed in the Biological Assessment (BA), PSR, and NES for the proposed project. These three documents considered impacts to special-status species based on the presence of suitable habitat (identified through site reconnaissance and species specific planning surveys), the proximity of known species occurrences, and knowledge of the species’ range and/or mobility. Species that require habitats not present in the BSA and project vicinity (i.e., alkaline, saline, or serpentine soils, inland dunes, vernal pools, tidal salt marsh, brackish marsh, etc.) were eliminated from consideration in the BA, PSR, and the NES, and are not discussed further in this document. Table 5 Potentially Occurring Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Common Name (Species Name) Listing Status* PLANTS Large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) FE/SE/CNPS 1B.1 Slender silver moss (Anomobryum julaceum) --/--/CNPS 4 Mt. Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata) --/--/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Contra Costa manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. Laevigata) --/--/CNPS 1B Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) --/--/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla) --/--/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Mt. Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) --/--/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Hospital Canyon larkspur (Delphinium californicum ssp. interius) --/--/CNPS 1B Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) --/FP/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) --/--/1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Showy madia (Madia radiata) --/--/CNPS 1B, HCP/NCCP-covered Adobe navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis) HCP/NCCP-covered Coastal triquetrella (Triquetrella californica) --/--/CNPS 1B Oval-leaved viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum) --/--/CNPS 2B May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 318 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 25 151184-01.02 Common Name (Species Name) Listing Status* WILDLIFE California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) FT/ ST, HCP/NCCP-covered California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) FT/CSC, HCP/NCCP-covered Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) FT/ST Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) --/CSC/ HCP/NCCP-covered Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum) --/CSC Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) BGPA/FP, HCP/NCCP covered White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) --/FP, HCP/NCCP-covered, no-take Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) --/SLC, HCP/NCCP-covered Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) --/CSC, HCP/NCCP-covered Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) --/FP, HCP/NCCP-covered; no-take San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) FE/ST, HCP/NCCP-covered American badger (Taxidea taxus) --/CSC Notes: EXPLANATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LISTING CODES FEDERAL FE = Federally listed as Endangered FT = Federally listed as Threatened BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act STATE SE = State listed as Endangered ST = State listed as Threatened CSC = California Species of Special Concern FP = Fully Protected SLC = State-listed candidate COUNTY HCP/NCCP-covered = species is covered by the HCP/NCCP No-take = no-take species under the HCP/NCCP CNPS 1B.1 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Seriously endangered in California. 1B.2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Fairly endangered in California. 1B.3 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Not very endangered in California. 2.2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere-fairly threatened in California. 2.3 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere-not very threatened in California. 3 = Plants about which we need more information – a review list. 3.2 = Plants about which we need more information – a review list-fairly endangered in California. 3.3 = Plants about which we need more information – not very endangered in California. 4 = Plants of limited distribution-a watch list – fairly threatened in California. Special-Status Plant Species Fourteen plant species were identified as potentially occurring within or adjacent to the BSA. The BSA provides suitable habitat for large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), which is a HCP/NCCP no-take species that is federally- and state-listed as endangered. It also has a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B (rare, threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere). Several other special-status plant species could also potentially occur within or adjacent to the BSA. These other species are: slender silver moss (Anomobryum julaceum), Mt. Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata; HCP/NCCP-covered), Contra Costa manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. laevigata), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa, HCP/NCCP-covered), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla, HCP/NCCP-covered), Mt. Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus, HCP/NCCP-covered), May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 319 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 26 151184-01.02 Hospital Canyon larkspur (Delphinium californicum ssp. interius), Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum; HCP/NCCP-covered), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea, HCP/NCCP-covered), showy madia (Madia radiata, HCP/NCCP-covered), adobe navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis, HCP/NCCP-covered), coastal triquetrella (Triquetrella californica), and oval-leaved viburnum (Viburnum ellipticum). Protocol-level surveys for these special-status plants were conducted during summer and fall of 2013 and in spring of 2014. No special-status plants were observed at the site. Special-Status Wildlife Species Special-status species that have the potential to occur in the BSA based on the presence of suitable habitat include: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus, western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The remaining five special-status species that may occur in the BSA include coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). These five species are not specifically covered by the HCP/NCCP, but are considered due to the identification of suitable habitat within the BSA. Ringtail, golden eagle and white-tailed kite are designated as Fully Protected under Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research. The bald eagle and golden eagle (nesting and wintering) are also designated as a California Species of Special Concern and are protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) as amended. The 12 special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the BSA are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. California tiger salamander. California tiger salamander is a federally and state-threatened species that is covered under the HCP/NCCP. The project area is located within the Central California distinct population segment for this species (CDFW 2013). There are 27 CNDDB occurrence records within 5 miles of the project site. The nearest record consists of one adult found along Marsh Creek Road 0.9 mile from the project site in 1982. The nearest breeding record is from a drainage pond located 1.3 miles from the project site where a single larva was found in 1999. There are numerous stock ponds within 5 miles of the project site that provide potential breeding habitat for this species, and the site is within modeled breeding, aestivation, and movement habitat for California tiger salamander under the HCP/NCCP. Biological survey results indicated that the BSA does not provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander. However, potential upland aestivation, foraging, and movement habitat does occur within the BSA. Moreover, the potential breeding habitat and known occurrences documented above are within the known migration distance of the species (up to 1.4 miles). Overall, the BSA provides approximately 1.716 acres of marginally suitable California tiger salamander habitat, including native grassland, chaparral/scrub, and oak savanna. Based on survey results and background information, adult salamander could potentially occur within the BSA. However, the habitat is marginally suitable for two reasons: (1) no small mammal burrows were seen in the immediate vicinity of the BSA; and (2) the May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 320 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 27 151184-01.02 distance to the nearest known breeding site is near the upper limit of documented salamander movement distances. California red-legged frog. California red legged frog is a HCP/NCCP-covered species that is listed as federally threatened and is also a California Species of Special Concern. California red-legged frog is known to occur in the project vicinity (CDFW 2013). There are 30 documented CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the project site. The nearest record, prior to surveys conducted for this project, consists of one adult seen in Marsh Creek 0.51 mile from the project site in 1982. The nearest breeding record is from a stock pond located 1.2 miles from the project site that was found in 2006. The site is within the area of modeled migration and aestivation habitat for California red-legged frog under the HCP/NCCP (HCP/NCCP Chapter 4: Figure 4-3). Alameda whipsnake. Alameda whipsnake is a HCP/NCCP-covered and federally- and state-listed threatened species. AWS is known to occur in the project vicinity (CDFW 2013). There are 43 known occurrences within 5 miles of the project site, and the BSA lies within the area of modeled movement habitat for whipsnake under the HCP/NCCP. Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is a HCP/NCCP-covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. This species is known to occur in the project vicinity (CDFW 2013). There are six CNDDB occurrence records within 5 miles of the project site. The nearest record is 1.39 miles from the project site. No pond turtles were observed during the survey. However, the BSA does provide suitable aquatic and upland habitat for western pond turtles. Overall, the BSA provides approximately 4.083 acres of suitable native grassland, oak savanna, oak woodland, riparian woodland, and stream habitat for this species. Coast horned lizard. Coast horned lizard is a California Species of Special Concern. Within the BSA suitable habitat for this species is present in the chaparral, oak savanna, and grassland habitat types. Coast horned lizard is known to occur in the project vicinity (CDFW 2013), with one CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the project site. The occurrence was recorded in 2002, 4.71 miles away from the BSA. Biologists conducted a habitat assessment and planning survey for coast horned lizard within the BSA on August 30, 2013. Survey results verified that the BSA contains 1.716 acres of native grassland, oak savanna, and chaparral land cover types that provide potentially suitable foraging and movement habitat for this species. Golden eagle. Golden eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, is fully protected under California Fish and Game Code and is a HCP/NCCP-covered species. There is one golden eagle nest confirmed within 5 miles of the project site, approximately 2.45 miles away (Terry Hunt, Contract Raptor Biologist, East Bay Regional Park District, pers. comm.). No nests were observed by biologists during planning surveys in the BSA, and large trees near the project site are unlikely to provide suitable nesting habitat due to human activity along Marsh Creek Road. The native grassland and oak savanna provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for this species. White-tailed kite. White tailed kite is a no-take species that is fully-protected under California Fish and Game Code. They breed in a variety of habitats including grasslands, cultivated fields, oak woodlands and suburban areas where prey is abundant. Trees within the BSA provide marginal nesting habitat for this species, due proximity to Marsh Creek Road. The native grassland and oak savanna land cover types provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for this species. Townsend’s big-eared bat and pallid bat. Townsend’s big-eared bat is a California State-listed Candidate and a HCP/NCCP-covered species. Pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern. Neither bat May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 321 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 28 151184-01.02 species has a federal listing status. Though not observed within the BSA, foraging habitat for pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat is present within the BSA within the site’s native grasslands and at the edges of the oak savanna. Additionally, larger trees on the site could potentially provide suitable day and/or night roosting habitat for these species where hollowed trunks and branches have developed. Ringtail. Ringtail is a fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code, a HCP/NCCP- covered no-take species. Only two known records exist for ringtails in Contra Costa County, one of which is in the Los Vaqueros watershed. No evidence of their occurrence was observed during the planning survey. Nevertheless, potentially suitable habitat for ringtails occurs in the oak savanna, oak woodland, chaparral/scrub, and riparian woodland land cover types within and adjacent to the BSA. Additionally, large trees on the site could support hollowed recesses potentially large enough to provide cover for the ringtail. San Joaquin kit fox. San Joaquin kit fox is an HCP/NCCP-covered species listed as federally endangered and state threatened. There are four records of San Joaquin kit fox occurrences within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2013). An unverified occurrence is approximately 0.5 mile from the site. One adult was observed at this location by an “untrained observer” in 1989 (CDFW 2013). All other kit fox sightings occurred prior to 1993. The BSA lies within the known foraging range (1 to 12 miles) of recorded den sites (USFWS 1998), but is outside of modeled suitable habitat for kit fox under the HCP/NCCP. Based on survey results, kit fox could potentially occur in the BSA. However, the potential for occurrence is low due to the marginal nature of the habitat for this species and the absence of observations in Contra Costa County since 1993. Although there have been occurrences of San Joaquin kit fox within the HCP/NCCP area, the most recent surveys have found no evidence of occupancy in the project vicinity. American badger. American badger is a California Species of Special Concern; it has no federal listing status. American badgers occur in a wide variety of open, arid habitats, but are most commonly associated with grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and open areas of desert scrub (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The principal habitat requirements for this species appear to be sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground (Williams 1986). American badgers are primarily found in areas of low to moderate slope (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). This species has not been documented from the BSA, yet marginally suitable badger habitat is present within open grasslands within the BSA. The nearest known occurrence is 4.21 miles from the BSA and was recorded in 2002 (CDFW 2013). 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 CDFW or USFWS? The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003. As such, covered activities are authorized for incidental take of HCP/NCCP covered special-status species subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species and/or their habitats. In addition, project proponents are required to implement specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or their habitats. These conservation measures are incorporated into the species mitigation provided in this impact analysis, to offset potential project impacts. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 322 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 29 151184-01.02 Impact BIO-1 – Disturbance to Sensitive Habitats and Trees Project activities would result in limited permanent impacts to natural and non-natural land cover types located adjacent to the existing roadway and shoulders as follows: riparian woodland (0.091 acre) (including stream woodland from top-of-bank to top-of-bank [0.058 acre]), oak woodland (0.102 acre), oak savanna (0.150 acre), chaparral/scrub (0.128 acre), native grassland (0.046 acre), non-native woodland (0.021 acre), and urban (1.015 acres). Temporary project impacts would occur to riparian woodland (0.306 acre), oak woodland (0.208 acre), oak savanna (0.184 acre), chaparral/scrub (0.083 acre), native grassland (0.008 acre), nonnative woodland (0.031 acre), and urban (0.417 acre). The proposed project would also result in the removal of 36 trees that consist of gray pine (Pinus sabiniana), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), red willow (Salix laevigata), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), California bay (Umbelularia californica), and cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera). The following measures would be implemented to offset these impacts. The impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Sensitive Habitat and Tree Protective Measures The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.14 Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside the Urban Development Area. In compliance with that measure as well as additional considerations identified in the NES, the following general construction requirements would be used for protection of the biological resources within the BSA and project vicinity: 1. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non-sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types. 2. No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. 3. All no-take species will be avoided. 4. Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory non-resident species, including covered species. 5. Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use sand bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife. 6. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down-gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site. 7. Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate. 8. On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, best management practices (BMPs), and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 323 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 30 151184-01.02 9. Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted. 10. Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. 11. Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, non-invasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. 12. Per the NES, tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. 13. Per the NES, heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline. 14. Per the NES, construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees. 15. Per the NES if the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Impact BIO-2 – Disturbance to Rare Plants Based on the results of the preliminary surveys conducted in the spring and summer and the late summer protocol-level plant survey conducted in 2013 and a spring protocol-level plant survey conducted in 2014, no rare or special-status plant species occur within the BSA. As such, the preliminary conclusion is that the proposed project would have no impact on the special-status plant species. Impact BIO-3 – Disturbance to Special-Status Birds During Construction Construction of the proposed project would require removal of trees and shrubs located along the east side of Marsh Creek Road in the vicinity of the bridge crossing. The avian nesting season is February 15 to August 31. The proposed project may directly or indirectly impact listed, fully protected and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act-protected nesting birds, if present. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact these species with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3. Therefore, proposed project impacts to any listed, fully protected migratory birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 324 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 31 151184-01.02 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Migratory Bird Protective Measures  To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 through August 31.  If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds.  Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31.  If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 0.5-mile for golden eagle, 250 feet for raptors including white-tailed kite and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in an urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Impact BIO-4 – Disturbance to California Red-legged Frog and Their Habitat Implementation of proposed project activities would temporarily disturb aquatic and upland habitat known to support the federally threatened California red-legged frog. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frog habitat would be achieved through payment of a mitigation fee as stipulated in the PSR and the Biological Opinion for the proposed project. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frog (as well as other HCP/NCCP-covered species) would be achieved through payment by CCCPWD development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, totaling $83,217.82, as required under the HCP/NCCP. In addition to fees, potential impacts to this species during construction would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Therefore, the proposed project impacts to California red-legged frog would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 California Red-legged Frog Protective Measures  A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify potential red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys). If the project fills or surrounds suitable breeding habitat, the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity of the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required.  Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 325 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 32 151184-01.02  There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Impact BIO-5 – Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Their Habitat Western pond turtle habitat includes ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation canals. Nests are typically constructed in upland habitat within 0.25 mile of aquatic habitat. During construction, there is potential for injury or mortality of turtles moving through the site, due to being crushed by vehicles, humans, or construction equipment associated with proposed project activities. Per the NES, approximately 0.389 acre of native grassland, oak savanna, oak woodland, and riparian woodland that provide suitable foraging, dispersal, and/or breeding habitat for western pond turtle would be permanently impacted by construction activities. Approximately 0.706 acre of habitat would be temporarily impacted by the proposed project. In addition, 0.045 acre of stream would be permanently impacted and 0.182 acre would be temporarily impacted during the bridge replacement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Payment of Development Fees There are no species-specific avoidance and minimization measures required under the HCP/NCCP beyond the general landscape-level avoidance and minimization measures. Impacts to western pond turtle and their habitat would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, totaling $83,217.82, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Impact BIO-6 – Disturbance to Special-status Bats Per the NES, project construction activities could impact suitable foraging habitat for special status bats, including pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat, if present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 Special-Status Bat Protective Measures Project-related impacts to bat roosting habitat can be avoided or minimized by implementing the following measure as described in the NES:  All potential roost trees within the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. The survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. The survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within two weeks following the survey.  If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 326 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 33 151184-01.02 maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans.  If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by CDFW.  Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees.  No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site.  All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours.  As an option, protocol-level surveys may be conducted the year prior to construction to rule out the presence of bat species in the project vicinity. Impact BIO-7 – Disturbance to Ringtail Potentially suitable habitat for ringtails occurs in the oak savanna, oak woodland, chaparral/scrub, and riparian woodland land cover types within and adjacent to the BSA. Additionally, large trees on the site could support hollowed recesses potentially large enough to provide cover for the ringtail. Permanent impacts to habitat could occur if unoccupied sites are damaged or removed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 Ringtail Protective Measures To ensure the avoidance of ringtail, a preconstruction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist of all potentially suitable den sites (i.e., tree hollows and logs) within the project site. Any occupied dens will be flagged, and the biologist will prepare a ringtail passive relocation plan subject to the approval of CDFW. The commencement of construction work will be delayed until one of the following has occurred:  If the biologist has documented that ringtails have voluntarily vacated the den site, then construction may begin within 7 days following this observation.  If the den is not vacated within 20 observation days, then the biologist may commence passive relocation in accordance with the CDFW-approved relocation plan. No relocation shall be conducted during the early pup-rearing season of May 1 to June 15.  All activities that involve the ringtail shall be documented and reported to the CDFW within 30 days of the activity. Impact BIO-8 – Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Although the occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox within the BSA is unlikely, the site nevertheless supports marginally suitable foraging and movement habitat. Although suitable burrows large enough for breeding were not identified during the planning surveys, there is still the potential for burrows to be created prior to construction. Approximately 0.196 acre of native grassland and oak savanna that provide marginally suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox would be permanently affected by May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 327 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 34 151184-01.02 construction activities. In addition, approximately 0.192 acre of habitat would be temporarily impacted. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: San Joaquin Kit Fox Protective Measures 1. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys will establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1999). Preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. The status of all dens will be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys will be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance. Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities. 2. If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the development footprint, the den will be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to camera to determine if the den is currently being used. 3. Unoccupied dens will be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. 4. If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately. The den will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated the den and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. 5. If San Joaquin kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den will be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of the biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). 6. If dens are identified in the survey area outside the disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances will be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No activities will occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens will be at least 50 feet and will be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens will be at least 100 feet and will be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 328 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 35 151184-01.02 Impact BIO-9 – Disturbance to American Badger Suitable habitat for American badger is present in the grassland and oak woodland areas within BSA. Noise disturbance from construction activities may result in direct impact (e.g., mortality or sett destruction) and/or indirect impacts (e.g., temporary changes in foraging patterns or territories, noise, or light disturbance, etc.) to these sensitive species. This potential impact would be minimized and/or avoided through establishment of no-disturbance buffers as described below. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce this potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Conduct Preconstruction Survey for American Badger The following avoidance and minimization measures shall minimize potential impacts on American badger: 1. If grading or construction will begin during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified biologist will conduct a survey of the grassland habitat to identify any badger burrows on the site. The survey will be conducted no sooner than two weeks prior to the start of construction. 2. Impacts to active badger dens will be avoided by establishing exclusion zones around all active dens, within which construction-related activities will be prohibited until denning is complete or the den is abandoned. 3. A qualified biologist will monitor each active den once per week in order to track its status and inform the CCCPWD of when a den area has been cleared for construction. The MMRP (included as Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, the parties that will be responsible for ensuring implementation of these measures, and implementation of the measures will be verified. 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 CDFW or USFWS? The proposed project is located within the HCP/NCCP inventory area and is a covered activity. The proposed project would have a permanent and temporary impact to approximately 1.4 acres of undeveloped habitats and removal of approximately 36 trees. The grading footprint of the proposed project has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable in order to avoid jurisdictional features. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would minimize or avoid impacts to special-status species and their habitats, including trees. Impact BIO-10 – Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities The proposed project would result in both temporary and permanent impacts to natural communities, sensitive habitats and undeveloped habitats regulated by USFWS and CDFW through the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement and by the Habitat Conservancy. The proposed project is located within the HCP/NCCP inventory area and would have permanent and temporary impacts to undeveloped habitats (approximately 1.4 acres). The proposed project would permanently impact 40 linear feet (0.058 acre) and temporarily impact 249 linear feet (0.289 acre) of stream from top of bank to top of bank. In addition to payment of development and wetland fees described in Mitigation May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 329 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 36 151184-01.02 Measure BIO-10a, potential impacts to natural communities during construction would be minimized through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10b. These measures would reduce proposed project impacts on sensitive natural communities to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure BIO 10a: Payment of HCP Development and Wetland Fees Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to habitats will be achieved through payment by CCCPWD of development fees and wetland mitigation fees. The proposed project would provide a development fee of $13,909.19 for permanent impacts and a development fee of $2,119.99 for temporary fees. A wetland mitigation fee of $41,659.62 for permanent impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats, and a wetland mitigation fee of $25,529.02 for temporary impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats. Specific to riparian habitat, fees will offset permanent impacts to 40 linear feet of stream and permanent impacts to riparian woodland as a result of the loss of 0.091 acre of riparian canopy. Additionally, the fee will offset temporary construction impacts to 249 linear feet of stream and 0.306 acre of riparian habitat. Therefore a total combined mitigation fee for the project will be $83,217.82. Mitigation Measure BIO-10b: Wetland, Pond and Stream Protective Measures In addition and consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12 Wetland, Pond, and Stream Avoidance and Minimization, the following applicable avoidance and minimization measures will be used to protect the stream occurring within and adjacent to the project site:  Prior to the start of construction, all portions of the stream to be avoided by the project will be temporarily staked in the field by a qualified biologist.  Prior to the start of construction, construction personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements.  Trash generated by the project will be promptly and properly removed from the site.  No construction or maintenance vehicles will be refueled within 200 feet of the streams unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed and hazardous material absorbent pads are available in the event of a spill.  Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians.  Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed and will not contain plastics of any kind.  Seed mixtures applied for erosion control will not contain invasive nonnative species, and will be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species.  Herbicide will not be applied within 100 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub; however, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved for use by USEPA in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on covered species May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 330 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 37 151184-01.02 and their habitats. In seasonal or intermittent stream or wetland environments, appropriate herbicides may be applied during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species (e.g., yellow star-thistle). Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible. The MMRP (included as Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, the parties that will be responsible for ensuring implementation of these measures, and implementation of the measures will be verified. 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? Stream habitat and riparian woodland impacts discussed under checklist item b) above may also affect federally protected wetlands and other waters of the United States subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. Results of the wetland delineation survey determined that permanent impacts would occur to 40 linear feet (0.030 acre) of USACE jurisdictional stream and 425 linear feet (0.019 acre) of non-jurisdictional ditch. Temporary impacts would occur to 289 linear feet (0.169 acre) of jurisdictional stream. Impacts to jurisdictional waters include all waters to be impacted below Ordinary High Water. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 10a and 10b as described under checklist item b) above, would reduce impacts to wetlands to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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? The constructed project would not result in permanent disruption to movement of wildlife species in the area, as the proposed project is limited to road improvements and there are no permanent features that would pose a barrier to movement. However, temporary construction activities, especially noise may temporarily inhibit dispersal, migration, and daily movement of common wildlife but it is not anticipated considering its location within a heavily traveled road. This disruption would be localized and short term in nature. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Potential project impacts would be avoided where feasible or mitigated through implementation of avoidance measures and best management practices outline in the PSR and identified in Mitigation Measures described previously. The PSR was completed in adherence with the HCP/NCCP which is consistent with the policies included in the Conservation Element section of the County General Plan. The proposed project is not subject to the County Tree Ordinance (Contra Costa County Code [CCCC] Title 8, Chapter 816-6.10(6). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 331 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 38 151184-01.02 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 proposed project would include avoidance and mitigation measures identified in the PSR and provide mitigation fees to offset impacts in compliance with the HCP/NCCP. Therefore, the project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 332 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 39 151184-01.02 V. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Section 21074(a)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Regulatory Background CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have an adverse impact on a significant cultural resource (Public Resources Code Sections 21084, 21084.1, 21083.2). A resource can be a precontact or historic structure, object, site, or district, and is considered significant if:  It is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR);  It is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code 5020.1(k);  It has been identified as a significant in an historical resources survey, as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(g); or  It is determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency [CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)]. The CRHR eligibility criteria are used to determine significance. A significant resource must meet one of the four criteria, as follows: 1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. The resource 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 333 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 40 151184-01.02 4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. If a significant resource would be impacted, the lead agency must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support a finding of significant effect (Section 21080(e)). CEQA requires examination of mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that would avoid or minimize any impacts or potential impacts. Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 amended CEQA to mandate consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to determine whether or not the proposed project may have a significant impact on a Tribal Cultural Resource, and that this consideration be made separately from cultural and paleontological resources. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code 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 (NAHC) for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. Section 21074(a) of the Public Resource Code defines Tribal Cultural Resources for the purpose of CEQA as: 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 any of the following: A. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; and/or B. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or C. 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, if a significant effect exists, or when a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (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. Cultural Resources Assessment A cultural resources survey for the proposed project was conducted in accordance with federal laws and regulations, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 334 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 41 151184-01.02 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 (Caltrans 2014). Although the regulatory setting for this survey is focused on federal vs. state requirements, the project area and methods of analysis are equivalent; therefore, the results of the Caltrans survey are summarized in the following paragraphs. Historic Overview and Results The project area is in the Central California culture area. It is in the traditional territory of the Bay Miwok people, a Miwok-speaking group who were organized into tribelets. Miwok communities moved seasonally between permanent villages and temporary resource-gathering locations. Littoral and marine resources were a primary component of the diet, supplemented by plant resources such as acorns, terrestrial mammals, and birds. Technologies included fish nets and traps, tule mats, and the bow and arrow. The oldest sites in the region, dating from before 10,000 years ago, are assigned to the Paleoindian period. Evidence from this period is scarce, but indicates that populations were small and moved frequently. In the subsequent Archaic period (about 10,000 to 1,000 years ago), cultural complexity intensified, and a wider variety of food resources were used. Sites from the Emergent period, from about 1,000 years ago to Euroamerican contact, are consistent with ethnographically described cultures. The first Euroamerican contact in the region was by Spanish explorers in the late 1700s. In the project vicinity, these contacts were primarily military. After Mexican independence in 1821, much of California was granted to individuals as ranchos. However, the project area was not part of a rancho and was likely unoccupied. California seceded from Mexico in 1847, and the Gold Rush began in 1848, bringing many Americans to the region. As the Gold Rush wound down, many of them settled in the area and engaged in agriculture and other commercial activities. Viniculture and tourism both began in mid- nineteenth century in the region. The Marsh Creek Springs Resort, adjacent to the south side of the road, was constructed in 1927, but extensively damaged by floods in 1957 and 1962. The proposed project would not affect the resort. The Marsh Creek Bridge was built in 1948. The Caltrans survey did not identify any archaeological resources in the project area. The project area has been extensively disturbed by road construction, and it is unlikely that any native sediments are present within the horizontal and vertical extent of ground disturbance. Tribal consultation by Caltrans did not identify any culturally significant or sacred lands. The Marsh Creek Bridge was determined not historically significant. Paleontological Overview The Bureau of Land Management has developed a classification system based on the potential for the occurrence of significant paleontological resources in a geologic unit and the associated risk for impacts to the resource (BLM 2008; 2007). Any rock material that contains fossils has the potential to yield fossils that are unique or significant to science. However, geological formations that have the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are more sensitive than those likely to contain only invertebrate fossils. Invertebrate fossils found in marine sediments are usually not considered unique resources, because the geological contexts in which they are encountered are widespread and fairly predictable. Invertebrate fossil species are usually abundant and well-preserved. Therefore, when found in a complete state, vertebrate fossils are more likely to be a significant resource than are invertebrate fossils. As a result, geologic formations having the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are considered the most sensitive. Vertebrate fossil sites are usually found in non-marine, upland deposits (BLM 2007). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 335 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 42 151184-01.02 Soils in the project area where ground disturbance would occur are generally alluvially derived (Zamora silty clay loam, 2% to 5% slopes). Alluvial deposits typically contain only invertebrate fossils (if any), and those are out of original depositional context (BLM 2007). a and b) Would the project 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 as defined in Section 15064.5? The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to an historic or archaeological resource because it is unlikely that any such resources are present in the project area. Field survey did not identify archaeological materials or undisturbed native soils. Bridge 141 has been determined not eligible for listing on the CRHR or the National Register of Historic Places. The County would stop construction if any archaeological or historical resources discovered during construction pursuant to our standard specifications. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? The proposed project would involve some clearing and grading as part of the bridge replacement and shoulder improvements. However, these project activities are not expected to impact any paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature because they occur primarily in alluvially derived soils. Therefore the project would have no impact on paleontological resources or unique geological features. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed project would not disturb any human remains because it is unlikely that any such remains are present in the project area. The proposed project would occur in previously disturbed sediments. Construction work would stop if human remains are encountered. Procedures for the discovery of human remains, in compliance with California Health and Safety Code (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]), will be included in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan described in checklist item c). Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Section 21074(a)? Contra Costa County has communicated with the NAHC, and has sent a letter to a tribe that requested consultation in the area. No response has been received. No other historical or ethnographic sources suggest that a Tribal Cultural Resource may be present in the project vicinity. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 336 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 43 151184-01.02 VI. Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Environmental Setting Geology The Quaternary Alluvium and Great Valley Sequence geological formations occurs beneath the project area. The Quaternary Alluvium formation consists of consolidated and unconsolidated sediments and can cause localized problems for building due to expansive clays, hillside earth flows and unstable cut slopes. The Great Valley Sequence formation consists of hard marine sandstone, shale and May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 337 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 44 151184-01.02 conglomerate. Foundation and slope stability conditions are fair to good, subject to sliding where sheared, fractured, or contorted (Contra Costa County 2005d). Soils There are two soil types located within the project footprint and four adjacent. The soils types within the project footprint include Los Osos clay loam (50 to 75% slope) and Zamora silty clay loam (2 to 5% slope)). Los Osos clay loam is generally associated with upland slopes and consists of loam, clay loam and unweather rock and is considered well drained and high erosion. Zamora silty clay is usually associated with alluvial fans, terraces, valley floors such as those found along Marsh Creek and consists of silt clay loam. Other soil types adjacent to the project include Los Gatos loam (30 to 50% slope), Los Gatos loam 50 to 75%), Los Osos clay loam (15 to 30% slope), and Rock outcrop-Xerorthents association (NRCS 2015). Seismic Hazard Contra Costa County is subject to a high rate of seismic activity. The San Francisco Bay region has been affected by more than ten severe earthquakes during historic time. The proposed project location is approximately 0.5 mile from the Clayton section of the Greenville Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation 2010). The Clayton section is a slip-strike fault and generally is poorly defined, and fault- related topographic features are poorly developed. It is characterized by subdued saddles and subdued hill fronts. This dextral strike-slip fault zone borders the eastern side of Livermore Valley and is considered to be part of the larger San Andreas Fault system in the central Coast Ranges. The fault zone extends from northwest of Livermore Valley along the Marsh Creek and Clayton faults towards Clayton Valley (Bryant and Cluett 2002). 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? The project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault as the project area is not within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, and there are no known faults within the project area. While the Clayton section of the Greenville fault zone is located approximately 0.5 miles from the project area, there has been no documentation of damaging earthquakes, historic surface faulting, or known micro seismic activity (Contra Costa County 2005). The proposed project does not include features that would increase risk to people or structures as it is primarily limited to replacement of an existing bridge, and shoulder widening of an existing roadway. Nevertheless, the proposed project design and construction would incorporate measures that are in accordance with local design practice and guidelines to ensure the new bridge would withstand seismic activity as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? As discussed previously, the project area is not located in a fault zone. The slip-strike fault located to its west is not considered to pose a risk of surface rupture, but is considered a potential seismic source. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 338 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 45 151184-01.02 The project area is located within hard bedrock, which is considered to have the lowest damage susceptibility (Contra Costa County 2005). The proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects as the project does not include features that would increase risk to people or structures as it is primarily limited bridge replacement and shoulder widening of an existing roadway. Nevertheless, the project design and construction would incorporate measures that are in accordance with local design practice and guidelines to ensure that the project would withstand seismic activity as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project area is primarily located within a generally moderate to high liquefaction potential due to the soil deposition related to Marsh Creek (Contra Costa County 2005). The project design would incorporate design measures in accordance with local design practice and guidelines as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual which are intended to ensure that structures would withstand seismic activity and liquefaction. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. 4) Landslides? The project area is not located within a potential landslide area (Contra Costa County 2005). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Minor grading and excavation associated with the bridge replacement would result in a negligible change in topography. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase the exposure of soils to wind erosion from grading and excavation activities. However, standard erosion control BMPs would be implemented during construction to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, proposed project impacts associated with soil erosion would be less than significant. 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 area is not located in a geologic unit or soil that is considered unstable and likely to result in landslides. However, the project area is partially located within an area that could be susceptible to liquefaction. The project design and construction would incorporate recommended measures in accordance with local design practice and guidelines as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to ensure that the proposed project would withstand seismic activity and liquefaction. Therefore, proposed project impacts 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? The project area is located on silty clay loam, which contains soils with expansive properties. The proposed project would be engineered according to standard industry practice, which includes design considerations for soil type. The project design would incorporate design measures in accordance with local design practice and guidelines as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual which are intended to ensure that structures would withstand seismic activity and liquefaction. Therefore, proposed project impacts would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 339 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 46 151184-01.02 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 proposed project would not require septic or other waste systems in the short or long terms. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 340 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 47 151184-01.02 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are atmospheric gases that capture and retain a portion of the heat radiated from the earth after it has been heated by the sun. The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor. While GHGs are natural components of the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, and N2O, are also emitted from human activities and their accumulation in the atmosphere over the past 200 years has substantially increased their concentrations. This accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force behind global climate change. Human emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off- gassing associated with organic decay processes in agriculture, landfills, etc. Other GHGs, including hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, are generated by certain industrial processes. The global warming potential of GHGs are typically reported in comparison to that of CO2, the most common and influential GHG, in units of “carbon dioxide-equivalents” (CO2e). There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. Regulatory Background Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32 - Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, requires CARB to lower State GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25% reduction statewide with mandatory caps for significant GHG emission sources. AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHG while preparing the Climate Change Scoping Plan in order to identify how best to reach the 2020 goal. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions to attain the 2020 goal include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, the California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the motor vehicle corporate average fuel economy standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. In an effort to make further progress in attaining the longer-range GHG emissions reductions required by AB 32, Governor Brown identified in his January 2015 inaugural address an additional goal (i.e., reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) to be attained by implementing several key May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 341 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 48 151184-01.02 climate change strategy “pillars:” (1) reducing present petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50%; (2) increasing from one-third to 50% the share of California’s electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived GHGs; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands to more efficiently store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the State's climate adaptation strategy. Building on state and regional climate protection efforts, the BAAQMD has adopted a resolution (BAAQMD 2013) to reduce GHG emissions by:  Setting a goal for the Bay Area region to reduce GHG emissions by 2050 to 80% below 1990 levels.  Developing a Regional Climate Protection Strategy to make progress towards the 2050 goal, using the Air District's Clean Air Plan to initiate the process.  Developing a 10-point work program to guide the Air District’s climate protection activities in the near-term. Environmental Setting CARB estimated that in 2013, California produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e. CARB found that transportation is the source of 37% of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by industrial sources at 23% and electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 18%. Agricultural uses contributed 8%, residential uses contributed 7% and commercial uses contributed 5% (CARB 2015). In the Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off- highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the industrial and commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting for approximately 40% of the Bay Area’s 86.6 million metric tons of CO2e emitted in 2011 (BAAQMD 2015). Industrial/commercial accounts for approximately 36% of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions followed by electricity generation at 14%, residential at 8%, off-road equipment at 1.5%, and agriculture at 1.5%. The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of that role, the BAAQMD has prepared CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2012) that provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects (i.e., 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year, which is also considered the definition of a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global GHG burden and, therefore, of a significant cumulative impact), but has not defined thresholds for project construction GHG emissions. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines methodology and thresholds of significance have been used in this Initial Study’s analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the proposed project. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Although the BAAQMD has adopted 1,100 metric tons/year as a GHG operational emissions significance criterion for development projects, there is no similar adopted threshold for project construction emissions. Construction of the proposed project would generate a total of about 102 metric tons of GHG during its 7-month construction period. Because construction emissions would be short-term and would cease upon completion of construction, GHG from construction activities would not substantially May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 342 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 49 151184-01.02 contribute to the global GHG emissions burden. Also, the proposed project is a routine transportation infrastructure upgrade that would not affect regional population, employment or transportation projections upon which regional GHG inventories are based, or conflict with any County or State policies to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and, thus, would have a less than significant impact. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The proposed project would not conflict with AB 32 and the strategies being implemented to achieve its goals, or the BAAQMD’s Resolution and, thus, would have a less than significant impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 343 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 50 151184-01.02 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ h. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Regulatory Background A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The release of hazardous materials into the environment could potentially contaminate soils, surface water, and groundwater supplies. An Initial Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project (BASELINE 2014) to identify potential sources of contamination along the site. The potential sources of May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 344 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 51 151184-01.02 contamination were evaluated as Recognized Environmental Conditions in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Assessment Process (BASELINE 2014). a and b) Would the project 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? The proposed project would not increase the capacity of Marsh Creek Road; therefore, no long-term increase in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is expected. However, during construction, there would be an increased potential for the accidental release of hazardous substances through the use of construction equipment, including refueling operations. In addition, two sites were identified within a 1.5-mile radius of the project: the abandoned Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine Dump Site (approximately 1.5 miles away) and the Marsh Creek Ranch (approximately 0.5 mile away (Figure 5). Materials were stockpiled at Mt. Diablo Mine Dump Site during the acid mining process for mercury. Acid mine drainage has routinely overflowed three surface impoundments and made its way to Horse and Dunn Creeks and then into Marsh Creek. Based on available information, Marsh Creek sediments may contain mercury and other metals. These metals could be released to surface waters if those sediments were disturbed (BASELINE 2014). BMPs, including the preparation of a site water pollution control plan (WPCP) or stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be implemented to minimize the release of sediments and soils into surface waters during construction. The Marsh Creek Ranch site is listed as having an inactive 1,000-gallon underground storage tank. Due to its distance from the project site and available information, this site would not have the potential to impact the project site (BASELINE 2014). The project would require that the contractor prepare a WPCP or SWPPP to identify safety and BMPs (e.g., placement of drip pans under stationary equipment, routine equipment inspections, and on-site spill cleanup materials) to prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances and potential worker exposure. The proposed project would also require the contractor to contact Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to conducting any work that could potentially impact utilities (BASELINE 2014). For these reasons, project impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing or proposed schools identified within 0.25 mile of the project area. The nearest school is Mt. Diablo Middle School, which is approximately 4.5 miles to the west in the City of Clayton. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to schools. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 345 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 52 151184-01.02 d) Would the project 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? The proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. As mentioned above, the nearest known hazardous sites are approximately 0.5 mile away. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. e and f) Would the project 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? The nearest airport to the project area is Buchanan Air Field, which is operated by Contra Costa County and located over 12 miles to the northwest in the City of Concord. There are no known private airstrips within a 2-mile radius of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in the short or long terms. Access for emergency vehicles would be provided at all times during construction. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. h) Would the project 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? The project area is located within high fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2007). The project proposes to replace existing steel and concrete structures with a new steel and concrete structures. These materials are not considered flammable and would not contribute to an increased risk due to wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 346 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 53 151184-01.02 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. 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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ i. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 347 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 54 151184-01.02 Environmental Setting Hydrologic Resources The Marsh Creek watershed drains the east side of Mount Diablo. The portion of the watershed that drains the project site is 23.1 square miles. One of Marsh Creek’s larger tributaries is Curry Canyon Creek; its confluence is located approximately 3.5 miles upstream and southwest of the project site as described further in the Location Hydraulic Study prepared for the proposed Project (WRECO 2015). Downstream of the project site, Marsh Creek collects drainages from other tributaries such as Sycamore Creek and Briones Creek before reaching the Marsh Creek Reservoir, which is located approximately 11 miles downstream (east) of the project site. Downstream of Marsh Creek Reservoir, Marsh Creek continues flowing northerly through the cities of Brentwood and Oakley before discharging into the San Joaquin River (WRECO 2015). Flood Hazard Areas Marsh Creek is classified a Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A, which represent areas within the 100-year base floodplain where the base flood elevation has not been determined. The existing bridge structure constricts the Marsh Creek channel, resulting in flood waters backing up and inundating the underside of the bridge (WRECO 2015). Water Quality Marsh Creek is designated as an impaired waterbody under the Federal Clean Water Act due to releases of mercury and other metals from the abandoned Mt. Diablo Mercury Mine. The abandoned mercury mine is located southwest of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road, approximately 1.5 miles from the project area. The mine operated from 1863 to 1974. Mine waste was stockpiled during mining operations. Acid mine drainage has routinely overflowed three surface impoundments at the base of the mine waste, and into the Horse and Dunn Creeks, which then discharge to Marsh Creek and ultimately the Sacramento Delta. Investigation and cleanup of this site is taking place under the oversight of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB 2013; BASELINE 2015). a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The drainage area in the project area is expected to be subject to regulation by USACE and RWQCB. Impacts to the drainage area would require authorization from the USACE Regional General Permit for small activities in the HCP/NCCP service area and a Water Quality Certification from RWQCB for any discharges. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. Municipal stormwater discharge in eastern Contra Costa County are regulated under the East Contra Costa County Municipal NPDES Permit, To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the project applicant must provide via electronic submittal, a Notice of Intent, a WPCP or SWPPP, and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. The Municipal Permit is overseen by RWQCB (BASELINE 2015). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 348 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 55 151184-01.02 The proposed project would be required to implement BMPs to control sediment and erosion during construction activities, as well as to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would include the preparation and implementation of an SWPPP. The proposed project would also need to comply with provision C.2.e of the Municipal Permit, which requires BMPs to control sediment and erosion during construction and maintenance of rural public works and requires bridge crossing design to include measures to reduce erosion and maintain natural stream geomorphology (BASELINE 2015). Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. 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 pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The proposed project would not affect groundwater supply; therefore, there would be no impact. 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? The proposed project would modify the existing Marsh Creek stream channel within the project area, including removal of the existing bridge abutments and construction of new abutments that are further apart to allow for a less constricted stream channel. The abutments would be designed following Caltrans standards to minimize the potential for erosion and minimize the potentials for siltation. The design would widen the currently incised channel around the existing bridge to allow for lower velocity flows during storm events. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. 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, o r substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? The existing bridge structure constricts the Marsh Creek channel, resulting in flood waters backing up and inundating the underside of the bridge. The new bridge structure would be constructed with a wider span between the abutments to allow more water to travel under the bridge during high flow events. The new bridge is expected to provide adequate freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and flood waters during a 100-year storm event (WRECO 2015). Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. 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 wider lanes and shoulders to be built as part of the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in impervious surface as compared to existing conditions. Following construction, use of the project site (as a bridge and roadway) would result in pollutant discharges from existing and new impervious surfaces similar to those under current conditions. Municipal Permit Provision C.2.e would require implementation of BMPs for erosion and sediment control during maintenance of the project, May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 349 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 56 151184-01.02 and Provision C.2.e (2)(g) requires that the bridge design use measures to reduce erosion. The proposed project is not subject to C.3 requirements because it is a road project that does not create any additional traffic lanes. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed project would not increase the vehicle capacity of Bridge 141. Pollutants generated from the proposed project are expected to be similar to those under current conditions. Appropriate authorizations related to water quality would be obtained from regulatory agencies prior to construction. The bridge would be constructed to current design standards and project construction would implement BMPs during construction to avoid adverse impacts to the drainage area. Therefore, project impacts 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? The proposed project would not construct any house within the 100-year floodplain; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? The existing bridge structure constricts the Marsh Creek channel, resulting in flood waters backing up and inundating the underside of the bridge. The new bridge structure would be constructed with a wider span between the abutments to allow more water to travel under the bridge during high flow events. The new bridge is expected to provide adequate freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and flood waters during a 100-year storm event (WRECO 2015). Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. 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 proposed project does not include the construction or modification of dams or levees; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. j) Would the project contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is located in the east-central part of the County and is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 350 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 57 151184-01.02 X. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project would not physically divide an established community; on the contrary, it would likely result in improved commuter accessibility to areas on either side of the bridge. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The Land Use Element of the County’s General Plan has zoned the project area for agriculture, and the proposed project would not result in the alteration of this land use designation. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan’s Transportation Circulation Element’s policies, including the following:  Policy #5-A: To provide a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system  Policy #5-9: Existing circulation facilities shall be improved and maintained by eliminating structural and geometric design deficiencies  Policy #5-17: The design and scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to safety over other factors including capacity Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. (c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project area is located within the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP inventory area and is a covered activity. Compliance with the HCP/NCCP is covered under the Biological Resources section. Because the project complies with the HCP/NCCP, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 351 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 58 151184-01.02 XI. Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Environmental Setting Mineral resources such as crushed rock and sand, among other resources, are important to the County because these resources support the construction of homes and a mix of other industries. The mineral industry and associated services provide significant employment in the County. The County has identified three distinct mineral resources areas: a clay deposit near the town of Port Costa, Domengine Sandstone in the eastern part of the County near Byron; and a Diabase gravel deposit north of Mt. Diablo near Clayton. Gravels from the Diabase deposits are used in road base as well as riprap for streambank protection. There are two active gravel mines within the Diabase gravel deposit approximately 5.5 miles to the west towards the town of Clayton (Contra Costa County 2005). a) Would the project 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? There are no mapped mineral resources or active mineral extractions activities within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. b) Would the project 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? There are no mapped mineral resources or active mineral extractions activities within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 352 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 59 151184-01.02 XII. Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the Project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Regulatory Background The effects of noise on humans is subjective but often includes annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction. Persistent and escalating noise levels can affect a person’s overall health and increase the chance for stress-related illnesses, high blood pressure, hearing loss, speech interference, sleep disruption, and lost productivity (USEPA 2010). The main contributors to a community noise problem are often transportation sources such as highways and railroads because they are the most pervasive and continual. Temporary noise sources such as a jackhammer or bulldozer at a construction site can also contribute to the noise problem. The severity of a noise problem can be analyzed based on the relationship between the noise source and the person or place exposed to the noise (sensitive receptor), as well as the distance and path the noise would travel from the noise source to the sensitive receptor. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to certain frequencies and sound pressure levels, several methods of expressing average noise levels over a period of time have been developed. Sound intensity (loudness) perceived by the human ear is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA) with a range of 0 (threshold of hearing) to 140 (threshold of pain); the higher the decibels, the greater the intensity. Exposure to high noise levels affects the human body, with prolonged exposure to 75 decibels (dB) or above increasing tension and thereby affecting blood pressure, heart function, and the nervous system; 85 dB or above resulting in physical damage to hearing; and 90 dB or above resulting in permanent cell damage. Prolonged exposure to 140 dB or above may cause a feeling of pain May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 353 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 60 151184-01.02 in the ear, and 190 dB or above would likely rupture the eardrum and permanently damage the inner ear. 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 from existing conditions; 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 (ICF International 2014). 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. Sound attenuation can also be affected by topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves, as well as atmospheric conditions (i.e., wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) and the presence of dense vegetation. Sound from multiple sources operating in the same area (i.e., pieces of equipment operating on a construction site) would result in a combined sound level that is greater than any individual source. 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. Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires that all city and county general plans include a noise element that identifies and provides mitigation for any existing and perceivable noise problems. The Noise Element of Contra Costa County’s General Plan follows the California Department of Health Services’ Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan, which defines noise metrics, discusses the process of noise element development, and presents land use compatibility guidelines based on various noise levels. Contra Costa County, however, does not have a noise ordinance and therefore does not specify construction or operational noise level limits. The General Plan’s standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is 60 dBA. However, based on the traffic noise contours depicted in the Noise Element, outdoor noise levels at existing residences along Marsh Creek Road were estimated to be greater than 60 dBA. Because the General Plan does not establish an allowable project-related operational noise increase for existing residences with ambient noise levels greater than 60 dB, this CEQA analysis will consider the project to have a significant operational noise impact if it would create a traffic noise increase of greater than 3 dBA over existing ambient noise levels because the threshold of perceptible change is generally considered to be 3 dBA (ICF International 2014). The Noise Element of the County’s General Plan specifies that 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. This CEQA analysis will consider the project to have a significant construction noise impact if it would create a temporary noise increase of greater than 10 dB over the existing ambient noise level due to construction-related activities following the implementation of the above noise control and administrative measures. An increase of 10 dB is generally perceived as doubling the sound level. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 354 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 61 151184-01.02 Environmental Setting Noise-sensitive receptors nearest to the project site include two residences and one commercial facility commonly used for weddings. Locations and distances from these receptors to the project site are provided in Table 6. Table 6 Nearby Receptors Sensitive to Noise Receptor Address Approximate Distance between Receptor and Existing Roadway Centerline/Potential Staging Area2 Shielding Existing condition between Receptor and Roadway Residence 1 12801Marsh Creek Road 199 feet (295 feet from northern staging area and 498 feet from southern staging area) Landscape trees and native trees Landscape trees and native trees Residence 2 12807 Marsh Creek Road 428 feet (540 feet from northern staging area and 737 feet from southern staging area) Landscape trees and native trees Landscape trees and native trees Commercial Facility 12510 Marsh Creek Road 550 feet (488 feet from northern staging area and 368 feet from southern staging area) Landscape trees and native trees Landscape trees, native trees, and a paved parking lot The proposed project is located in a rural, predominantly agricultural (grazing) area. As such, ambient noise levels are less than in a more urban environment, and primarily stem from vehicular traffic along Marsh Creek Road. Based on the traffic noise contours provided in the Noise Element of the County’s General Plan, the traffic noise level of Marsh Creek Road between Clayton and Deer Valley Road is estimated to be 65 dBA, which is within the typical hourly noise level range (60 to 65 dBA) for suburban arterial roadways (ICF International 2014). a) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? It is anticipated that the proposed project would use standard construction equipment, which includes but is not limited to: large rotary drilling machine, crane, excavator, tractor, backhoe, grader, dump truck, water trailer, compactor, skid steer, pick-up trucks, paver, hopper, and generator, no pile driving will occur. Table 7 summarizes the typical noise levels produced by construction equipment commonly used on road construction projects. 2 Distances reflect the increase in proximity from Residences 1 and 2 resulting from the bridge replacement and road realignment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 355 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 62 151184-01.02 Table 7 Typical Noise Levels of Road Construction Equipment Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet from source) Paver 89 Jackhammer 88 Truck 88 Concrete Mixer 85 Grader 85 Loader 85 Mobile Crane 83 Compactor 82 Excavator 81 Generator 81 Backhoe 80 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006. A reasonable worst-case construction noise level assumes that the two loudest pieces of equipment (paver and jackhammer) would operate concurrently throughout the day, which would result in a maximum value of 91.5 dBA. The project would remove approximately 6 riparian trees and 3 non-native woodland trees to the east of the bridge on the north side of the roadway. These trees provide some screening from noise due to their location near the stream. However, both residences are set back from the roadway approximately 90 to 120 feet and would retain landscape trees. The project would remove 2 non-native woodland trees to the south, but the majority of native and landscape trees would remain and continue to shield the commercial facility from noise. Construction activities are anticipated to be conducted in phases over the course of approximately two years, with construction work occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends. Compared to existing conditions, construction activities would not increase noise levels at the Commercial Facility (550 feet away) and would minimally increase noise levels at Residence 2 (from 65 dBA to 66 dBA, 428 feet away). Construction activities could substantially increase noise levels at Residence 1 (199 feet away) from 65 dBA to 84 dBA which would be considered a significant construction impact; however, due to the intermittent nature of construction, construction noise would likely remain considerably lower at Residence 1 most of the time. Additionally, implementation of the following equipment noise controls and administrative measures, as outlined in the project’s Noise Technical Memorandum, (Contra Costa County 2014) would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: 1. Use newer equipment with improved muffling and ensure that all equipment items have the manufacturers' recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment would generally be quieter in operation than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 356 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 63 151184-01.02 control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.). Stationary noise generating equipment would be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. 2. Turn off idling equipment. 3. The County would notify residents adjacent to the project site by letter prior to construction. The letter will include the hours of construction and the name and telephone number of the Resident Engineer who will be on-site and available to address residents’ concerns 4. The County would maintain good public relations with the community to minimize objections to the unavoidable construction impacts. Provide frequent activity updates of all construction activities. 5. The County would limit construction to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. No night work is anticipated for this project and work may be scheduled during weekends (with prior County approval). Weekend work as needed would be limited from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The bridge will not move closer in proximity to the commercial facility, potential project operational noise impacts could stem from moving the bridge and roadway alignment closer to Residences 1 and 2. Specifically, the bridge would move approximately 30 feet closer to Residence 1 and the roadway would move approximately 10 feet closer to Residence 2. However, due to the following considerations, operational noise impacts would be negligible:  No increase in vehicular traffic is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project.  The slightly closer proximity of the bridge or roadway to the residences would not result in a significant permanent increase in noise levels at the residences. Based on the Noise Element of the County’s General Plan, the current day-night average sound level 100 feet from the project site is estimated to be 65 dBA. Relocation of Residence 1 approximately 30 feet closer to the project site would result in a 2.82 dBA increase in noise, while relocation of Residence 2 approximately 10 feet closer would result in a 1.02 increase in noise. These increases are below the 3 dB fluctuation required to be perceived by the human ear, as well as the 3 dB increase assumed to result in a significant operational noise impact. For the above-noted reasons, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. (b) Would the project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Traffic traveling on roadways is rarely the source of perceptible ground borne vibration. Exceptions to this occur when there is a significant discontinuity in the roadway surface which can impart energy into the ground that can be perceived as ground-borne vibration. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to increase vehicular use of the bridge or corresponding roadway, and the road pavement would be smoother following construction, the proposed project would result in no impact on ground borne noise levels. Construction activities, on the other hand, may generate localized ground borne vibration at sensitive receptors, especially during the operation of high-impact equipment. Table 8 depicts vibration levels of proposed construction equipment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 357 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 64 151184-01.02 Table 8 Typical Vibration Levels of Proposed Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Level (VdB) at 25 feet3 Small Bulldozer 58 Jackhammer 79 Loaded Trucks 86 Large Bulldozer 87 Note: VdB = vibration level The proposed project would not use any pile driving equipment (which is a change from what was originally analyzed in the Noise Technical Memorandum; Contra Costa County 2014). Operation of the equipment listed above could result in nearby sensitive receptors experiencing vibration levels as high as 60 VdB at 199 feet (Residence 1), 50 VdB at 428 feet (Residence 2), and 47 VdB at 550 feet (Commercial Facility).4,5 As indicated by the FTA, “human response to vibration is not usually significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB” (FTA 2006). As such, it is likely that the nearby sensitive receptors would not perceive increased vibration levels during construction. Additionally, because construction would be temporary and localized, and would adhere to the equipment noise controls and administrative measures outlined in the project’s Noise Technical Memorandum (Contra Costa County 2014), the proposed project would result in no impact. (c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? As discussed in checklist item a), the location of the replacement bridge and road realignment could increase noise levels at nearby residences. However, these increases would be below the 3 dBA fluctuation required to be perceived by the human ear, as well as the 3 dBA increase assumed to result in a significant operational noise impact. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. (d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? As discussed in checklist item a), compared to existing conditions, construction activities would not increase noise levels at the Commercial Facility (550 feet away) and would minimally increase (less than 10 dBA) noise levels at Residence 2 (from 65 dBA to 66 dBA, 428 feet away). However, construction activities could substantially increase (more than 10 dBA) noise levels at Residence 1 (199 feet away) 3 The typical vibration levels of construction equipment at 25 feet are based on data provided in Table 12-2 of the FTA’s 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment and then converted to VdB using the FTA’s calculation of: VdB = 20 x log10(PPV/PPVref), where PPVref = 1 x 10-6 inches per second. 4 Per FTA guidance, the vibration levels of proposed construction equipment at other distances were calculated using the following equation: PPV at Distance D = PPV (at 25 feet) x ([25/D]1.5) and then converted to VdB using the FTA’s calculation of: VdB = 20 x log10(PPV/PPVref), where PPVref = 1 x 10-6 inches per second. 5 Distances reflect the increase in proximity from Residences 1 and 2 resulting from the bridge replacement and road realignment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 358 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 65 151184-01.02 from 65 dBA (existing ambient noise level) to 84 dBA. Due to the intermittent nature of construction, construction noise would likely remain considerably lower than this value at Residence 1 most of the time, and implementation of the equipment noise controls and administrative measures outlined in the project’s Noise Technical Memorandum (Contra Costa County 2014) would reduce impacts at Residence 1 to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. (e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? There is no public airport located within two miles of the project area. The nearest airports are located 13 miles from the project site: Buchanan Airport approximately 13 miles northwest, and Byron Airport approximately 13 miles southwest. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. (f) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? The project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 359 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 66 151184-01.02 XIII. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Environmental Setting Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that agencies should discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The discussion should also include the ways the project would remove obstacles to population growth. Increases in the population may put additional burden on community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. 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 proposed project does not propose new housing or businesses, but would improve the structurally deficient bridge that is a part of Marsh Creek Road. The proposed project would not increase the vehicle capacity of the bridge. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. b) Would the project displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project may necessitate the temporary or permanent acquisitions of right-of-way in order to accommodate the new alignment of the bridge. The following parcel acquisitions may require right of way acquisitions: 12801 Marsh Creek Road (APN 078230003); 12807 Marsh Creek Road (APN 078230002); 12410 Marsh Creek Road (APN 078180010); and 2103 Marsh Creek Road (APN 078180007). These acquisitions would not include existing residential structures or impair the continued use of existing residential structures. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 360 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 67 151184-01.02 c) Would the project displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would not displace or remove any individual residents or existing housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 361 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 68 151184-01.02 XIV. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a . 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities? Fire Protection. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District provides fire protection services and emergency services for the Marsh Creek Springs area (East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 2015). The proposed project would not increase demand for fire services nor impede existing service. Therefore, no new government facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. A temporary road would be maintained during construction, so access through the project area is not expected to be disrupted for more than short and intermittent periods. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. Police Protection. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department provides general public safety and law enforcement services in unincorporated areas, contract cities and special districts totaling 521 square miles (Contra Costa County 2015b). The proposed project would not increase demand for police services nor impede existing service. Therefore, no new government facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. A temporary road would be maintained during construction, so access through the project area is not expected to be disrupted for more than short and intermittent periods. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. Schools. The project area is serviced by the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD 2015). The proposed project would not increase demand for school services and thus no new government facilities May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 362 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 69 151184-01.02 or expansion of existing facilities would be required. The closest school is Mt. Diablo Middle School located in the City of Clayton approximately 4.5 miles west of the project area. Access to the school is from Marsh Creek Road. There are also no school bus routes through the project area (Contra Costa County 2013). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Parks. The project area is not located within or near a park; the nearest parks are the Mt. Diablo State Park and Clayton Ranch Open Space Preserve, both with lands approximately 1.7 miles to the west (Contra Costa County 2005). The constructed project would not increase demand for parks facilities or resources, therefore no new facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. As such, the proposed project would have no impact. Other Public Facilities. The Marsh Creek Detention Facility is operated by Contra Costa County and is located less than 1 mile west of the project area, off of Marsh Creek Road. The Marsh Creek Detention Facility is a minimum-security facility with a housing capacity of 256 inmates (Contra Costa County 2015b). The proposed project would not increase demand for detention facilities and thus no new government facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. A temporary road would be maintained during construction, so access through the project area is not expected to be disrupted for more than short and intermittent periods. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 363 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 70 151184-01.02 XV. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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 proposed project does not include new development that could increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities that could result in substantial physical deterioration of facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 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? For the same reasons as noted under checklist item a), the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 364 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 71 151184-01.02 XVI. Transportation/Traffic Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. 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, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Regulatory Background The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is a public agency formed to manage the County's transportation sales tax program and conduct countywide transportation planning. CCTA is responsible for maintaining and improving the County’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that connect the communities safely and efficiently including bicycle and pedestrian projects as described in the 2009 Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (CCTA 2009). In addition, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals and policies regarding Contra Costa County bikeways. Environmental Setting The existing bridge over Marsh Creek has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve safety May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 365 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 72 151184-01.02 on Marsh Creek Road by replacing the existing single-span bridge with a new single-span bridge that meets current design standards. The new bridge would be designed to meet current design standards (i.e., CCCPWD, Caltrans, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and would include wider shoulders and wider lanes. The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Construction would be sequenced in a manner to minimize traffic impacts during construction. Two phases of bridge construction are expected:  The first phase would partially construct the new bridge with traffic using the existing bridge.  The second phase shifts both directions of traffic onto the new bridge so the existing bridge can be demolished and the new bridge can be built to full width. During construction, the project is expected to accommodate one 12-foot-wide travel lane in each direction on Marsh Creek Road through the project site throughout construction, with short, infrequent periods of one lane traffic controls. Construction would take up to two seasons, likely starting in the summer of 2017 and finishing by the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and Federal approvals. Marsh Creek Road is a narrow, two-lane rural major collector road that is widely used by commuters as an alternate to the heavily congested State Route 4. The Average Daily Traffic on this portion of Marsh Creek Road is 6,129 vehicles. The road winds through a series of tight turns in rolling terrain, serving as a vital transportation link between Central and East Contra Costa County for passenger vehicles, heavy trucks, and vehicles with trailers. Marsh Creek Road is not used by transit, including school buses through the project area (Contra Costa County 2013). a) Would the project 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, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The proposed project would maintain traffic flow and safety during construction. Construction of the new bridge would be staged to accommodate two lanes of traffic throughout construction. During the first phase of construction, traffic would be routed to the existing bridge. During the second stage of construction, traffic would be routed to the new bridge structure. A temporary partial road closure may be required over a long weekend to complete the replacement of the culvert west of the project. Local access to the existing residential driveways would be maintained at all times. Construction activities should have minimal interference to detour traffic. Traffic stops along the detour road may occur to allow for heavy equipment moving in and out of the work zone. Speeds may be reduced to 25 miles per hour to promote safety in the construction. This reduction in speed could cause drivers to experience traffic delays exceeding 10 minutes. The County would ensure that at least one lane would remain accessible to the public at all times during construction of the proposed project and notice of the project's start date and times of construction would be posted in area publications. The proposed project would widen shoulders through the project area, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. This is consistent with local and regional plans to provide safe and convenient circulation and pedestrian facilities (Contra Costa County 2005; Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2009). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 366 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 73 151184-01.02 There are no existing designated bicycle facilities within the Marsh Creek Springs area at this time (Contra Costa County 2013). While the 2009 Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan shows Marsh Creek Road as a proposed route, they represent corridors and general connections (vs. specific suggested alignments) to link the western and eastern parts of the County. The widened shoulders would not be designated as a bicycle facility, but the improved shoulders would provide shared use of the road for bicyclists and motorists within the project area (Contra Costa County 2013). The proposed Project would improve safety by replacing a bridge that is structurally obsolete, widen existing shoulders, and straighten a sharp curve. Construction of the proposed project may disrupt traffic through the project area as speeds would be reduced to 25 miles per hour through the construction zone, and some delays up to 10 minutes may occur. These impacts would be temporary, localized and measures would be in place to minimize disruption as described above. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project 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? The project would not conflict with applicable congestion management programs. The proposed project would not increase the capacity or change traffic circulation along Marsh Creek Road. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. c) Would the project 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? The proposed project would result in no changes to air traffic patterns; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project area ranks high for accidents within Contra Costa County (Contra Costa County). As part of the proposed project, the curve in the road would be realigned to provide a straighter approach that is safer than existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have no impact. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Construction of the proposed project may disrupt traffic through the project area as speeds would be reduced to 25 miles per hour through the construction zone, and there may be delays up to 10 minutes for motorists. These impacts would be temporary. Traffic control measures would be in place to minimize disruption as described above. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? There are no existing or formalized public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities in the project area. Marsh Creek Road has been identified as a route for future bicycle facilities. The proposed project May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 367 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 74 151184-01.02 would not preclude the future development of such facilities. Therefore, the project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 368 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 75 151184-01.02 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e. 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Environmental Setting Drinking water in Marsh Creek Springs is provided by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD 2015). There is no sanitary or waste water utilities in the project area (Contra Costa County 2005). a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project would not require or result in the need for increased wastewater treatment. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 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 proposed project would not require or result in the need for increased water or wastewater services. Therefore, the project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 369 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 76 151184-01.02 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 construction would result in the relocation of existing roadside ditches. The existing roadside ditches would provide sufficient drainage for the completed project without additional expansion or construction of new facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 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? Due to the nature of the construction activities, there would be no need for water. The proposed project is not expected to affect any current entitlements or water supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 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 c ommitments? The proposed project would not require or result in the need for increased wastewater treatment services. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? The proposed project would not generate the need for a new solid waste facility. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be limited to construction debris, including asphalt and concrete. This material would be disposed of off-site over the short period of time it would be generated. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The contractor would dispose of solid waste generated from construction in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 370 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 77 151184-01.02 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on certain resources, some of which require mitigation. The potential impacts of the proposed project on fish, wildlife, and other biological resources are described in detail in Section IV of this document. The potential impacts of the proposed project cultural, historic, and archaeological resources are described in detail in Section V of this document. With implementation of mitigation measures AIR-1, BIO-1 and 3-10a/b, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on these resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on certain resources, some of which require mitigation. Within the broader context used to assess cumulative impacts, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would improve safety within the project area by replacing an old bridge with a new bridge that meets all May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 371 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 78 151184-01.02 current safety standards. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts as related to cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on certain resources that could affect human beings, some of which require mitigation. Specifically, the potential impacts of the proposed project air quality are described in detail in Section III of this document. With implementation of mitigation measure AIR-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. No other impacts that could affect human beings require mitigation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 372 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 79 151184-01.02 References Anchor QEA, 2015. Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project (Bridge 28C-0141) Farmland Assessment Memorandum. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works. Prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC. November 2015. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. Available from: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-ceqa- guidelines_final_may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 10, 2015. BAAQMD, 2013. Resolution No. 2013-11. Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy. Available from: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/climate-protection- program/climateresolution.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 10, 2015. BAAQMD, 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases Base Year: 2011. Available from: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/ BY2011_GHGSummary.ashx?la=en. Accessed December 10, 2015. BASELINE (BASELINE Environmental Consulting), 2014. Initial Site Assessment: Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department. April 11, 2014. BASELINE, 2015. Water Quality Assessment Technical Report. Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project. Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Prepared by BASELINE Environmental Consulting. Marsh 31, 2015. BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2007. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009. BLM, 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-011. Bryant, W.A., and Cluett, S.E., compilers, 2002. Fault number 53a, Greenville fault zone, Clayton section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website. Available from: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults. Accessed November 16, 2015. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2015. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2015 Edition. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed December 10, 2015. CalFire (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection), 2007. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 5, 2007. California Department of Conservation, 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. Available from: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed November 16, 2015. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 373 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 80 151184-01.02 CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Commercial Version dated February 3, 2012. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento. Accessed September 12, 2013. CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-10c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. CalTrans (California Department of Transportation), 2014. Historic Property Survey Report, Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University. Rohnert Park, California. Caltrans, 2015. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed November 11, 2015. Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Martinez, California. Contra Costa County, 2013. Memorandum: Traffic Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Hillary Heard, Public Works. Prepared for Tom Holstein California Department of Transportation. October 15, 2014. Contra Costa County, 2015a. City/County of Contra Costa Application Form and Planning Survey Report to Comply with and Receive Permit Coverage under the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. April 2015. Contra Costa County, 2015b. Contra Costa County Website. Available from: http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/. Accessed November 16, 2015. Contra Costa County, 2014. Noise Technical Memorandum. Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project (28C-0141). Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. October 2014. Contra Costa Transit Authority, 2009. Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Prepared for Contra Costa Transit Authority. Prepared by Fehr & Peers and Eisen- Letunic. October 2009. CCWD (Contract Costa Water District), 2015. Service Area Map. Available from: http://www.ccwater.com/. Accessed November 18, 2015. East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, 2015. Available from: http://www.eccfpd.org/. Accessed on November 11, 2015. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical report Y- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. Available from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Holland, R., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game. The Resources Agency. 156 pp. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 374 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works 81 151184-01.02 ICF International, 2014. Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impact, Byron Highway-Camino Diablo Intersection Improvements Project, Byron, Contra Costa County. November 2014. Jones & Stokes Associates, 1996. Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation of Biodiversity in Eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Administrative Draft. April 12. Sacramento, California. Prepared for the Alameda-Contra Costa Biodiversity Working Group, Martinez, California. Jones & Stokes Associates, 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. October. (J&S 01478.01.) http://www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/. San Jose, California. LSA Associates, 2015. Marsh Creek Road Replacement Project Historic Property Survey Report. March 2015. Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.), 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, California. Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.), 1999. Supplement of A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, California. MSUSD (Mt Diablo Unified School District), 2015. Mt. Diablo Unified School District website. Available from: http://www.mdusd.org/. Accessed November 16, 2015. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), 2015. Custom Soils Resource Report for Contra Costa County. November 11, 2015. RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley), 2013. Order R5-2013-0710, Cleanup and Abatement Order for Mount Diablo Mercury mine, Contra Costa County. Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. Stephenson, J. R., and G. M. Calcarone, 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) September 2008. Williams, D. F. 1986. Mammalian species of concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game Report 86-1. Sacramento, California. WRECO, 2015. Location Hydraulic Study Memorandum: Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement Project. Prepared for Contra Costa County. Prepared by WRECO. April, 2015. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 375 FIGURES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 376 Project LocationMMaarrsshhCCrreeeekkMARSHCREEKRD Figure 1 Project Site and Vicinity Map Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California 0 1,000 2,000 FeetQ:\Jobs\ContraCostaCounty_1184\Maps\2015_11\SiteandVicinity.mxd jsfox 11/20/2015 3:05:25 PM[ Project Area £¤101 §¨¦380 §¨¦980 §¨¦238 §¨¦780 §¨¦205 §¨¦280 §¨¦880 §¨¦80 §¨¦680 §¨¦580 §¨¦5 YoloYolo NapaNapaSonomaSonoma SacramentoSacramento MarinMarin SanSan JoaquinJoaquin SolanoSolano SolanoSolano ContraContra CostaCosta StanislausStanislaus AlamedaAlameda SanSan FranciscoFrancisco SanSan MateoMateo Santa ClaraSanta Clara May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 377 MARSH CREEKMARSH CREEK Figure 2 Site Features Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California0250500 Feet LEGEND Marsh Creek Existing Right-of-Way Proposed Bridge Staging Area Project Site Q:\Jobs\ContraCostaCounty_1184\Maps\2015_11\SiteFeatures.mxd jsfox 11/23/2015 7:09:29 AM[May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 378 MARSH CREEKMARSH CREEK Figure 3 Potential Impact to Contra Costa County Farmland Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California0250500 Feet LEGEND Marsh Creek Project Site Williamson Act Property Contra Costa County Parcels Grazing Land Farmland of Local Importance Other Land Q:\Jobs\ContraCostaCounty_1184\Maps\2015_11\Farmland.mxd jsfox 12/15/2015 10:54:22 AM[ Source:1. Marsh Creek, Parcels, and Williamson ActProperty from Contra Costa County GIS files.2. Farmland Classifications from CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 379 Figure 4a Land Cover Types and Impacts Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California N:\PROJECTS\Contra_Costa_County\Contra_Costa_On-call(151184-01.01)\Deliverables\Bridge 141 ISMND\Figures\Figure_X.docx May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 380 Figure 4b Land Cover Types and Impacts Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California N:\PROJECTS\Contra_Costa_County\Contra_Costa_On-call(151184-01.01)\Deliverables\Bridge 141 ISMND\Figures\Figure_X.docx May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 381 Figure 5 Sites on Regulatory Databases within 0.5 Mile of Project Site Marsh Creek Bridge 141 Replacement Contra Costa County, California N:\PROJECTS\Contra_Costa_County\Contra_Costa_On-call(151184-01.01)\Deliverables\Bridge 141 ISMND\Figures\Figure_4.docx May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 382 APPENDIX A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PLAN May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 383 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-1 151184-01.02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date III. AIR QUALITY Construction- Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-1: Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures The construction contractor will implement the following BAAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures for Project Construction Equipment measures to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions:  All off-road construction equipment will meet the following requirements: - All engines will meet or exceed USEPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or - All engines will be retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy device. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Disturbance to Sensitive Habitats and Trees MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: Habitat and Tree Protective Measures Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on disturbed areas or on ruderal or non - sensitive nonnative grassland land cover types, when these sites are available, to minimize risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive land cover types. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division No erodible materials will be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division All no-take species will be avoided. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 384 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-2 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance to HCP/NCCP Habitats and Trees Construction activities will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and will consider seasonal requirements for birds and migratory non-resident species, including covered species. During construction CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use sand bags or other approved methods that minimize in-stream impacts and effects on wildlife. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Silt fencing or other sediment trapping method will be installed down-gradient from construction activities to minimize the transport of sediment off site. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Barriers will be constructed to keep wildlife out of construction sites, as appropriate. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, best management practices, and HCP restrictions are implemented properly. During construction CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Active construction areas will be watered regularly to minimize the impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and wildlife habitats, if warranted. During construction CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Vegetation and debris must be managed in and near culverts and under and near bridges to ensure that entryways remain open and visible to wildlife and the passage through the culvert or under the bridge remains clear. During construction CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Cut-and-fill slopes will be revegetated with native, non-invasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. During construction CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 385 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-3 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-1: Disturbance to HCP/NCCP Habitats and Trees Per the NES, tree protection fencing will be used during the construction process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment located just outside of the construction site (avoided trees). The fencing will consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “T rail” fence posts and will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. The fencing will be installed before site preparation, construction activities or tree removal/trimming begins, and will be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. Prior to site preparation, construction activities, or tree removal/trimming begins Certified Arborist CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Per the NES, heavy machinery will not be allowed to operate or park within or around areas containing avoided trees. If it is necessary for heavy machinery to operate within the dripline of avoided trees, then a layer of mulch or pea gravel at least 4 inches deep will be placed on the ground beneath the dripline. A 0.75-inch sheet of plywood will be placed on top of the mulch. The plywood and mulch will reduce compaction of the soil within the dripline. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Per the NES, construction materials (e.g., gravel, aggregate, heavy equipment), project debris, and waste material will not be placed adjacent to or against the trunks of avoided trees. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Per the NES If the trimming of tree canopy is required to allow the movement of construction machinery, all branches to be removed will be pruned back to an appropriate sized lateral or to the trunk by following proper pruning guidelines. All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities Certified Arborist CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 386 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-4 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-3: Disturbance to Special-Status Birds During Construction MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: Migratory Bird Protective Measures To the extent feasible, vegetation removal activities shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 15 – August 31. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division If vegetation removal must occur during the breeding season, all sites shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division Preconstruction surveys will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the start of work from February 15 – August 31. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting birds, a buffer will be placed around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with CDFW, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 0.5 mile for golden eagle, 250 feet for raptors including white-tailed kite and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in an urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-4: Disturbance to California Red- legged Frog and Their Habitat MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: California Red-legged Frog Protective Measures A USFWS/CDFW–approved biologist will identify potential California red-legged frog breeding habitat (Section 6.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, Planning Surveys). If the project fills or surrounds suitable breeding habitat, the project proponent will notify USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity of Prior to construction or project-related activities USFWS/CDFW- approved Biologist CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 387 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-5 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-4: Disturbance to California Red- legged Frog and Their Habitat the presence and condition of potential breeding habitat, as described below. No preconstruction surveys are required. Written notification to USFWS, CDFW, and the Implementing Entity, including photos and habitat assessment, is required prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat. The project proponent will also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate California red-legged frog within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division There are no restrictions under the HCP/NCCP on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 388 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-6 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-5: Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Their Habitat MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: Payment of Development Fees There are no species-specific avoidance and minimization measures required under the HCP/NCCP beyond the general landscape-level avoidance and minimization measures. Impacts to western pond turtle and their habitat would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, totaling $83,217.82, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-6: Disturbance to Special-status Bats MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: Special-Status Bat Protective Measures All potential roost trees within the project site will be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified biologist. Survey may entail direct inspection of the trees or nocturnal surveys. Survey will be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of tree removal and ground disturbing activities. If no roosting sites are present, then trees will be removed within 2 weeks following the survey. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division If roosting habitat is present and occupied, then a qualified biologist will determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If it is determined that the bats are not a special-status species and that the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost using methods developed by a biologist who is experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 389 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-7 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-6: Disturbance to Special-status Bats If the bats are found to be pallid bats or the roost is being used as a maternity roost by any bat species, then a biologist who is experienced in bat mitigation and exclusion plans must prepare an eviction plan detailing the methods of excluding bats from the roost(s) and the methods to be used to secure the existing roost site(s) to prevent its reuse prior to removal. Removal of the roost(s) will only occur after the eviction plan has been approved by CDFW. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division Tree removal surrounding roost trees will be conducted without damaging the roost trees. During construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division No diesel or gas-powered equipment will be stored or operated directly beneath a roost site. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost will be limited to daylight hours. During construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division As an option, protocol-level surveys may be conducted the year prior to construction to rule out the presence of bat species in the project vicinity Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-7: Disturbance MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7: Ringtail Protective Measures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 390 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-8 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date to Ringtail BIO-7: Disturbance to Ringtail To ensure the avoidance of ringtail, a preconstruction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist of all potentially suitable den sites (i.e., tree hollows and logs) within the project site. Any occupied dens will be flagged, and the biologist will prepare a ringtail passive relocation plan subject to the approval of CDFW. The commencement of construction work will be delayed until one of the following has occurred: Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division  If the biologist has documented that ringtails have voluntarily vacated the den site, then construction may begin within 7 days following this observation. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division  If the den is not vacated within 20 observation days, then the biologist may commence passive relocation in accordance with the CDFW- approved relocation plan. No relocation shall be conducted during the early pup-rearing season of May 1 to June 15. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division  All activities that involve the ringtail shall be documented and reported to CDFW within 30 days of the activity. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-8: Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-8: San Joaquin Kit Fox Protective Measures Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys will establish presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 391 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-9 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-8: Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat guidelines. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On the parcel where the activity is proposed, biologist will survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will not be surveyed. Status of all dens will be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys will be submitted to USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the development footprint, the den will be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division Unoccupied dens will be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW will be notified immediately. The den will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated the den and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division If San Joaquin kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den will be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 392 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-10 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-8: Disturbance to San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgment of the biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities). If dens are identified in the survey area outside the disturbance footprint, exclusion zones around each den entrance or cluster of entrances will be demarcated. The configuration of exclusion zones should be circular, with a radius measured outward from the den entrance(s). No activities will occur within the exclusion zones. Exclusion zone radii for potential dens will be at least 50 feet and will be demarcated with four to five flagged stakes. Exclusion zone radii for known dens will be at least 100 feet and will be demarcated with staking and flagging that encircles each den or cluster of dens but does not prevent access to the den by kit fox. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-9: Disturbance to American Badger MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-9: Conduct Preconstruction Survey for American Badger If grading or construction will begin during the breeding season (March through August), a qualified biologist will conduct a survey of the grassland habitat to identify any badger burrows on the site. The survey will be conducted no sooner than two weeks prior to the start of construction. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division Impacts to active badger dens will be avoided by Prior to and during CCCPWD CCCPWD May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 393 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-11 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date establishing exclusion zones around all active dens, within which construction-related activities will be prohibited until denning is complete or the den is abandoned. construction or project-related activities Biologist, Environmental Services Division Environmental Services Division A qualified biologist will monitor each active den once per week in order to track its status and inform the CCCPWD of when a den area has been cleared for construction. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division BIO-10: Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-10a: Payment of Development Fees Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to habitats will be achieved through payment by CCCPWD development fees and wetland mitigation fees. The proposed project would provide a wetland mitigation fee of $41,659.62 for permanent impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats, and a wetland mitigation fee of $25,529.02 for temporary impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats. Specific to riparian habitat, fees will offset permanent impacts to 40 linear feet of stream and permanent impacts to riparian woodland as a result of the loss of 0.091 acre of riparian canopy. Additionally, the fee will offset temporary construction impacts to 249 linear feet of stream and 0.306 acre of riparian habitat. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Environmental Services Division, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-10b: Wetland, Pond and Stream Protective Measures Prior to the start of construction, all portions of the stream to be avoided by the project will be temporarily staked in the field by a qualified biologist. Prior to construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Biologist, Environmental Services Division CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Prior to the start of construction, construction Prior to CCCPWD CCCPWD Resident May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 394 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-12 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date BIO-10: Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities personnel will be trained by a qualified biologist on all required avoidance and minimization measures as well as permit requirements. construction or project-related activities Biologist, Environmental Services Division Engineer, Environmental Services Division Trash generated by the project will be promptly and properly removed from the site. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division No construction or maintenance vehicles will be refueled within 200 feet of the streams unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed and hazardous material absorbent pads are available in the event of a spill. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences) will be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into the stream. Filter fences and mesh will be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians. Erosion control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and to trap reptiles and amphibians. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Fiber rolls used for erosion control will be certified as free of noxious weed seed and will not contain plastics of any kind. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Seed mixtures applied for erosion control will not contain invasive nonnative species, and will be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species. Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division Herbicide will not be applied within 100 feet of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub; however, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved for use by USEPA in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used as long as label instructions are followed and applications Prior to and during construction or project-related activities CCCPWD Construction Contractor CCCPWD Resident Engineer, Environmental Services Division May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 395 Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-0141) December 2015 Contra Costa County Dept. of Public Works A-13 151184-01.02 Impact Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures Implementation Timing Implementation Responsibility Verification Responsibility Compliance Verification Date avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and their habitats. In seasonal or intermittent stream or wetland environments, appropriate herbicides may be applied during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species (e.g., yellow star - thistle). Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible. Notes: CCCPWD = Contra Costa County Public Works Department CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan NCCP = Natural Community Conservation Plan USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 396 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement 28C_0141\CEQA\Final CEQA\Bridge 141 NOD_2016.doc Form updated December 2014 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# 2016012058 Project Title: 0662-6R4079 and CP#15-39 Project Applicant: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Project Location: The project is located two miles east of Morgan Territory Road, located in the eastern area of Contra Costa County in the community of Clayton [Figures 1-2]. Project Description: The purpose of this project is to replace an existing bridge along Marsh Creek Road that carries traffic over Marsh Creek. The Project consists of bridge replacement; The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. The bridge deck would be widened to provide a width of approximately 43 feet, with 12- foot-wide travel lanes, 8-foot-wide shoulders, and an approximately 1.5-foot-wide concrete barrier on each side of the new bridge. The proposed bridge would be constructed of reinforced concrete on pre-cast and pre- stressed I-girders. The reinforced concrete bridge abutments would be supported by spread footings. The existing structure includes tall, reinforced concrete walls that restrict the flows of Marsh Creek under the bridge. These existing walls would be removed as part of the project to open up the channel where Marsh Creek flows under the bridge. The channel work would require that Marsh Creek be dewatered in accordance with regulatory permits. Dewatering would likely be accomplished using coffer dams according to methods acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Water would be routed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Along with replacing the bridge, the horizontal alignment of Marsh Creek Road would be shifted north on a parallel alignment to accommodate the wider bridge structure, and earthwork would be required along both sides of the existing roadway. In order to meet the hydraulic design standards, the vertical profile of the bridge would be slightly raised. The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Staging of construction materials and equipment would occur in two potential locations north and south of the road in the center of the project site (Figure 2). The northern staging area would occur within an undeveloped vegetated area, and the southern staging would occur entirely within paved parking areas. Standard construction equipment would be used for constructing the proposed project, including but not limited to: excavators, graders, scrapers, loaders, sweepers/scrubbers, plate compactors, rollers, backhoes, and pavers. The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Construction would be sequenced in a manner to minimize traffic impacts during construction. Two phases of bridge construction are expected: The first phase would partially construct the new bridge with traffic using the existing bridge; The second phase shifts both directions of traffic onto the new bridge so the existing bridge can be demolished and the new bridge can be built to full width. During construction, the project is expected to accommodate one 12- foot-wide travel lane in each direction on Marsh Creek Road through the project site throughout construction, with short, infrequent periods of one lane traffic controls. Construction would take up to two seasons, likely starting in the summer of 2017 and finishing by the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and Federal approvals. Utility relocation and right-of-way transaction will be necessary in support of the project. Tree and shrubbery removal and trimming will be necessary, in order to minimize damage to trees, any roots exposed during construction activities will be clean cut and tree branches will be trimmed. 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 Mitigated 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. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 397 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. G:\engsvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement 28C_0141\CEQA\Final CEQA\Bridge 141 NOD_2016.doc Form updated December 2014 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, or the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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 - $3,070.00 Total Due: $ 2,285.25 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $2,210.25 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: Hillary Heard County Clerk - $50 Receipt #: Environmental Services Division Conservation & Development - $25 Phone: (925) 313-2022 *Notice of Determination may be sent by fax to (916) 323-3018, if followed up with a duplicate mailed copy. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 398 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 399 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 1 Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. How will this water be re-routed around the construction site? The cofferdam method(s) considered “acceptable to CDFW” needs to be described in sufficient detail to correctly determine if locally significant impacts to the biological community. This community exists year round due to inflow from underground spring, located within 100' north of existing bridge. Biological study conducted on August 30, 2013, didn’t make note of the upstream dry, but down stream had water flow. Commenter notes that most of the dewatering zone in the downstream (north direction) is outside of the county right-away; therefore encroaching (on order of 150- ft) into the property of private residence (12801) adjacent to the project. As discussed in the project description, water within the creek would be rerouted using cofferdams. The specifics regarding dewatering will be determined during the permitting phase of the project; however, minimum components of the dewatering system will include an upstream and downstream cofferdam to isolate the work area, as well as a silt filtering area for work area water to be treated prior to release. Cofferdams would be made of clean materials and creek flows would be allowed to bypass the work area at all times (no water impoundment would occur). The cofferdam method was adequately assessed in the analysis presented in the IS/MND. A hydrogeologic analysis of Marsh Creek in the area of the bridge was performed to investigate the source of the water feeding a pool within the creek downstream of the work area and right of way. General mineral, boron, and specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring; however, given elevated base flow volume, results are not sufficiently discriminating to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. Subsequent field verification will be conducted during lower (spring or summer) flows to determine whether additional consideration is necessary to accommodate groundwater flow. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments for additional detail regarding these possible accommodations. A copy of the hydrogeologic report is attached. The existence of a possible spring and presence of a pool downstream of the project area does not change the impact determinations in the IS/MND. As noted in the project description, construction may require right of way or temporary construction easements from several adjacent parcels. No permanent land acquisitions are anticipated to be needed. 2 The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). According to the NES (Natural Environmental Study, March 2015) only 800’ on both sides of the bridge will be needed. Please explain this 100’ of discrepancy. As discussed in the IS/MND, the Natural Environment Study (NES) is one of a number of studies developed and used during project impact analysis and design. The project design has been refined based on additional considerations. Approximately 900 feet of the road requires reconstruction or overlay/widening. 3 The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. What is the alternative plan if the right-of-way or temporary easements are not agreed upon? The County's Real Estate Division will follow the appropriate industry standards and procedures to obtain necessary property rights. 4 The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The recommendation is based on the following: There is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to 15063 (b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. “Significant effect” on the environment will definitely be a factor. Removal of 36 trees, several bushes/ shrubs and personal landscape. Change to the entire scenic environment. Not to mention the wildlife habitat not taken into study for the nocturnal wildlife. The findings presented in the IS/MND are correct as reported. The IS/MND used the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as well as established and applicable CEQA thresholds, to determine impact findings. Responses to comments regarding specific findings are addressed and conclusions are substantiated throughout this matrix. Based on further analysis of the project design relative to trees along the north side of the roadway, it has been determined that 11 trees along the north side of the bridge that were identified as being removed will now be retained. A final tree removal plan is underway and will be provided to commenter as soon as it is available. 5 This conclusion is rebuttable. Evidence provided in following sections in many cases do not provide sufficient evidence/analyses to support this document statement. Comments addressing specific items are presented in the following section. The findings and significance conclusions presented in the IS/MND are correct as reported. This comment is addressed (and conclusion substantiated) through specific responses provided throughout this matrix. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 400 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 6 Does It appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? Please explain question 3. “No” has been marked and this There is significant public concern. SAFETY Two residence families will be directly impacted, they are part of the public. Please see discussions presented in the IS/MND impact analyses. No significant impacts were identified using established CEQA guidelines and thresholds. Please see the responses to comments 22, 36, 82, 93, and 97. 7 The existing bridge has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. Please reconcile this statement with the public record “Caltrans Bridge inspection maintenance report(CSMIR) “Dated July 2015, page 90, 4th item identified as Bridge # 28C0141. Column “SD/FO” rates this bridge as “FO” NOT “SD” The rating has changed since the County originally applied for federal funds in August 2010. The application in 2010 used the inspection dated 8/26/2008, which defined the bridge as structurally deficient. The most recent bridge inspection report, dated 7/24/14, defines the bridge as functionally obsolete. 8 The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. Please confirm that ENTIRE project description is accurate. For instance retaining walls on 65% plans are different from this description. The project description as presented in the IS/MND is accurate with exceptions discussed in responses to comments 28 and 31. These changes do not affect the findings of the IS/MND. Specific to the comment on the retaining wall, that change (as described in the IS/MND) was made to avoid impacts on private property and lessen the need for property acquisitions. 9 Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right of way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Please clarify the parcels involved in this acquisition of right-of-way whether temporary or permanent; and alternate plan if these acquisitions are not obtained. Please see page 66 of the IS/MND (Population and Housing, item B) for a list of parcel numbers requiring temporary construction easements. Please see the response to comment 3 regarding the easement process. 10 Overhead electric, phone, and cable lines cross the creek along the south side of the road. An underground water line is attached to the downstream (north) side of the bridge. The overhead electric line poles and the water line attached to the existing bridge will be relocated. Who pays for these utilities to be relocated? Who will be reimbursing the private residence adjacent to the project for the install and all cost of the existing fire hydrant mandated by the county for fire protection because of a house fire? Hydrant is ““Blue Collared”- For Fire use only” not construction, rehabilitation, or relocation of bridge/roadway. Per agreements for operating in the County right of way, utility companies will pay for the necessary relocations to accommodate the project, including all costs to relocate the fire hydrant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 401 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 11 The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(l )(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are authorized incidental take of HCP/NCCP-covered special status species subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. Please quantify what the “incidental take” is expected, with respect to the local habitat destruction/wildlife killed or displaced that will result from the project as planned. As described in the IS/MND and the HCP/NCCP Planning Survey Report (PSR), "incidental take" refers specifically to impacts on special status species. Habitat avoidance and minimization measures, listed as mitigation measures in the Biological Resources section, are built into the project to be consistent with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). 12 Provide specific citation of what HCP/NCCP actually allows, authority/jurisdiction for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to authorize special species take on private property without specific permits from CDFW, compensation to property owners for said takings, and fees paid to a government agency will compensate for wiping out a year round creek channel population/habitat primarily located on private property. The HCP/NCCP is a Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit as long as appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are followed and appropriate fees are paid. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are signatory agencies to the HCP/NCCP. As noted in the IS/MND, the County fully intends to implement appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and pay all required fees to obtain take coverage for HCP/NCCP-covered species that may be impacted as a result of project construction. Impacts to Marsh Creek are addressed in subsequent responses. Please see the responses to comments 55 and 66 regarding compensation. 13 Please clarify where this document describes mitigation measures for this impact on private property. The wildlife of the state is under the jurisdiction of the California Fish and Game Code and is regulated by both CDFW and USFWS (where species are federally listed). Waters of the state and waters of the U.S. are under the jurisdiction of the state and federal government and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). These are public resources and will be protected as such under relevant laws and regulations. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) outlines all mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. 14 The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Residents of 12801 were first notified of this project in mid- October 2015 by letter informing them of the need to relocate their driveway due the project defined in its current scope. Residents contend that delaying formal description of all local agencies effectively precluded sufficient time to perform fact finding, seek professional opinions, and prepare more specifically directed comments pertaining to regulatory agency authority. The CEQA Guidelines allow for 30 days for public review and comment. The County has followed these guidelines for notification. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 402 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 15 A drainage ditch and a perennial stream channel are in the project area. There would be temporary and permanent impacts to these resources during construction. Please explain what specific impacts to the stream are, both temporary and permanent impacts to these resources. There is a significant possibility of permanent impact from disruption of natural springs in the creek adjacent to the existing bridge. Commenter notes that NES failed to identify groundwater source of perennial wetland downstream of bridge, and significance of this water source not only locally, but in the surrounding region. This information needs further study and professional evaluation relative to its potential significant impact on the environment. Commenter contends this is another issue warranting preparation of a full EIR, not a mitigated Negative Declaration. Areas of temporary and permanent impacts (broken down by habitat type in accordance with the HCP/NCCP) to Marsh Creek are presented in the IS/MND and PSR. As discussed in the IS/MND, the County will mitigate for permanent and temporary impacts to the stream in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for significant impacts that cannot be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. All of the proposed project’s adverse impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with appropriate mitigation. Qualified staff from Balance Hydrologics have conducted field reconnaissance, collected site and surrounding area samples, and analyzed these data in an effort to characterize the source of the summer water in the channel and to determine whether bridge construction would have any lasting impact on the pool downstream of the bridge. A detailed discussion of the results of the study is included in the responses to comments 67 and 75. 16 As noted above, a drainage ditch and seasonal wetland adjoin the project area, and would sustain minimal temporary impacts during construction. Characterization of adjacent wetland as “seasonal” is not correct. Commenter has supplied information regarding natural spring activity which sustains a year round wetland just north of the present bridge. As such, this wetland will sustain major damage from construction activities (especially dewatering) and likely permanent damage from disruption of the groundwater source sustaining the wetlands. Comment noted. The text is incorrect as written; there is not a seasonal wetland in the project area. The text should indicate that a drainage ditch and perennial stream (Marsh Creek) are within the project area. Stream impacts due to bridge construction including dewatering are included in the calculations of the HCP/NCCP impact fees. Please see the responses to comments 67 and 75 for further discussion. 17 See previous comment-conclusion that impacts are minimal and temporary are inconsistent with actual site conditions present at the project site Please see the responses to comments 15 and 16. 18 Therefore, a waiver certification will be requested from the State Water Resources Control Board. Commenter notes that active construction will be occurring over two seasons and portions of the work are actually within the creek bed. The tributary watershed at this proposed project is over 23 square miles. Special measures are needed to protect the downstream creek features as well as disturbed areas within the construction. Given these issues, commenter notes that waiver may not be appropriate for disturbed areas within the creek and adjacent areas that may be subject to erosion/sedimentation from seasonal stream flows. Comment noted. The County will present the project details to the Water Board and follow the appropriate procedures to obtain either an erosivity waiver or permit coverage. Regardless of whether the project qualifies for an erosivity waiver, appropriate best management practices will be implemented to ensure the potential for erosion and sedimentation is addressed. 19 Therefore, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement will be obtained from CDFW for the proposed project. Whom will be obtaining this agreement and how will it be monitored, and how often? The County will obtain a permit from CDFW and comply with permit conditions. 20 Commenter requests status of consulation to date and concrens/input provided by CDFW revelent to present scope. If, not performed, provide written statement why this was not considered necessary in reaching conclusions expressed in this document. Commenter contends this communication would be material to conclusions expressed in this document and recommendation for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration A permit application to CDFW is not considered complete by that agency until the CEQA process is complete. The County will obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and comply with permit conditions. No advance consultation regarding wildlife is warranted or necessary given that the project is covered by the HCP/NCCP and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts are pre- determined by the HCP/NCCP. 21 The proposed project will comply with all provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. This statement needs to address each specific provision of the fish and game code explicitly; explaining how the proposed project will be in compliance and whether the measures proposed have obtained concurring opinion of CDFW prior to formally certifying this document The CEQA process must be completed in order for CDFW to consider the permit application for the project complete. Compliance with the California Fish and Game Code will be determined by CDFW during the permitting phase of the project. Please also refer to the responses to comments 12 and 20. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 403 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 22 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Commenter contends that factual information pertaining to environmental conditions available or readily obtainable with due diligence was not considered in making this determination. Further review of factual information, especially relative to the permanent wetland immediately to the north of existing bridge is expected to show that there will be a significant impact to the environment and that an EIR would be required as CURRENTLY PROPOSED. Information relating to pre-design feasibility studies conducted by project proponent and reviewed by commenter suggest that a design for bridge replacement essentially in-situ using a southerly alignment shift to gain additional lane and shoulder width be reconsidered. Flood study could be re- evaluated for a lower frequency (50 year recurrance period) which should allow deck elevation be lowered and reduce length of roadway grade and geometry changes. Design speed could be revised downward to be consistent with adjacent roadway conditions and in consideration of long term plan for the portion of Marsh Creek Road system within Mt. Diablo foothill zone. Per the response to comment 15, and as discussed in the response to previous and subsequent comments, an EIR is not required for the project, as no significant impacts were identified. The County has selected a design for the new bridge that maximizes public safety while minimizing private harm. The alignment that was ultimately chosen for the new road/bridge was the result of a detailed alternatives analysis that considered many factors including cost, design speed, safety, constructability, environmental impacts, right of way impacts, staging, and traffic handling. The selected bridge alignment best meets the relevant requirements. The design speed is different from the speed limit; it incorporates a buffer to ensure that safety is maintained. The County has analyzed reducing the design speed and has determined that it is inappropriate to do so due to the road classification, average daily traffic, and the posted speed of the road. County policy is to design improvements on roadways with a safety factor or buffer (from 5 to 10 mph) to the posted speed. Because Marsh Creek Road is currently posted at 45 mph, the appropriate design speed for improvements is a minimum of 50 mph in accordance with County policy. 23 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Mitigation possible by alignment redesign to avoid destroying most of habitat on North side of existing bridge; otherwise commenter contends this is a potentially significant impact. The County has selected the bridge alignment that meets relevant requirements and project goals. Alternative alignments are not feasible due to additional cost, reduced design speed, reduced safety, and more difficult construction methods. Using CEQA guidelines, the aesthetics analysis assesses potential impacts to scenic vistas. As noted in the IS/MND, the project will result in impacts to trees; however, it will not result in impacts to scenic ridges, hillsides, or rock outcroppings, which are the noted scenic vistas in the County. Further, CEQA case law has established that public views, not private views, require analysis under CEQA. Case law has noted that the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, rather than particular persons. The Marsh Creek Road alignment is dominated by oak savanna, oak woodland, scrub, and native grasslands. After construction, the scenic environment would not be significantly changed. 24 Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? Commenter contends that damage will occur to habitat noted above unless redesign to move alignment away from north side is implemented as mitigation. Please see the response to comment 23. Marsh Creek is not designated or eligible as a State Scenic Highway. Please see the response to comment 4 regarding refinement (reduction) of the project’s tree impacts. 25 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Commentor notes same concern as previous comments-Removal of most trees (approx. 36+ of aprox 46 trees along north side of bridge) will signifantly degrade view; both to motorists and to 12801 MCR residents. As noted in the response to comment 23, the CEQA Guidelines require assessment of a project's impacts on the broad environment, not a specific view from a specific residence. The Marsh Creek Road alignment is dominated by oak savanna, oak woodland, scrub, and native grasslands. After construction, the visual character and surrounding scenic environment would not be significantly changed. As noted in the response to comment 4, design plans have been refined since the IS/MND was published. Based on this refinement, 11 trees along the north side of the bridge that were identified as being removed will now be retained. A final tree removal plan will be provided to the commenter as soon as it is available. 26 Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Please explain how the Aesthetics to the scenic rual backdrop of the area at the project is not substantially impacted when all of the mature vegetation is going to be removed within project area? Although bridge construction will require removal of some mature vegetation, removal of several trees in the vicinity of the bridge will not remove all of the mature vegetation in the project area, nor will it significantly change the visual character and surrounding scenic environment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 404 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 27 There are no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important visual resources within the project area as reported in the technical studies prepared for this project (LSA Associates 2015; Contra Costa County 2015a). This conclusion is rebuttable. Commenter contends that large number of trees adjacent to bridge materialy contribute to the rural character within the project area-they provide visual screening of the residence at 12801 MCR and promote visual asthetics which will mitigate the visual impact of a modern highway character that the project creates. Mitigation by bridge realignment and grade lowering would significantly mitigate visual impacts. Please respond. Please see the responses to comments 22, 23, 25, and 26. 28 The new bridge and bridge approaches would remain at existing elevations; therefore, existing views to and from the bridge would not be substantially altered. Statement is inconsistent with 65% design drawings. Drawings show a variable and minimum 2-foot increase in bridge deck elevation from existing structure. Following sentence is therefor rebuttable; please provide justification for conclusion BASED ON ACTUAL project design or revise accordingly Comment noted. The new bridge would be 1 to 2.5 feet higher and roadway approaches would be a maximum of 2.5 to 4 feet higher than existing elevations. While the elevations are changing from existing conditions (as the commenter notes), they are not changing to an extent that would significantly affect public views in general. 29 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. Please explain how the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the scenic vista when the vegetation including mature trees will be removed from 99% of one side of the road. Only 1 tree is marked for removal from the opposing side of the project road way. (Removes viewscreen/sound buffer from Residence 1. It will take many years for revegetation to equivalent of what is there now) Please see the responses to comments 23, 25, and 26. 30 There are also no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important scenic resources within the project area Previous comments earlier indicated existence of a year-round biological community which includes protected species in the creekbed. Natural springs feed this community and support the trees shading the area The trees are a substantial indication of a healthy riparian community which materially contributes to the scenic vista in immediate project area. Comment noted. The site providing biological value does not result in these resources being considered scenic. Please see the responses to comments 23 and 25. 31 The vertical alignment of the new bridge is not expected to change from that of the existing bridge, so the proposed project would not change the perspective of existing views. The vertical alignment will be changed significantly (2 to 2.5-ft) and the roadway deck would be superelevated to conform to a horizontal curve according to the 65% plans.See previous comments Widening the bridge from 32’ to 47’. (15’ increase) The sun has a substantial effect on the drivers (eastbound drivers face direct sunlight shortly after sunrise; westbound traffic face same direct light situation now. Proposed project removal of trees adjacent on north side will make morning direct sunlight exposure significantly worse. Add realignment proposed will direct headlights into 12801 residence are. Comment noted. The vertical alignment will be changed as discussed in response to comment 28, and the roadway deck will be superelevated to conform to a horizontal curve as noted in the 65% plans. The bridge would be widened to 43 feet as noted and analyzed in the IS/MND. These changes to the bridge alignment and width are not to an extent that would significantly affect the views of the public in general. The project does not involve the installation of any new sources of light or glare. Any incremental increase in the amount of sunlight hitting a driver’s eyes as a result of tree removal would be a negligible impact relative to driving throughout the remainder of Marsh Creek Road; therefore, no changes are required. 32 However, the width of the bridge would increase in size from 30.5 to 47 feet in width. Suggest checking and revising stated dimensions to conform to project plans Comment noted. The proposed width of the bridge is 43 feet, not 47 feet. The dimensions were refined as the design of the bridge has been finalized. 33 Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact related to light and glare. Commenter contends this conclusion is rebuttable. Need to consider effect on commuting motorists from additional loss of vegetation screening direct sunlight. Please see the response to comment 31. 34 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Removal of 36 trees in an area of approximately 20” by 80 feet (1600 SF) constitutes loss of forest land. Can be Mitigated by revising project alignment design The project area (including these trees) is not classified as forest land, therefore, no changes are required. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 405 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 35 The proposed project may also result in the need for CCCPWD to acquire a small portion of grazing land along the north side of the roadway just west of the bridge crossing for staging and permanent right of way acquisition. Commenter understand from verbal communication with Neil Leary on 2/16/16 that permanent right of way acquisition no longer required due to design decision to build wall to retain roadway embankment. Commenter notes redesign to move roadway south would likely eliminate the requirement to build wall. Comment noted. 36 The right-of-way acquisition would be needed in order to straighten out the existing curve that is considered a safety hazard. Parcel number is needed for exact location. “Stating that the existing curve is considered a safety hazard.” Please provide evidence documenting severity the safety issue to this existing curve. There hasn’t been an vehicle accident on this curve in over 46 years. Safety hazard to the residences of the said land has not been taken into consideration. Moving their entrance/exit to residence has been moved closer to the curve that will have a higher design speed and less reaction time visual distance. The design as currently depicted doesn’t provide any additional shoulder width (over 8’ provided) to provide transition onto roadway allowing resident/guest to get some speed before entering traffic lanes. Comment noted. The existing curve does not meet the County's current design speed standards. The project would improve the curve to a higher factor of safety to meet design speed requirements. The County has evaluated the new driveway location. Because the existing fence is being removed and the curve is being straightened, the new driveway location would have better sight distance than existing conditions. The paved shoulder at the new driveway will be significantly wider than the existing condition (8 feet vs. less than 1 foot in width), allowing for increased all weather use in ingress and egress of the new driveway. The existing condition does provide a large unpaved gravel shoulder that is used for ingress and egress of the property off the main road. County engineering will coordinate with the property owner on the appropriate flaring of the new driveway conform off the paved shoulder for ingress/egress. County engineering will also coordinate with the owner on the final location of the driveway. 37 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Item d. is significant to the resident within 200’ of the project and staging area for construction equipment. They are both Senior Citizens ( late 70’s and 80 years of age). With respect to dust and emission from construction equipment. Air quality will be substantially impacted. The finding is correct as reported in Section D of the IS/MND. As discussed in the IS/MND, the analysis used toxic air contaminant (TAC) thresholds developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and considered the receptors identified in this comment in completing this analysis. These thresholds are developed to be protective of sensitive receptors, including the elderly. 38 All engines will meet or·exceed lJSllPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or Tier 4 engined equipment-Readily available Emission level will be even lower than recommendation described. The commenter is correct; Tier 4 equipment would reduce emissions further than reported. As stated in the IS/MND, the project will require at least Tier 3 emission standards. Tier 4 off-road equipment is not uniformly available for all equipment, as it is still in the process of being phased in through the regulatory process. Requiring at least Tier 3 equipment ensures emissions will be below thresholds. 39 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Requirement should be modified to include, and additionally water as frequently to suppress all visible dust. As noted in the IS/MND, the dust control measures will be consistent with the BAAQMD requirements. Watering will be employed during high levels of dust. 40 Where is the source of water coming from? Should there be more watering for dust control? Safety of the drivers on the road, residences in area. The water would come from a water truck, which would use water from municipal sources. Watering will be employed during high levels of dust. 41 Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. This is irrelevant. Consider removing. Comment noted. The project does not involve use of building pads. 42 A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 48 hours is too long to respond to persons residing there and NOT ACCEPTABLE for dust issue at adjacent residences. Response should be within 1 hour during active work hours and 4 hours for events occurring outside working hours The County will follow BAAQMD guidelines as noted in the IS/MND. 43 Is this 48 hours based on working hours or continuous hours from time of complaint. Dust monitors need to be located at both residences to the northeast of the project. They are within the distance being affected. A response will be made within 48 continuous hours from the time of complaint. The regulations do not dictate that nearby residences have dust monitors, and, because dust levels are below applicable thresholds, dust monitors are not warranted. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 406 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 44 Since the proposed project would replace an existing substandard bridge with a new one with the same carrying capacity and meeting all current safety standards, it would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would have a less than significant effect on traffic flow locally and regionally. Thus, the proposed project's operational ambient CO impacts would be less than significant. There would be a direct operational impact to the traffic during commute times, as hours of construction have been set for 7am -7pm and weekends with approval. As well as to the locals that live in the area. Temporary construction-related impacts on traffic are discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of the IS/MND. Two lanes of traffic would be maintained at all times during construction. Any delays associated with construction would occur for short periods (approximately 10 minutes). These delays would occur outside of peak commute hours. The finding reported in Section B is correct, and is related to operational impacts following construction. 45 Table 3: Construction Criteria Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Prior to Mitigation There is significant health impact to residents at 12801, as previously stated for toxic air contaminant impact. Please see the response to comment 37. As noted in Table 4, mitigation to be implemented as part of the project will reduce the impact to below applicable thresholds. 46 The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; included as Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, the parties that will be responsible for ensuring implementation of these measures, and implementation of the measures will be verified. Who will be responsible for ensuring that County effectively implements these measures? Need to identify. How often and how long will they be at job site? Where will real time air monitoring devices be placed in order for proper measures to be verified? The resident engineer or inspector will ensure that the air quality mitigation measures are met. Please refer to the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP). The resident engineer will be on-site continuously. No real-time air monitoring is required or warranted as impacts will be less than significant. 47 With only one existing residential receptor within 200 feet of the bridge site, substantial on-going odor impacts of the 7-month construction period would be unlikely. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. There are no odors now. Any odor would be an impact and would be significant. What is the plan for odors that may happen from this project? How will the resident within 200’ be accomodated? Comment noted. As noted in the IS/MND, objectionable odors are not expected. Any objectionable odors should be reported to the resident engineer or inspector and will be addressed accordingly. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 407 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 48 Summary Questions A through F Commenter disagrees with determinations a., b., c. and d., and contends that impacts are potentially significant. Commenter notes that Project Proponent (CCCty Public Works) is part of the same political entity (Contra Costa County) which is charged with ensuring that project environmental process complying with CEQA. How is public to be assured that these conclusions are impartial? The is no independent entity outside County Control to be accountable for the assertion/conclusions made in this document. The County would be responsible for additional costs associated with substantial work undertaken to revise and/or augment work already performed. This biological resources section is based on limited “eyeballs on” field survey work performed by biological consultant. (Natural Environmental Survey, prepares for Caltrans and dated March 2015. ) Wildlife (fauna) survey was performed on a single date (8/30/13). The report did not provide any description of the planned scope of the field work the consultant was committing to follow. (multiple visits, dusk or dawn observations, etc.- these would be expected for a consultant to define in a business proposal to the client.). Commenter requested field records of this activity to determine how much effort was contemplated/contracted for; this is material to supporting conclusions of less than significant impact vs. a potentially significant impact. Commenter noted that Section 2.5 provided caveat that conclusions were based on data collected on site “at the time of the site visit”. There is no certification or statement in this document holding the preparers professionally accountable for their work. Please respond with description of EIR process features and procedural controls that assure transparency and accountability of proponent for accuracy/justification of conclusions presented. The project falls within the HCP/NCCP Service Area and is a covered project (Bridge Replacement, Repair, Retrofit). Under the HCP/NCCP framework, presence of HCP/NCCP-covered species is assumed where habitat for these species occurs. In compliance with the HCP/NCCP, several qualified biologists conducted species-specific planning surveys on 8/30/13, and botanists conducted surveys on 4/16/13, 6/7/13, 8/30/13, and 3/21/14. The protocol for all biological surveys is provided in the HCP/NCCP and summarized in the PSR. The likelihood for HCP/NCCP covered species to occur in the project area was conservatively based on presence of suitable habitat. Habitat conditions within the survey area have not changed since surveys were conducted; therefore, the results remain representative of existing conditions. The HCP/NCCP is a Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit as long as appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are followed and appropriate HCP/NCCP fees are paid. CDFW and USFWS are signatory agencies to the HCP/NCCP. As noted in the IS/MND, the County fully intends to implement appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and pay all required fees to obtain take coverage for HCP/NCCP-covered species that may be impacted as a result of project construction, as well as to comply with all regulatory permits obtained for the project. As presented in the IS/MND, potentially significant impacts would be sufficiently mitigated through implementation of the applicable avoidance and minimization measures, including preconstruction surveys identified in the biological studies and IS/MND, and through payment of more than $82,000 in mitigation fees to the Habitat Conservancy. Therefore, no changes to the impact findings are required. 49 Special Status Wildlife Species Consideration and not noted or scene because they are either nocturnal or out of the study focus times, are the following: Hawks – red tail, Coober socks Shark Shin Bats – Pallid Big Eared Owls –Screech Great Horned Ducks -Mallard (nesting pair) Quail – Nest in the blackberry bushes set for removal Deer – bring their fawns for water and grazing grasses Comment noted. Under the HCP/NCCP framework, planning surveys are intended to identify presence of habitat and are not required to be conducted at any particular time of day nor during any particular season (with the exception of botanical surveys which were conducted during appropriate blooming periods as noted in the response to comment 48). Presence of HCP/NCCP-covered species is assumed where habitat for these species occurs. All wildlife mentioned have been accounted for in identifying the proposed avoidance and minimization measures set forth in the IS/MND to be implemented during construction. Mitigation measures BIO-1 (disturbance to habitats and trees), BIO-3 (migratory bird protective measure), BIO- 6 (special status bats) and BIO-10b (wetland pond and stream protective measures) will be implemented prior to and during construction as appropriate to avoid disturbing wildlife in or adjacent to the project area. 50 California red-legged frog There are red legged frogs in this water way. Residents at 12801 have observed the redlegged frog in the creek area for 46 years. Comment noted. Presence of California red-legged frog (CRLF) in Marsh Creek is acknowledged by the project’s biological studies and IS/MND. CRLF was observed by biologists during planning surveys for the project. Because CRLF is a covered species under the HCP/NCCP and because the project is covered under this permit, mitigation for the potential impact to occupied CRLF habitat consists of payment of mitigation fees, in addition to the measures outlined in the IS/MND under mitigation measure BIO-4. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 408 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 51 Western pond turtle is a HCP/NCCP covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. There is a family of pond turtles which nest and bare their hatchlings. They have been established for at least 46 years during 12801 owners residency. Comment noted. Presence of suitable foraging, dispersal, and breeding habitat for western pond turtle is acknowledged by the IS/MND. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 prior to construction will isolate the work site so wildlife can use protected riparian habitat without entering the construction site. Impacts from habitat disturbance will be mitigated through payment of mitigation fees to the Habitat Conservancy consistent with mitigation measure BIO-5. 52 The nearest record is 1.39 miles from the project site. No pond turtles were observed during the survey. See comment above Data collected from the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database is one of many tools used to determine habitat suitability for each species, but may not capture all occurrences. The IS/MND identified suitable riparian/aquatic habitat and adjacent upland habitat for western pond turtle within the project area. Therefore, this species was considered in the impact evaluation presented in the IS/MND under mitigation measure BIO-5. Please see the response to comment 51. 53 Although not observed with in the BSA, foraging habitat for pallid bar and Townsend's big-eared bar is present within the BSA within the site's native grasslands and al the edges of the oak savanna. 12801 residents have observed bats at dusk for many years on their property and over the creek Although bats were not observed during the surveys, biologists identified suitable bat habitat within the biological survey area. As a result, the IS/MND (BIO-6) evaluates project construction on bats and provides appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation to avoid disturbance to bats during construction. Please see mitigation measure BIO-6 in the IS/MND for details. 54 There are four records of San Joaquin kit fox occurrences within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2013). Residents of 12801 have observed kit fox families training pups in the grassy area at far west end of BSA for many years, the last sighting being in the summer of 2015. This area is on property owned by 12801 residents. Potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox is acknowledged, although deemed unlikely, by the project’s biological studies and IS/MND. The IS/MND provides an impact analysis for San Joaquin kit fox (impact analysis BIO-8) and describes a detailed avoidance and mitigation approach for this species consistent with the HCP/NCCP (mitigation measure BIO-8). Focused preconstruction surveys will be conducted by qualified biologists 30 days prior to construction to determine whether suitable burrows are present. If an occupied den is detected, both CDFW and USFWS will be notified. Please see mitigation measure BIO-8 for specific details about minimization measures under every scenario. 55 These conservation measures are incorporated into the species mitigation provided in this impact analysis, to offset potential project impacts. Please describe how project impacts to wildlife on private property adjacent to the project(including the BSA) are addressed by the HCP/NCGP. The HCP/NCCP does not distinguish between public and privately owned property for species impact avoidance measures or mitigation. Wildlife habitat outside of the work area will be protected by installation of exclusion fencing as appropriate. Please see the response to comment 51. 56 3. All no-take species will be avoided. Please explain how aquatic community is to be relocated to “avoid” take of turtles/CRLF No-take species are those species for which the HCP/NCCP does not provide incidental take coverage. CRLF and western pond turtle are not defined as no-take species under the HCP/NCCP. Mitigation measure BIO-4 describes the process by which USFWS and CDFW will be responsible for translocating CRLF, if present, prior to construction. For western pond turtle, please see the responses to comments 51 and 52 and mitigation measure BIO-5 in the IS/MND. With implementation of applicable avoidance and minimization measures and payment of appropriate HCP/NCCP fees, the project will have coverage for incidental take of CRLF and western pond turtle via the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit (the HCP/NCCP permit). A qualified biologist will be present during creek dewatering to capture and relocate wildlife in the work zone, as appropriate. 57 5. Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use sand bags or other approved methods that minimize in stream impacts and effects on wildlife. Please describe how invasive procedures in limited access condition protect wildlife. Or describe techniques that will avoid that situation during stream diversion. The project has been designed to be consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.14 Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside the Urban Development Area (Chapter 6). In compliance with that measure, several avoidance and minimization measures will be used for protection of biological resources within and adjacent to the biological survey area. Please see mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-10b in the IS/MND for details. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 409 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 58 8. On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, best management practices (BMPs) and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. Please clarify what organization is to monitor; and how organized to avoid conflict of interest with proponent conducting work. Biological monitors must be approved by the regulatory agencies (CDFW and USFWS) prior to project activities. The County contracts with several independent biological consulting firms, all of which employ qualified biologists meeting state and federal agency requirements for conducting surveys and identifying special status species. Monitoring biologists are hired to protect resources and advise the project’s resident engineer on resource protection and regulatory compliance. Further, Public Works Environmental Services staff monitors project construction and advises the project’s resident engineer and department management on regulatory compliance. 59 11. Cut-and-fill slopes will he revegetated with native, non-invasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. How and whom will water this for growth potential? Seeds are distributed just prior to first rains via a hydroseeding technique that provides adequate initial hydration for seed germination. Vegetation will be drought tolerant and no additional irrigation will be required. 60 Trail fence posts will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. Fence posts need be 5’ outside the drip ring of the tree. Comment noted. 61 All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Will this arborist be on site at all times for supervision of this process? A certified arborist will be present during tree trimming activities. 62 No preconstruction surveys are required. Commenter notes that survey is necessary during design phase to quantify extent of impact-concerns on impacts to adjacent perennial aquatic community already noted and measures such as planned dewatering may render local relocation impractical or ineffective. Appropriate habitat for CRLF is present and acknowledged by the project’s biological studies and the IS/MND. Please refer to mitigation measure BIO-4 for applicable CRLF protective measures required by the HCP/NCCP. 63 Impact BIO-5 - Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Their Habitat There is nesting Western Pond Turtles in the creek waters. Area observed is within 150’ of proposed project. Dewatering would have massive impact on this population. This situation needs to be specifically addressed in the EIR Wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed prior to construction activities to isolate the work area and preclude wildlife from entering the construction work area. Creek flows will be bypassed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Construction will occur in the late spring through early fall months (dry season). Please see the responses to comments 51 and 52 and mitigation measure BIO-5 in the IS/MND. 64 Impacts to western pond turtle and their habitat would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, totaling $83,217.82, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Note that no mention made of mitigation of habitat destruction on adjacent property owner land. Please see the responses to comments 11, 12, 51, 52, 55, 63, and 66. 65 Although the occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox within the BS1 is unlikely, the site nevertheless supports marginally suitable foraging and movement habitat. Statement is erroneous; interview with adjacent residents during field survey would have alerted biologist to this possibility. NO interaction with residents was attempted; when resident 12801 asked about purpose of related tree tagging work, biologist/arborist provided nonformative and evasive answers and made no effort to refer questions to County client that was manging the work. Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 54. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 410 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 66 Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to habitats will be achieved through payment by CCCPWD of development fees and wetland mitigation fees. The proposed project would provide a development fee of $13,909.19 for permanent impacts and a development fee of $2,119.99 for temporary fees. A wetland mitigation fee of $41,659.62 for permanent impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats, and a wetland mitigation fee of $25,529.02 for temporary impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats. Specific to riparian habitat, fees will offset permanent impacts to 40 linear feet of stream and permanent impacts to riparian woodland as a result of the loss of 0.091 acre of riparian canopy. Additionally, the fee will offset temporary construction impacts to 249 linear feet of stream and 0.306 acre of riparian habitat. Therefore a total combined mitigation fee for the project will be $83,217.82. These fees are here because temporary and permanent impacts to habitat is unavoidable. No compensation to adjacent property owner’s habitat also affected by the project even mentioned. Please justify legal basis for this or acknowledge obligation under the law. This project is covered by the HCP/NCCP, which was developed to protect natural resources while streamlining the environmental permitting process. The project is located in HCP/NCCP Zone 2 (Natural Lands) and is covered under rural infrastructure projects. Activities covered under the HCP/NCCP are considered to have received Incidental Take authorization from the USFWS and CDFW if appropriate avoidance measures are implemented and appropriate mitigation fees are paid. These avoidance and mitigation measures are described in detail in the IS/MND. The issue of property owner compensation is addressed by our Real Estate Division during the acquisition phase of the project. Property owner compensation is not a CEQA issue. Therefore, no changes to the IS/MND are required. 67 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 10A and 10B as described under checklist item b) above, would reduce impacts to wetlands to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Is mitigation scope limited to BSA; is proponent committed to mitigate all impacts to downstream perennial waters on land owned by 12801 residents. The total stream length within the biological survey area is 495 linear feet. As noted in the IS/MND, dewatering will occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 130 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Water quality impacts downstream of construction would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures BIO-10a and 10b. A hydrogeologic evaluation was conducted to assess the potential for impacts to the creek system. According to Balance Hydrologics, no lasting hydrological impacts are expected as a result of the temporary dewatering. However, they note that compaction of the channel bed could result from use of heavy equipment in the channel. They recommend the County work with hydrologists, geomorphologists, and/or engineers to minimize these impacts through measures such as: 1. Minimizing use of heavy equipment within 20 feet of the reported spring 2. Minimizing grading and redistribution of bed sediment 3. Minimizing compaction by retaining existing bed material under weight-dissipating mats The County will follow these recommendations to ensure channel compaction is minimized. 68 Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. NES study does not provide conclusive evidence supporting this assertion. Please provide specific supporting evidence or cite references in supporting documents to justify this statement. Please specifically address resident amphibian and turtle communities in perennial waterway downstream of project All wildlife and habitat impacts will be appropriately mitigated via the HCP/NCCP. See the responses to comments 50, 51, 52, and 56 for more information on CRLF and western pond turtles. 69 Landslides? Consider Sliding triggered by excavations for retaining walls The geotechnical report prepared for the project evaluated the potential landslide risk. The IS/MND findings are consistent with the results of this report. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 411 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 70 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Need to consider sliding hillside or soil erosion if retaining walls are not constructed between construction work seasons. Please see the response to comment 69. 71 The project area is not located within a potential landslide area (Contra Costa County 2005). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Please explain this: All of Marsh Creek is a slide area. Grader equipment keeps the road clear during the winter/rainy season for traffic to move through safely. The project area has not been designated by the County as high landslide potential. As substantiated by the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the IS/MND findings are appropriate. 72 Conclusion needs more site specific substantiation then consulting a small scale generalized map. Please provide evidence proving this point. Please see the response to comment 71. 73 Therefore, proposed project impacts associated with soil erosion would be less than significant. Commenter disagrees with this conclusion. Commenter has pointed out possible conditons in downstream creek channel/channel slope adjacent to project limits that could be subject to SIGNIFICANT erosion or bank collapse from channel flow through the new bridge opening. Lower flow profile at bridge will translate to higher fow velocities in downstream reach of channel. Planned destruction of trees at edge project will weaken channel banks and reduce erosion resistance. This is a SIGNIFICANT impact which needs to be considered in the project design An area of armoring within Marsh Creek has been described in the IS/MND and accounted for in stream impact calculations that determine HCP/NCCP stream impact fees; therefore, no changes to the IS/MND are required. Final payment of fees will be based on the final design of the bank armoring and any other erosion control devices. Please see the responses to comments 80 and 81 for further detail. 74 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? Existing Fire Hydrant in front of 12801 MCR must be relocated to suitable location in front of residence. Comment noted. The existing fire hydrant has been accounted for by project design. 75 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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Commenter contends the presence of existing well, natural springs in creek at project site not addressed at all needs to be evaluated in detail prior to drawing any conclusion. This a significant impact. A hydrogeologic analysis of Marsh Creek in the area of the bridge was performed to investigate the source of the water feeding a pool within the creek downstream of the work area and right of way. General mineral, boron, and specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring; however, given elevated base flow volume, results are not sufficiently discriminating to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. Subsequent field verification will be conducted during lower (spring or summer) flows to determine whether additional consideration is necessary to accommodate groundwater flow. Balance Hydrologics concluded that if alluvial flows are the source of the reported spring, no further mitigation measures are warranted as construction activities would not deprive the system of inflow. However, Balance Hydrologics further concluded that if Panoche bedrock waters are the source of the spring, then construction activities should avoid sealing off the source by placing drainage pathways through and/or below the abutment footings to maintain spring flow to the creek. These accommodations will be field fit if conditions warrant. In other words, during excavation for the abutments, if spring flows are encountered at an elevation that could be blocked by abutment construction, drainage pathways through and/or under the abutment will be constructed to ensure flows are allowed to continue to source the creek and pool. With these accommodations, impacts will remain less than significant, even if flows are sourced from Panoche bedrock. The existence of a possible spring and presence of a pool downstream of the project area does not change the impact determinations in the IS/MND. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 412 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 76 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? Significant damage to immediate down stream channel and channel bank adjacent to the project wil occur without significant positive mitigation is not in the plan. Please see the responses to comments 73, 75, 80, and 81. 77 Design needs to consider level of protection actually provided under present site condition and extent of potential construction disturbance (such as damage/killing of trees rooted in channel walls immediately adjacent planned structure. Question c answer be reconsidered in light of potential significant increase to final channel protection scope. This change may be more extensive than considered in the current document, or minimized if bridge location is moved upstream as mitigation to address other significant project impacts. Please note that property owner of 12801 MCR exclusively bears the risk of downstream damage Please see the responses to comments 73, 75, 80, and 81. 78 The existing bridge structure constricts the Marsh Creek channel, resulting in flood waters backing up and inundating the underside of the bridge (WRECO 2015). Provide documented evidence to support this statement. Residents of 12801 MCR have NEVER observed the creek to rise to the level indicated in 46 years. This is critical to assess the suitability of the project as proposed in 65% design. Results of a HEC-RAS flow analysis in Marsh Creek show that the water surface during a 100-year storm event will inundate the bottom of the existing bridge and backup flows upstream of the bridge. The design flows used in the analysis were developed using CCCFC&WCD hydrologic methods and incorporate future planned uses for the watershed. Design flows can, therefore, be conservative if the watershed is not currently developed to its highest planned use. Please see the response to comment 80. 79 The proposed project would not affect groundwater supply; therefore, there would be no impact. There is ground water flow in the area of construction coming from underground springs and a well that filters under ground to the creek. The perennial inflow is due to an abandoned 30’ deep well hand excavated and wood cribbed to an opening approx.. 6’X6’. The well is reported by the property owner to be located approximately 10’ to 20’ north of the existing R/W (offset ~ 50’ or so left perpendicular to edge exist’g pavement at approx. plan MC station 337+70. Well was reported to have been loosely backfilled with gravel and dirt by property owner to remove a safety hazard about 15 years ago. Well was reportedly hand dug by Chinese laborers well over 100 years ago. This well is a likely source of springs observed by 12801 residents in the creek bank feeding perennial water in creek immediately downstream of the existing bridge. It has sustained a substantial population of wildlife both resident (frogs and turtles, seasonal nesting ducks, small fish(~3” in length) and transient wildlife seeking water in dry months (deer and birds, coyotes, kit fox, bats, the common ones-racoons. Please see the responses to comments 67 and 75. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 413 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 80 The proposed project would modify the existing Marsh Creek stream channel within the project area, including removal of the existing bridge abutments and construction of new abutments that are further apart to allow for a less constricted stream channel. The abutments would be designed following Caltrans standards to minimize the potential for erosion and minimize the potentials for siltation. The design would widen the currently incised channel around the existing bridge to allow for lower velocity flows during storm events. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. More study in detail needs to be done here. When the stream channel within the project area is modified and new abutments are further apart to allow less constricted stream channel then the flow down stream becomes impeaded and erodes the present soil because of narrow pass through for the water to travel. The final project design will maintain or reduce stream velocities and stream bank erosion potential downstream of the project limits. Final determination of the bank armoring and channel details will be completed as part of final design. Considerations include rock slope protection, rock vein, contoured rock slope protection, rootwad installation, other measures or a combination of measures to achieve the hydraulic performance requirements for velocity and scour potential as well as meet permitting agency requirements. 81 The discussion needs to be expanded to include effects on existing channel conditions immediately adjacent to the county right of way property. The existing right side channel wall is stabilized within the right of way and immediately downstream by several old trees whose root systems are the primary armoring of the sidewalls. There are patches of very old masonry slope protection in places along this section. Furthermore, the channel slightly bends to the left in this area. The removal of the trees is required by the planned construction; and there is no evidence in the current design that planned improvements will protect the channel wall immediately downstream adjacent to the slope protection within the right of way. This is a significant local impact that puts the adjacent property owner (Residence 1) at significantly increased risk from channel wall erosion and bank recession/collapse during high runoff events. Please refer to the response to comment 80 for more information on the types of treatments to be used. The existing bank erosive potential beyond the project limits will not be worsened as a result of the project; however, existing rates of bank erosion and existing bank erosive potential as a result of future high runoff events are likely to persist post-construction, as reduction in the bank erosive potential beyond the project limits is outside the scope of the project. 82 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose or avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Commenter notes concern that absent of long term plan for future use of the MCR corridor through Mt. Diablo foothill zone makes any answer to question non- informative relative to an accepted policy of the County. The project is consistent with the County’s General Plan. The County has studied the entire Marsh Creek Road corridor and uses that study to identify and prioritize locations for safety improvements as funding becomes available. The long-term plan for Marsh Creek Road was clarified in an amendment to the Precise Alignment Plan approved by County Board of Supervisors on June 10, 1997. This amendment concluded that the ultimate plan for the roadway would involve a two-lane configuration and setting aside additional right of way to accommodate future trails, slope easements, and safety improvements. This plan for a two-lane road within a larger (four-lane sized) right of way is in alignment with the County General Plan for the entire Marsh Creek Road corridor. Accordingly, this bridge project is consistent with the County’s plans for the corridor. 83 Policy 5-A: To provide a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system This policy is general and not specific; document needs to discuss how the project complies with the policy; discussion needs to address unique location and existing state of MCR and resources needed to make it “safe”. The County has selected the bridge/roadway alignment that meets the relevant requirements. Please see the response to comment 82. 84 Policy #5-17: The design and scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to safety over other factors including capacity This statement needs to be elaborated on to discuss the amount of “improvement” provided by this project in relation to the entire 12 miles + Marsh Creek Road corridor. Interesting, again how does project fit into overall MCR safety improvement strategy? No discussion to help acces whether project is actually in line with realistic plan (affordable, doable with some timeframe consistent with General Plan timeframe) to improve overall safety of MCR. Please see the responses to comments 82 and 83. 85 Therefore, the proposed project would have no Impact. Conclusion requires substantiation as detailed above. Please see the responses to comments 82, 83, and 84. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 414 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 86 The project area is located within the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP inventory area and is a covered activity. Compliance with the HCP/NCCP is covered under the Biological Resources section. Because the project complies with the HCP/NCCP, the proposed project would have no impact. Need to provide evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Detail on specific elements of the referenced plan The IS/MND provides an in-depth discussion of the project's compliance with the HCP/NCCP in the Biological Resources section. All mitigation measures, including development and wetland mitigation fees, were developed in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. 87 Table 6: Nearby Receptors Sensitive to Noise Please explain how the noise is shielded by landscape trees and native trees when the native trees between the project and the residence are removed? Table 6 is located in the Environmental Setting subsection. The purpose of this table is to summarize existing conditions at the sensitive receptors. As such, native and landscape trees are listed as existing forms of shielding at the three sensitive receptors. 88 It is anticipated that the proposed project would use standard construction equipment, which includes but is not limited to: large rotary drilling machine, crane, excavator, tractor, backhoe, grader, dump truck, water trailer, compactor, skid steer, pick-up trucks, paver, hopper, and generator, no pile driving will occur. NES report reads as follows “The reinforced concrete bridge abutments will be supported by deep piles that will either be driven or drilled to a depth of 60 feet.” Please clarify. As noted on page 64 of the IS/MND, the project will not use any pile driving equipment, which has been further refined by project design from what was originally analyzed in the Noise Technical Memorandum and Natural Environment Study. 89 The project would remove 2 non-native woodland trees to the south, but the majority of native and landscape trees would remain and continue to shield the commercial facility from noise. Please revisit your drawings with tree removal. The count of trees here is only in the riparian area. What about the staging areas that affect over 20 healthy trees just to store equipment and job supplies. With the additional trees to be removed the almost entire habitat area will be destroyed (with exception of 2 mature sycamore trees). The trees in this area also serve as a sound barrier to the noise created by the events West of the project at Marsh Creek Springs. This privacy and buffer will be truncated (destroyed). Tree buffer needs to be restored and mitigated to equivalent level as to what is presently there. Please see the responses to comments 4 and 25 regarding tree removal. The General Plan classifies the existing traffic noise level of Marsh Creek Road between Clayton and Deer Valley Road as 65 dBA (please refer to General Plan noise contours for Marsh Creek Road). The operational noise impact analysis presented in the IS/MND assumed no shielding is in place for either current (without-project) or future (with-project) conditions between noise coming from traffic on the bridge and general noise in the study area at the sensitive receptors. 90 This is not a commercial facility it is residential and event area which often times has large amounts of overflow parked vehicals along the road on both sides of Marsh Creek Road from the address of 12510 to 12801 and on to 12807. Comment noted. As of February 26, 2016, Old Marsh Creek Springs states on its website that the "facility has held many weddings, quinceañera, anniversaries, and company picnics." Business hours are listed as 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. This property is privately owned and operated, doing business as Old Marsh Creek Springs Park. The business operates primarily as a wedding chapel, renting the property to generate profit. 91 Daily schedule described will be a substantial disruption to residents. Working hours need to be no later than 5 PM on weekdays and weekend work only in extreme circumstances to maintain contract schedule. Comment noted. The work hours noted are consistent with the noise element of the County’s General Plan. 92 Construction activities are anticipated to be conducted in phases over the course of approximately two years, with More defined times of construction including onsite servicing of equipment. More defined course of construction duration “approximately two years” all other reports state two seasons including this one. Construction is likely to span two seasons between the summer of 2017 and the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and federal approvals. Please see the response to comment 91 for proposed construction days and times. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 415 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 93 construction work occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends. Statement that equipment noise controls and “intermittent nature of construction” will reduce impacts to Resident 1 to less than significant level needs substantialtion. The commenter contends that the contractor building the project will be contractually tied to a period of performance and subject to liquidated damages for late completion. That the work will be “intermittent” to the point the writers suggest is ridiculous to anyone familiar with properly designed public works construction. The residents at Residence 1 are retired people living at that location live there all the time. They will be exposed to construction operations essentially the entire duration of the project. Almost all of the work will be right next to Residence 1 and involve demolition and other significant noise generation sources such as air compressors, air powered tools, material handling and equipment operating under substantial loads. All equipment is equipped with highly audible backup alarms which will be extensively activated due to constricted work areas around the bridge site. The term “intermittent” was used to describe the typical nature of construction, which often includes various types of equipment operating at various levels (or not at all) at one or more times throughout a given period. Noise specialists at Anchor QEA ran a desktop model to assess the noise impacts associated with construction. According to the results of that model, ambient noise levels will increase with construction; however, implementation of equipment noise controls and other administrative measures including work hour restrictions will reduce the levels to less than significant. The purpose of the project is to improve the long-term safety of the bridge for the local community, including those who reside at Residence 1. Any equipment alarms that may sound during construction are necessary to ensure the safety of construction personnel, as well as anyone else in the immediate area; this is necessary for public safety. 94 Public Services Intro Consider indirect increase in demand for police service for accident response. The IS/MND appropriately considered the potential impacts on police service. The project would not increase demand for police services or impede existing service. A temporary road would be maintained during construction, so access through the project area is not expected to be disrupted for more than short and intermittent periods. 95 Transportation/Traffic Intro No comments specific to this section (Neg. Dec) EIR Comment noted. 96 The existing bridge over Marsh Creek has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. This is not the same status rating as the Caltrans structure maintenance investigations report of July 2015? Please explain the discrepancy. Please see the response to comment 7. 97 The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Safety to the residences in the direct area hasn’t been considered. The analysis provided in the IS/MND does not differentiate between user groups, and considers the safety of all users. 98 The proposed project would maintain traffic flow and safety during construction. Construction of the new bridge would be staged to accommodate two lanes of traffic throughout construction. Does this discussion make sense? Is culvert replacement part of this review? Please see the response to comment 91. As noted in the IS/MND, construction will include a traffic management plan that will accommodate existing users. 99 A temporary partial road closure may be required over a long weekend to complete the replacement of the culvert west of the project. Please share the drawings and placement of this culvert. Haven’t seen anything on this activity / construction. This text no longer applies. As the design of the project has been finalized, the need for a partial road closure will no longer be required. 100 The proposed project would widen shoulders through the project area, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. Commenter contends that Increase to pedestrian/bicycle safety for 1000 feet on 12+ miles is insignificant. Comment noted. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 416 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 101 The proposed Project would improve safety by replacing a bridge that is structurally obsolete, widen existing shoulders, and straighten a sharp curve. Please explain the Caltrans structure maintenance and investigations report. There is not such rating as Structurally obsolete. Please see the response to comment 7. 102 Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Commenter’s position is General conclusion is rebuttable given evidence provided; and contends that there is potential significant environmental impacts to the project area. Comments have been provided elsewhere , in particular regarding the biological elements and impacts in immediate project area. Please see the responses to comments provided in this matrix. After review of the comments provided by this and other commenters, the County has found that the IS/MND findings do not change as a result of public comment. 103 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Commenter’s position is this general conclusion is rebuttable; and contends that there is potential significant environmental impacts to the project area as comments provided in this document suggest Please see the response to comment 102. 104 Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A substantial amount of stress has been experienced by the (Dortzbachs’- 46-years residents at 12801 Marsh Creek Rd.) when NO REASONABLE SAFETY into and out of their property is considered, and the planned work poses a real threat to the creek channel bank adjacent to their driveway. They are also faced with the destruction of creek habitat and wildlife “incidental take” in the portion of the creek on their property. They consider the creek and its life a major source of enjoyment and continuity in their lives; this is also a MAJOR stress on them These residents (Dortzbach’s) are Senior Citizens 78 and 80 and this project is a MAJOR disruption in their lives, ever since the County sent them a letter in October 2015 regarding the proposed work. They were not informed of the proposed project by the County Public Works department until the project was at an advanced state of design. They have been cooperative with the “Biologist” for plant/animal study, refused to tell why they there or EVEN REFER THEM TO A COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE FOR ANSWERS when Dortzbachs asked the Biologist what their reason for tagging the trees was for. Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 102. Issues raised in this comment are addressed throughout this response matrix. As noted in the response to comment 36, County engineering will coordinate with the property owner regarding the final location of the driveway. As noted in responses to comments 4 and 25, the project design relative to tree removal has been refined, resulting in the retention of 11 additional trees. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 417 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 105 Within the broader context used to assess cumulative impacts, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would improve safety within the project area by replacing an old bridge with a new bridge that meets all current safety standards. The safety doesn’t extend to the two affected residents right next to the project. Commenter contends that geometric configuration of 1000+ feet of superelevated roadway will encourage drivers to speed even more than current situation encourages. Please see the responses to comments 6, 22, 36, and 83. 106 All environmental monitoring/enforcement should be responsibility of individuals OUTSIDE the direct Public Works Project/Construction Management chain of command. Please clarify planned arrangement and describe how it will allow function to be performed independent of other project management functions Please see the responses to comments 46 and 58. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 418 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 419 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 420 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 421 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 422 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 423 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 424 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 425 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 426 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 427 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 428 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 429 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 430 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 431 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 432 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 433 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 434 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 435 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 436 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 437 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 438 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 439 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 440 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 441 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 442 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 443 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 444 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 445 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 446 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 447 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 448 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 449 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 450 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 451 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 452 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 453 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 454 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 455 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 456 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 457 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 458 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 459 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 460 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 461 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 462 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 463 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 464 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 465 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 466 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 467 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 468 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 469 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 470 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 471 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 472 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 473 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 474 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 475 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 476 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 477 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 478 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 479 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 480 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 481 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 482 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 483 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 484 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 485 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 486 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 487 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 488 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 489 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 490 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 491 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 492 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 493 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 494 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 495 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 496 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 497 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 498 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 499 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 500 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 501 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 502 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 503 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 504 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 505 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 506 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 507 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 508 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 509 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 510 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 511 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 512 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 513 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 514 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 515 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 516 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 517 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 518 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 519 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 520 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 521 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 522 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 523 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 524 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 525 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 526 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 527 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 528 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 529 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 530 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 531 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 532 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 533 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 534 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 535 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 536 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 537 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 538 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 539 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 540 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 541 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 542 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 543 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 544 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 545 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 546 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 547 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 548 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 549 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 550 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 551 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 552 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 553 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 554 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 555 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 556 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 557 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 558 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 559 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 560 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 561 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 562 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 563 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 564 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 565 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 566 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 567 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 568 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 569 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 570 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 571 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 572 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 573 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 574 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 575 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 576 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 577 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 578 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 579 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 580 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 581 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 582 Report prepared for: Contra Costa County Environmental Services Division Prepared by: Zan Rubin Krysia Skorko Barry Hecht Balance Hydrologics, Inc. April 2016 MARSH CREEK BRIDGE POOL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 583 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 584 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 General Technical Approach and Work Conducted.................................................................. 2 1.3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 4 2. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Hydrography, Climate, Antecedent Conditions ........................................................................... 5 2.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Lithology and Geochemical Properties ............................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Faults and Springs ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.3 Geological Controls on Flow .............................................................................................. 6 3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Sampling Locations and Methods ................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Geologic Interpretation ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution ................................................................................ 9 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Geologic Interpretation ................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution .............................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Specific Conductance...................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Dissolved Minerals .............................................................................................................. 11 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 12 6. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................... 14 7. REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................................. 15 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 585 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Water quality sampling results LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Geologic location map of Marsh Creek and surrounding area Figure 2. Stage record from Marsh Creek Fire Station (MRH) gage Figure 3. Geologic map of Kirker Pass and surrounding area Figure 4. Schematic cross section A-A’ and B-B’. Figure 5. Schematic longitudinal profile. Figure 6. Sampling location map Figure 7. Piper plot of water quality samples APPENDICES Appendix A. Water Chemistry Lab Results Appendix B. Borings from Marsh Creek Bridge Planset May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 586 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study assesses potential impacts of reconstructing Bridge No. 28C-0141 along Marsh Creek in Contra Costa County on yields from a reported spring and on the perenniality of the pools downstream of the spring. Our approach was intended to identify the source(s) of spring water, and to identify the source of the spring as either shallow alluvial water or deeper (bedrock) groundwater, such that flows to the pool and the channel downstream are not adversely affected. We found that: • Construction of the bridge is unlikely to significantly affect water entering from the shallow, alluvial aquifer, but it could potentially affect springs originating and conveyed through fractures in the bedrock if these fractures were inadvertently sealed during foundation installation. • Perennial flow in the bridge reach is likely due to thinning alluvium, with the canyon walls forcing water in the alluvium to the surface. • No visual evidence of springflow was observed, but elevated baseflow conditions prevented observation of the streambed. • We established that ‘general mineral’ and ‘boron’ analyses can be used to distinguish inflow from the bedrock forming the sides of the valley from the waters in Marsh Creek and the shallow alluvium to which it is connected. Because the post-storm flows of late-March 2016 were so much greater than bedrock-sourced springflow, we were not able to detect evidence of the springs in samples taken upstream and downstream of the existing and future bridges. • Specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring signature, but, given the elevated post-storm streamflow, results are not sufficiently precise to rule out a contribution of spring flow from bedrock sources which could prove to be significant factor in sustaining the pool in summer. • We recommend a follow-up sampling visit during late-spring or summer baseflow to identify the location of possible springs and quantify the composition of spring water. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 587 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Contra Costa County Public Works Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation District 4, proposes replacing the existing Marsh Creek Road Bridge (Bridge No. 28C-0141). The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing single-span bridge with a new, wider single-span bridge to accommodate safe two-way traffic across Marsh Creek on Marsh Creek Road. The new bridge will meet current design standards of Contra Costa County Public Works, Caltrans, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and include wider shoulders and wider lanes. In response to public comments on the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department requested that Balance Hydrologics investigate potential impacts to the pool downstream of the existing bridge. In particular, Balance was asked to investigate the possibility that the pool, reported by residents to be perennial and fed by springs, may be impacted by bridge construction including the temporary dewatering of the channel that will occur during bridge construction. 1.2 General Technical Approach and Work Conducted The purpose of this study is to assess potential impacts of bridge construction on the reported springflow and on the perenniality of the pool(s) downstream of the spring. Our approach was to identify the source(s) of water being supplied to the pools through the spring, and to identify the source of the spring as either shallow alluvial (hyporheic) water or deeper (bedrock) ground water. Controls on the flow in this reach were also assessed through geologic observations. The working hypothesis is that there are 2 major potential sources of water at this location. The first is hyporheic water flowing within the valley-floor deposits (alluvium) adjoining and beneath the stream, and to which it is interconnected. During summer, most of the flow through the hyporheic zone is a mixture of water from Marsh Creek, and shallow groundwater contributions from the valley-bottom flats along Marsh Creek. Another potential source is the water entering from the rocky sideslopes of the canyon through the faults and fractures characteristic of the Panoche formation, the dominant local bedrock type, on either side of the valley. Either source (hyporheic or bedrock) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 588 can emerge to the surface under pressure as a flowing spring. The pressure depends on local or regional flow paths through the alluvium or bedrock. We selected this approach because construction of the bridge is unlikely to significantly affect water entering from the shallow, alluvial aquifer, but it potentially could affect the Panoche bedrock waters if these are conveyed into the channel through fractures or faults and the fractures were sealed off due to foundation installation. One way of assessing how much flow enters from the Panoche formation bedrock is a contrast in the composition of the groundwater within the Panoche and alluvial aquifers. Much of our analysis is based on identifying how these sources may differ. Based on past experience in this part of Contra Costa County, we selected three possible constituents which might be useful: a) Overall salinity, measured as specific conductance, a widely used method of making such determinations in the field, b) Boron concentrations, which tend to be elevated in some Contra Costa streams, and c) Ionic fingerprinting, which looks at the ratios of the eight or nine most common ions, a method in wide use since the 1940s for distinguishing water sources. The work was complicated by the season of inquiry. Responding to mid-March storms, Marsh Creek was flowing at above-normal winter flows during the window in which this work was completed. Hence, we used all three potential water-quality tracers to seek an understanding of the local conditions. Finally, we considered local hydrogeologic conditions. Because the spring is reported to audibly gurgle during summer, it is implied that the water is under slight to moderate pressure. This is consistent with the location of the spring, reported to emerge in the midst of a hydraulic riffle (a topographic high point along the longitudinal profile of a stream). If the Panoche waters were simply seeping into the alluvium, they would be doing so within the pool (a topographic low along the stream profile) downstream of the bridge. The fact that the water reportedly enters the stream in a riffle, near midstream, and that it gurgles, suggests that the water is under several inches of pressure. If local Panoche waters are the source of the spring, they would logically get there in a defined fracture or joint. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 589 Balance’s scope of work on this project included a preliminary site assessment on March 17, 2016. During this visit, Balance staff made observations of channel conditions at the proposed bridge realignment location, local geology and vegetation, and asked local residents about hydrologic conditions in Marsh Creek and surrounding areas. Following this visit, Balance staff reviewed geologic and topographic maps and historical aerial photos, and older water-quality reports on Marsh Creek. On March 28, 2016, Balance staff collected water samples from Marsh Creek, a nearby groundwater seep, and a seasonal pond in order to quantify and compare geochemical signatures of Marsh Creek stream water and groundwater. This report outlines the findings of our site assessment, geologic interpretation, and water chemistry analysis. Balance was also asked to assess if the temporary dewatering of the channel during bridge construction could reduce the rate or volume of shallow groundwater water flowing to the springs, or perenniality of flow and of the downstream pool. We can think of no reasonable mechanism through which the temporary dewatering of the channel will cause lasting hydrologic impacts, so that question is not included in the following sections. 1.3 Acknowledgements We appreciate the assistance of Hillary Heard, Leigh Chavez, and Neil Leary from Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, and Sean Lohmann, Jennifer Roth, and George Molnar from LSA, with the development of the scope of this investigation and for providing us with background information and descriptions of the site. We are also grateful to the residents along Marsh Creek for taking the time to share their knowledge of the site, Its history, and their observations of hydrological conditions. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 590 2. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Hydrography, Climate, Antecedent Conditions The contributing drainage area of Marsh Creek to the project site consists of 23.1 square miles of steep, grassland, oak woodland, and chaparral draining the northeast portion of Mount Diablo and surrounding hills (Natural Heritage Institute, 2007). (see Figure 1). Mean annual rainfall in this portion of Contra Costa County is approximately 19 inches per year, as shown on precipitation and average annual rainfall distribution maps developed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Our investigation occurred during March 2016. Rainfall during Water year 2016 (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016) has been approximately about average (year to date) following several dry years. A substantial rain event on March 13 generated the second largest flows of the year. Following that event, two weeks of warm and dry weather brought Marsh Creek flows down considerably, although flows maintained an elevated winter baseflow condition during our March 28 visit (Figure 2). 2.2 Geology 2.2.1 Lithology and Geochemical Properties Geologic maps of the region (Figure 1) show that the project site is underlain by north- dipping sedimentary strata of the Cretaceous-age Panoche formation (Dibblee 2006). The Panoche is a sequence of cemented sandstones and mudstones or shales. It is similar in texture and in geochemical composition to the Markley sandstone member of the Kreyenhagen formation, which outcrops a few miles to the north in the vicinity of Kirker Pass (c.f., Hecht and others 2011, Figure 3). In the Kirker Pass area, much of the groundwater movement occurs through north-south trending faults and master fractures. The geologic map shows that these faults and fractures extend southward to the Marsh Creek canyon; further, Marsh Creek Springs, a resort and spa dating to the early 20th century, is built around springs which seemingly emanate from one of these faults or master fractures. The springs in the Marsh Creek canyon, though, have proven to be much less salty than the springs and seeps near Kirker Pass, so it has been more difficult to ‘trace’ springflow emanating from the deep bedrock fractures. Rhyolitic volcanic rock intruded into the Panoche along the creek in the vicinity of the site (Figure 1). The channel itself flows within an alluvial valley that thins in the downstream direction. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, shown in planview in Figure 1, are discussed in more detail in section 2.2.3 and cross sections are shown in Figure 4. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 591 The alluvium, or valley-fill deposits shown in Figure 4, extend to a depth of about 2-10 feet below the existing streambed, based on borings shown in the bridge plans (Appendix B). Beneath the alluvium is hard sandstone and shale bedrock. The lowest 5 feet of the alluvium are described as “coarse to fine gravels and coarse to fine sands”, likely a highly-permeable zone through which much hyporheic flow can pass. Other permeable zones occur throughout the alluvium. A dug well about 25 feet deep and about 40 feet northwest of the existing bridge had been used for water supply for many years before being abandoned and filled some years ago. The neighbors stated that the well had a high yield, also supporting the data from the borings showing easy movement of groundwater through the alluvial deposits beneath the stream. 2.2.2 Faults and Springs In our 2011 study (Hecht and others, 2011), samples analyzed for general mineral composition near Kirker Pass showed that the bedrock in this region has connate waters (the original waters in which these sandstones were deposited) flowing from springs emanating from north-south trending faults (Figure 3). This means that groundwater at this location near Kirker Pass has high specific conductance, an index of salinity) compared to creek water, and higher concentrations of total dissolved solids and minerals. Hecht and other’s 2011 report concluded that the groundwater-fed creeks in the region had a specific conductance of 2900 to 3700 µS/cm, and TDS concentrations of 1900 to 2300 mg/L. Boron was also present in quantities of approximately 1 mg/L. The Marsh Creek Road bridge site is located along a similar north-south trending fault through similar bedrock geology to those features studied in the Kirker pass region, (Figure 1), so we deemed it likely that springs emanating from this fault might share comparable geochemical signatures. If present, these signatures would be distinguishable from the creek water even if discharge from the springs is low relative to discharge from the creek because the signatures are so distinct. 2.2.3 Geological Controls on Flow Perennial and ephemeral reaches are interspersed along the middle section of Marsh Creek (Natural Heritage Institute and others, 2007). In Mediterranean climates with seasonal precipitation, springs, seeps, and groundwater flow from the hillsides are often the sources of dry season pools and streamflow. Perennial pools and perennial reaches are typically controlled by variations in the thickness of alluvium and the permeability of bed sediment and underlying bedrock (Costigan and others, 2016; Payn and others, 2009; Stanford and Ward, 1993). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 592 The Marsh Creek channel flows through valley-floor deposits (“alluvium”) upstream of the bridge. This wedge progressively narrows downstream from the County’s Marsh Creek Detention Facility access road downstream to the project site. The valley immediately downstream of the project site is quite narrow. The stream flows through bedrock walls, and the alluvial sediments forming the bank and bed are much thinner. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, shown in planview in Figure 1, show the progressive downstream thinning of the alluvial deposits (and alluvial aquifer). These cross sections, while not quite to scale, illustrate the concept of the alluvial wedge thinning in the downstream direction. Bedrock outcrops constrict both sides of the channel in section B-B’. Shallow groundwater connected to the creek and flowing through the alluvial wedge is forced to the surface as the alluvium thins and the underlying bedrock lies closer to the surface. This process, shown schematically in Figure 5, is often a control on where perennial pools are found through the region. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 593 3. METHODS 3.1 Sampling Locations and Methods Following a hydrogeological reconnaissance on March 17, we chose sampling sites and collected four samples for general mineral and boron analysis (Figure 6): 1) at the existing Marsh Creek bridge, just upstream of where neighbors reported the presence of a spring, 2) Marsh Creek about 300 feet downstream of the reported springs (location of the reported spring assumed approximately 20 feet downstream of existing bridge, though not observed during our field visits), 3) a pond ~0.45 mile upstream adjacent to Marsh Creek Road, and 4) a groundwater seep draining into Marsh Creek ~0.75 mile downstream from the bridge. In addition, we measured specific conductance from several sites upstream and downstream of the bridge (Figure 6) from the Marsh Creek Detention Facility (~0.75 mile upstream of the bridge) downstream to the next bridge on Marsh Creek Road (~1 mile downstream of the project bridge). Samples for all analytes were collected directly from the stream, pond and seep using pre-cleaned laboratory bottles, with the exception of samples for metals (Fe, Mn), which were field –filtered through 0.45-micron glass fiber filters into acidified bottles according to standard procedures. Al l samples were stored on ice and were delivered by hand to McCampbell Analytical Inc. in Pittsburg, CA. All samples arrived in good condition and within hold times. General mineral testing includes the following analyses: Alkalinity (speciated), calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, plus lab specific conductance, pH, and total dissolved solids by evaporation. A 1-day rush analysis was requested, and results were received the next day. Laboratory QA/QC procedures were checked over by Balance staff, and additional analyses were requested to confirm the accuracy of results. The laboratory reports are included as Appendix A. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 594 3.2 Geologic Interpretation Geologic and topographic maps of the region were studied and ground-truthed in the field. Reaches of the creek with bedrock constriction were mapped with GPS points. These reaches were identified in the field as narrow points in the valley with bedrock outcroppings along the channel bed or banks. Historical aerial photographs were also studied to look for an increased presence of riparian vegetation in sections of the channel with bedrock constrictions, as another indication of where perennially wet, or shallow groundwater, sections of the creek are located. We were not able to reach any conclusions, given the degree of land-use effects. 3.3 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution Rain falls as water that is nearly pure H 2 O. Through contact with organic matter, soil, and bedrock, the water picks up a chemical signature that can be used to distinguish different flow paths. Our approach was based on the understanding that springs, seeps, and ponds would exhibit a signature distinctive of the bedrock contacted along those flow paths. In addition to the chemical signature specific to the flow path, there is a typical increase in specific conductance (a measure of electrical conductance that is an indicator of solute concentration) that increases as water takes longer flow paths with prolonged contact with bedrock and soil. Water samples were collected on March 28, 2016 from the Marsh Creek bridge site and from Marsh Creek ~300 feet downstream of the bridge (below the reported location of the spring). Ideally we would have sampled the spring reported to be present at the Marsh Creek bridge site directly. However, since the spring was not apparent on our sampling visit, we sampled the nearby seep and pond sites as analogues expected to carry similar signatures as the reported spring. Major ions results were plotted in a Piper diagram (Figure 7), a commonly-used method to characterize (or ‘fingerprint’) water from different sources for comparison. We also plotted typical surface and groundwater samples from nearby Kirker Pass for comparison. Specific conductance was measured in the field at 6 sites along Marsh Creek upstream and downstream of the bridge and at the pond and seep sites using YSI Model 30 conductance meters calibrated prior to sampling at the Balance workshop. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 595 4. RESULTS 4.1 Geologic Interpretation The Marsh Creek bridge site is at the downstream end of a wide to narrow trending alluvial valley (Figure 1). The bed material of Marsh Creek is composed of cobbles and gravels which typically have high permeability, allowing ready and easy exchange between the creek and adjoining sands and gravels of the alluvial aquifer. Water draining from the adjoining hillsides can also move easily into either the alluvium or the channel. Since the Marsh Creek/alluvial waters and bedrock hillside waters come from different sources, each with their own mineral signatures, the ionic chemistry of waters emanating at the reported spring beneath the bridge (and other springs in the area) will be a blend of these sources. Through our review of the geologic maps (Figure 1) and boring logs (Appendix B) and then through field verification, we confirmed that Panoche formation bedrock is exposed along the channel ~1000 feet downstream of the existing bridge site showing that alluvium is indeed thinning (from approximately 2- 10 feet thick below the streambed at the bridge site to zero feet at the observed bedrock 1000 feet downstream). Perennial stream reaches are common where bedrock forces subsurface flow to surface of a channel, and we expect that perennial flow at the bridge site is primarily the result of valley confinement and bedrock forcing alluvial water to the surface, as discussed in section 2. 4.2 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution 4.2.1 Specific Conductance There was little variation in specific conductance along the length of Marsh Creek from the detention facility downstream to the bridge crossing located a mile downstream of the project bridge (Figure 6, Table 1). Conversely, pond water (Location 3) had a very low specific conductance (~110 µS/cm), suggesting that the seasonal pond was sourced by recent rainwater that had not had time to dissolve minerals from the ground, rather than deeper groundwater that had emerged. The seep water (Location 4; potentially similar to springs that may be present at the bridge site) had considerably higher specific conductance than water in Marsh Creek. ~1036 µS/cm vs. 728 µS/cm. This suggests that at the current (March 28, 2016) elevated baseflow discharge of Marsh Creek (measured at 7.11 cubic feet per second 1 (cfs)) local spring contribution to the project reach from bedrock sources is minor. Under the presumption that spring water 1 Our measurement of 7.11 cubic feet per second is equal to 3190 gallons per minute. 0.08 cfs is equal to 36 gallons per minute. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 596 at the bridge site was of a similar specific conductance as the seep, we expected to have been able to detect the specific conductance signature of a spring with a discharge as low as 0.08 cfs or approximately 1% of the flow of Marsh Creek. We used a YSI-30 handheld specific conductance meter for our field measurements. The YSI meter has a typical accuracy of 0.5%, but we conservatively assumed a 1% margin of error (i.e. we estimated that we would have reliably detected a specific conductance increase of approximately 7 µS/cm between the upstream and downstream Marsh Creek samples). No increase was detected. During summer baseflow conditions, local springs may contribute a greater proportion of flow, and we may be better able to identify changes in specific conductance. However, if spring water is hyporheic water (shallow groundwater flowing just below the surface in the streambed) and not deep bedrock groundwater) then we would expect to find similar values of specific conductance between streamflow and springflow because the spring would be discharging hyporheic water which is likely to have a similar specific conductance. 4.2.2 Dissolved Minerals The two Marsh Creek samples (one at the existing bridge, the other ~300 feet downstream of the bridge) had essentially identical water chemistry (ionic) signatures (Table 1, Figure 7). The pond water proved to be mostly rain, with a specific conductance of 110 µS/cm. The geochemical signature of the seep was distinct from both Marsh Creek samples. In particular, boron was 1.5 mg/L in both Marsh Creek samples and only 0.9 mg/L in the seep. Chloride was 46 mg/L in Marsh Creek samples, and 26 mg/L in seep. And the ratio (by weight) of calcium to magnesium was 2:1 in Marsh Creek samples and 1.5:1 in the seep sample. Results of our water chemistry analyses were inconclusive regarding the presence and signature of the reported spring. While we did find distinct signatures between the nearby seep and Marsh Creek, the magnitude of difference relative to the sampling and analysis accuracy was not sufficient to identify the source of spring water under winter post-storm conditions. Repeated sampling during late spring or summer may be able to distinguish different sources and the relative contributions from those sources. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 597 5. CONCLUSIONS • No visual evidence of springflow observed, but elevated baseflow conditions prevented observation of the streambed. Residents living near the Marsh Creek bridge location have reported seeing left bank or midchannel springs in the approximate position of the proposed new bridge location. They report that the springs are important in sustaining summer ponding just downstream from the bridge. When we visited the site on March 28, 2016 we did not observe any sign of springs or seeps in the bank or bed of the channel; however, we did not really expect to “see” the spring, because during winter, the elevated baseflow conditions obscure evidence of seepage up through the channel bed or the base of the banks. • General mineral and boron analysis did not show effects of bedrock springs, but elevated post-storm streamflow conditions may have diluted the influence of a small spring or a spring source with similar solute composition as streamflow. Our results at winter flows show that there is no change in the water chemistry of Marsh Creek as it flows through the project reach. We conclude that perennial flow in the bridge reach during winter base flows is likely due to thinning alluvium and bedrock control forcing water in the alluvium to the surface. The importance of these local and valley-scale landforms was summarized by Payn et al., 2009 “Exchanges between stream channel and subsurface flows are driven by variability in hydraulic gradients that are induced by structural variability in channels and valley floors.” • Specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring, but, given elevated baseflow discharge, results are not sufficiently precise to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. The specific conductance measurements we made were sufficiently quantitative to determine that a spring source contributing more than about one percent of the flow (0.08 cfs, or about 36 gallons per minute) might have been apparent, but was not. However, based on our experience elsewhere in coastal California, a spring source would be able to sustain the pool at late-summer flows as low as about 0.01 to 0.02 cfs (about 4.5 to 9.0 gallons/minute), so the presence of a spring with minor flows feeding the summer pool has not been ruled out and would need to be field-verified during lower (spring or summer) flows. • Boron is likely to be a useful indicator of water source during summer baseflow. The sampling established that boron concentrations differ enough that at summer flow conditions it is likely that the proportionate contribution of the local May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 598 canyon-side groundwater could be identified -- perhaps supplemented with specific conductance measurements extending from the spring to the base of the downstream pool. If the local (spring) contribution is large, it would mean that water is coming up through bedrock fracture zones. If there is not a significant change in boron concentrations or specific conductance as the creek flows through this reach, then the primary source of the pool water will be from the alluvial aquifer. • Bridge construction is unlikely to significantly impact springs if sourced from alluvial (hyporheic) water. If springs reported by neighbors are actually shallow alluvial (hyporheic) groundwater emerging into the streambed from upstream on Marsh Creek, then it is possible that changing the hydraulics around the bridge may change the hyporheic flow paths, but would not ultimately deprive the system of inflow since that hyporheic water will likely emerge elsewhere nearby. • Bridge construction is unlikely to impact bedrock-sourced springs, unless fractures are filled by bridge footings. If the spring source is from bedrock, emerging through fractures, then the emergence is controlled by discernible head differentials (which drive ‘gurgling’ reported by Marsh Creek residents) that will likely not be disrupted by placement of the bridge footings. The exact location of emergence may shift, but it is unlikely that the flow from the spring could be blocked by the localized compaction caused by the new bridge footings. However, it is possible that bridge footings placed directly on top of key fractures could compact and fill those fractures, preventing springflow from emerging in that location. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 599 6. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES • We recommend follow-up sampling during late-spring or summer baseflow to identify the location of possible springs and quantify the composition of spring water. The quantification of spring source and discharge will be feasible at lower flows. For example, boron concentrations are known to increase in streams as discharge decreases. Bedrock-sourced springs can be expected to change very little as the season progresses. Hence, differences between the stream (currently 1.5 mg/L and likely to increase to 2 to 3 mg/L) and bedrock springs (likely to remain similar to the 0.9 mg/L recently observed) will be accentuated. • If bedrock-sourced springs are indeed present, project designers can mitigate impacts by minimizing disruptions to springflow. The spring reportedly enters the stream in a riffle and “gurgles”, suggesting that the water is under several inches of pressure. If alluvium-sourced waters are the source of the spring, no further measures are necessary. If Panoche bedrock waters are the source of the spring, they would logically get there within a defined fracture. If so, the design of the bridge should avoid sealing off this source by placing drainage pathways below and/or through abutment footings to maintain the spring flow to the creek. • Avoid channel compaction due to grading. We can think of no reasonable mechanism through which the temporary dewatering of the channel will cause lasting hydrologic impacts. However, the reason for dewatering the channel is to facilitate work in the channel and that work may compact the channel bed through using heavy equipment or alter bed material sizes through grading. We recommend that project managers work with hydrologists, geomorphologists, and/or engineers to minimize these potential impacts through measures such as 1) minimizing use of heavy equipment within 20 feet of the spring, 2) minimizing grading and redistribution of bed sediment, and 3) minimizing compaction by retaining existing bed material under weight-dissipating mats. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 600 7. REFERENCES CITED Costigan, K. H., Jaeger, K. L., Goss, C. W., Fritz, K. M., and Goebel, P. C., 2016, Understanding controls on flow permanence in intermittent rivers to aid ecological research: integrating meteorology, geology and land cover: Ecohydrology, doi: 10.1002/eco.1712 Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2006, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. H. Esmaili and Associates, 1978, Nonpoint sources of groundwater pollution in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA. Hecht, B., Richmond, S., and Krause, J., 2011, Initial Interpretation of general-mineral water- quality analyses: Balance Hydrologics Memorandum to Team Kirker, March 4, 2016. Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of chemical characteristics of natural waters: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. Natural Heritage Institute and Delta Science Center at Big Break, 2007, The Past and Present Conditions of the Marsh Creek Watershed: 4th edition, 71p. Payn, R. A., M. N. Gooseff, B. L. McGlynn, K. E. Bencala, and S. M. Wondzell, 2009, Channel water balance and exchange with subsurface flow along a mountain headwater stream in Montana, United States: Water Resources Research., 45, W11427, doi:10.1029/2008WR007644 Piper, A.M., and Garrett, A. A., and others, 1953, Native and contaminated waters in the Long Beach–Santa Ana area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1136. Stanford, J. A., and Ward, J. V., 1993, An Ecosystem Perspective of Alluvial Rivers: Connectivity and the Hyporheic Corridor: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12(1), 48– 60. http://doi.org/10.2307/1467685 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 601 TABLES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 602 PARAMETER UNITS DESCRIPTORS Sample I.D.1. Marsh Cr Bridge- Upstream 2. Marsh Cr Bridge- Downstream 3. Pond 4. Seep Detention Center Bridge Aspara Drive Wp336 Wp 335 Lab used McCampbell McCampbell McCampbell McCampbell Sample collected by ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr Sample filtering field filtered field filtered field filtered field filtered FIELD MEASUREMENTS Date MM/DD/YY 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 Time HH:MM 13:45 14:30 15:22 16:00 15:30 15:00 14:45 14:40 Specific conductance (@ 25 C°)umhos/cm 728 728 113 1036 718 724 739 733 Conductance (@ field temp)umhos/cm 574 578 108 834 578 592 587 579 Temperature deg C 14 14.3 22.7 14.8 14.9 15.5 14.3 13.9 WATER QUALITY INDICATORS Alkalinity (total)mg/L CaCO3 232 228 52.4 400 Hardness (total)mg/L CaCO3 228 372 326 426 Hydroxide mg/L CaCO3 0 0 0 0 pH pH Units 8.3 8.3 7.5 8.05 Specific conductance (@ 25 C°)umhos/cm 679 677 115 950 Total dissolved solids (TDS)mg/L 408 405 68 592 GENERAL MINERALS Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)mg/L 232 228 52 400 Bicarbonate (HCO3)mg/L 283 278 64 488 Calcium (Ca)mg/L 62 60 11 83 Carbonate (as CaCO3)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Carbonate (CO3)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Chloride (Cl)mg/L 46 46 0.45 26 Iron (Fe)mg/L 0.028 0 1.7 0 Magnesium (Mg)mg/L 30 29 5.5 56 Manganese (Mn)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Potassiuim (K)mg/L 2.2 2.1 3.5 2.4 Sodium (Na)mg/L 55 53 5.7 3.5 Sulfate (SO4)mg/L 69 68 0 120 OTHER CONSTITUENTS Boron (B)mg/L 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.91 LAB CHECK Major Cations (Ca+Mg+K+Na+Fe+Mn)meq/L 8.01 7.74 1.40 8.96 Major Anions (HCO3+CO3+Cl+SO4+F+NO3)meq/L 7.37 7.27 1.06 11.22 Ion Balance (Cations/Anions)--1.09 1.06 1.32 0.80 TDS/SC --0.60 0.60 0.59 0.62 NOTES Observer key: ks = Krysia Skorko, zr= Zan Rubin Lab results: 0 = not detected; blank value = not tested Field SCT Measurements OnlyWater Quality Sampling Locations Sampling Locations Table 1. Summary of field parameters and water-quality analyses of water samples collected from Marsh Creek and nearby seep and pond. Contra Costa County, California. 216027 water quality spreadsheet, WQ Table 1 ©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 603 FIGURES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 604 B’ B A A’ © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 1 .Geologic location map of Marsh Creek and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ are shown in planview. Legend: Kp = Panoche Formation sandstones and shales Tvr = Rhyolite volcanics Qa = Valley Alluvium Qls = landslide deposits = Creeks = Roads N 0.25 mi North-south trending faults Proposed Bridge Marsh Creek Road N May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 605 Marsh Creek Stage Record Figure, Daily Stage 2016©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.0.10.20.30.40.50.60.710/1/1510/29/1511/26/1512/24/151/21/162/18/163/17/164/14/16Stage (ft)Measured Stage3/28 Sampling VisitFigure 2. Annual stage record for Marsh Creek Fire (MRH) gage operated by Contra Costa County. Record shows elevated spring baseflow conditions during sampling on March 28. Graph shows water year 2016, Contra Costa County, California.May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes606 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 3 .Geologic map of Kirker Pass and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA.. Legend: Kp = Panoche Formation Tkm = Markley sandstone member of Kreyenhagen Formation Qls = Quaternary deposits N 0.25 mi Kirker Pass North-south trending faults May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 607 B’B A A’A’ Kp KpTvr Valley Alluvium (Qa) Valley Alluvium (Qa) Marsh Creek Channel Marsh Creek Channel © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc Figure 4 .Schematic cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, looking upstream. Not to scale. These sections illustrate the thinning alluvium in the downvalley direction. Cross section locations are shown in Figure 1. A-A’ is in the upstream portion of the valley. Further downstream near the bridge (B-B’), valley alluvium has thinned and bedrock constrictions are likely forcing hyporheic water close to the surface. Upstream: At bridge: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 608 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Figure 5 .Schematic longitudinal profile illustrating thinning alluvium. Not to scale. This profile illustrate the thinning alluvium in the downvalley direction, which is likely forcing hyporheic water close to the surface. Proposed Bridge – Flow forced to surface here Cross section A-A’ –thick alluvial wedge Cross section B-B’ –thin alluvial wedge –region of perennial pools Flow path Bedrock Alluvium May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 609 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 6 .Water quality sampling sites and bedrock observations, Marsh Creek and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA. Legend: . = Water chemistry sampling sites . = SCT measurement sites . = observed bedrock constrictions N 0.25 mi Detention Center Bridge Proposed Bridge (1,2) Seep (4) Pond (3) Aspara Drive WP 336 WP 335 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 610 216027 water quality spreadsheet from MW, piper diagram ©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. This diagram shows cations in the ternary graph on the left and anions on the right graph. The diamond graph in the center illustrates both cations and anions. Hardness dominated water plots to the left and top of the diamond graph, soft monovalent-salt dominated water to the right, and soft alkaline water towards the bottom. Piper diagram illustrating ionic signatures of water samples collected from Marsh Creek, pond, seep, and nearby groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) sites from Kirker Pass, Contra Costa County, California. Figure 7. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 611 APPENDICES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 612 APPENDIX A Water Chemistry Lab Results May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 613 WorkOrder: Report Created for:Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 Project Contact:Zan Rubin Project Name:216027 Project P.O.: Project Received:03/28/2016 Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/29/2016 by: Angela Rydelius, Laboratory Manager 1603D91 The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative. Analytical Report 1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP McCampbell Analytical, Inc. "When Quality Counts" Page 1 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 614 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation 95% Interval 95% Confident Interval DF Dilution Factor DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test DUP Duplicate EDL Estimated Detection Limit ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor LCS Laboratory Control Sample MB Method Blank MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level of Quantitation MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate N/A Not Applicable ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount. PDS Post Digestion Spike PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate PF Prep Factor RD Relative Difference RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation RRT Relative Retention Time SPK Val Spike Value SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure ST Sorbent Tube TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure TEQ Toxicity Equivalents WET (STLC)Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers H samples were analyzed out of holding time S Surrogate spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits c1 surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. Page 2 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 615 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Quality Control Qualifiers F1 MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD is out of acceptance criteria; LCS validated the prep batch. Page 3 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 616 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E300.1 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Inorganic Anions by IC MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 46 5.0 50 03/29/2016 02:56 Sulfate 69 5.0 50 03/29/2016 02:56 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 02:56 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 46 5.0 50 03/29/2016 03:37 Sulfate 68 5.0 50 03/29/2016 03:37 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 03:37 POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 0.45 0.10 1 03/29/2016 13:56 Sulfate ND 0.10 1 03/29/2016 13:56 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):AO Formate 98 85-115 03/29/2016 13:56 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 4 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 617 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E300.1 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Inorganic Anions by IC OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 26 5.0 50 03/29/2016 04:57 Sulfate 120 5.0 50 03/29/2016 04:57 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 04:57 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 5 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 618 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Total & Speciated Alkalinity as Calcium Carbonate MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 232 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Bicarbonate 232 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Analyst(s):HN MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 228 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Bicarbonate 228 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Analyst(s):HN POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 52.4 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Bicarbonate 52.4 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Analyst(s):HN Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 6 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 619 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Total & Speciated Alkalinity as Calcium Carbonate OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 400 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Bicarbonate 400 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Analyst(s):HN Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 7 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 620 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.8 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Metals MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 62,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:19 Iron 28 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Magnesium 30,000 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Potassium 2200 50 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Sodium 55,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:19 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 101 70-130 03/29/2016 12:19 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 60,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:26 Iron ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Magnesium 29,000 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Potassium 2100 50 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Sodium 53,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:26 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:26 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 8 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 621 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.8 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Metals POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 11,000 100 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Iron 1700 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Magnesium 5500 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Potassium 3500 50 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Sodium 5700 100 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:38 OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 83,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Iron ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Magnesium 56,000 100 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Potassium 2400 50 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Sodium 76,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:32 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 9 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 622 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Analytical Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Unit:pH units @ 25°C pH MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.26 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:12 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.31 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:15 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 7.53 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:18 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.05 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:21 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 10 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 623 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2510 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2510 B-1997 Unit:µmhos/cm @ 25°C Specific Conductivity at 25°C MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 679 10.0 1 03/28/2016 18:50 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 677 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:00 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 115 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:05 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 950 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:10 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 11 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 624 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2540 C-1997 Analytical Method:SM2540 C-1997 Unit:mg/L Total Dissolved Solids MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 408 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:05 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 405 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:10 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 68.0 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:15 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 592 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:20 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 12 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 625 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118697 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118697 1603D83-007DMS/MSD Instrument:IC3 Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E300.1 QC Summary Report for E300.1 Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Chloride ND 0.919 0.10 1 -92 85-115 Sulfate ND 0.965 0.10 1 -96 85-115 Surrogate Recovery Formate 0.0921 0.0929 0.10 92 93 85-115 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Chloride 287 287 1 290 51,F1 61,F1 85-115 0.0333 15 Sulfate NR NR 1 22 NR NR 85-115 NR 15 Surrogate Recovery Formate 0.0998 0.0983 0.10 100 98 85-115 1.55 10 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 13 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 626 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/29/16 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118733 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Instrument:Titrino Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 QC Summary Report for Alkalinity 1603C38-001G 198 1 221 1 11.1 <20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 14 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 627 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118687 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118687 1603D59-001DMS/MSD Instrument:ICP-MS2 Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E200.8 QC Summary Report for Metals Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Calcium ND 5260 100 5000 -105 85-115 Iron ND 5110 20 5000 -102 85-115 Magnesium ND 5210 20 5000 -104 85-115 Manganese ND 5290 20 5000 -106 85-115 Potassium ND 5310 50 5000 -106 85-115 Sodium ND 5260 100 5000 -105 85-115 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 746 736 750 99 98 70-130 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Calcium 45,100 45,200 5000 40,000 103 103 70-130 0 20 Iron 5410 5510 5000 130 106 108 70-130 1.80 20 Magnesium 30,200 30,400 5000 25,000 108 112 70-130 0.661 20 Manganese 5190 5170 5000 64 103 102 70-130 0.328 20 Potassium 11,100 11,200 5000 5900 104 107 70-130 1.44 20 Sodium 61,900 61,600 5000 57,000 103 99 70-130 0.340 20 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 770 796 750 103 106 70-130 3.30 20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 15 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 628 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF Precision Acceptance Criteria Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118704 Analytical Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Unit:pH units @ 25°C Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM4500H+B-2000 QC Summary Report for pH 1603D54-001A 7.98 1 7.98 1 0 0.1 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 16 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 629 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118719 Analytical Method:SM2510 B-1997 Unit:µmhos/cm @ 25°C Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2510 B-1997 QC Summary Report for Specific Conductivity 1603D91-001A 679 1 680 1 0.10 <2 SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118727 Analytical Method:SM2540 C-1997 Unit:mg/L Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2540 C-1997 QC Summary Report for Total Dissolved Solids 1603D59-001F 338 1 346 2 2.34 <20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 17 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 630 McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Rd Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 (925) 252-9262 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold Requested Tests (See legend below) Report to: Zan Rubin 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 (510) 704-1000 FAX:(510) 704-1001 PO: 03/28/2016 Client ID ProjectNo:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 1 of 1 Date Logged: Date Received:03/28/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Balance Hydrologics Bill to: Gustavo Porras Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710 Requested TAT:1 day; ClientCode:BH Email:zrubin@balancehydro.com EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdPartyExcel J-flagWriteOn cc/3rd Party: WaterTrax A1603D91-001 Water 3/28/2016 13:45MCUS-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-002 Water 3/28/2016 14:30MCDS-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-003 Water 3/28/2016 15:22POND-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-004 Water 3/28/2016 16:00OUTFALL-1 A A A A A A Prepared by: Briana Cutino NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense. Comments: 300_1_W Alk_W FEMNMS_TTLC_W METALSMS_W PH_W SC_W TDS_W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Test Legend: 11 12 The following SampIDs: 001A, 002A, 003A, 004A contain testgroup. Page 18 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 631 Lab ID Client ID Collection Date & Time Date Logged: TATMatrixTest Name Containers /Composites WORK ORDER SUMMARY Work Order:1603D91 Comments: Client Name:BALANCE HYDROLOGICS Project:216027 QC Level:LEVEL 2 HoldDe- chlorinated SubOutBottle & Preservative 3/28/2016 Sediment Content EDF Fax Email HardCopy ThirdPartyExcel J-flagWriteOn Zan RubinClient Contact: zrubin@balancehydro.comContact's Email: WaterTrax McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" 1603D91-001A MCUS-1 3/28/2016 13:45 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-002A MCDS-1 3/28/2016 14:30 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-003A POND-1 3/28/2016 15:22 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-004A OUTFALL-1 3/28/2016 16:00 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1 of 1Page † General Mineral testing includes the following analyses: Alkalinity (speciated), Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Chloride, Sulfate, EC, pH, TDS. Legend: - STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission). NOTES: - MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client. Page 19 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 632 Page 20 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 633 Sample Receipt Checklist McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client Name:Balance Hydrologics WorkOrder №:1603D91 Date Logged:3/28/2016 Logged by:Briana Cutino Matrix:Water Carrier:Client Drop-In Shipping container/cooler in good condition?Yes No Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice?Yes No Chain of custody present?Yes No Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?Yes No Samples in proper containers/bottles?Yes No Sample containers intact?Yes No Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?Yes No All samples received within holding time?Yes No NASample/Temp Blank temperature Yes No NAWater - VOA vials have zero headspace / no bubbles? pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2; 522: <4; 218.7: >8)?Yes No NA * NOTE: If the "No" box is checked, see comments below. Temp:7.7°C Chain of Custody (COC) Information Yes NoSample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes NoDate and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes NoSampler's name noted on COC? Sample Receipt Information Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information Sample labels checked for correct preservation?Yes No Project Name:216027 (Ice Type:WET ICE ) Comments:Method SM4500H+B (pH) was received passed its 0.01-day holding time. Total Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt for EPA 522?Yes No NA UCMR3 Samples: Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt for EPA 218.7, 300.1, 537, 539? Yes No NA Date and Time Received:3/28/2016 16:52 Received by:Alexandra Iniguez Page 21 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 634 WorkOrder: Report Created for:Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 Project Contact:Zan Rubin Project Name:216027 Project P.O.: Project Received:03/28/2016 Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/30/2016 by: Angela Rydelius, Laboratory Manager 1603D91 A The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative. Analytical Report 1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP McCampbell Analytical, Inc. "When Quality Counts" Page 1 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 635 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation 95% Interval 95% Confident Interval DF Dilution Factor DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test DUP Duplicate EDL Estimated Detection Limit ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor LCS Laboratory Control Sample MB Method Blank MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level of Quantitation MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate N/A Not Applicable ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount. PDS Post Digestion Spike PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate PF Prep Factor RD Relative Difference RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation RRT Relative Retention Time SPK Val Spike Value SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure ST Sorbent Tube TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure TEQ Toxicity Equivalents WET (STLC)Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers H samples were analyzed out of holding time S Surrogate spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits c1 surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. Page 2 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 636 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Quality Control Qualifiers F1 MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD is out of acceptance criteria; LCS validated the prep batch. Page 3 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 637 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.7 Analytical Method:E200.7 Unit:µg/L Boron MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 1500 250 50 03/30/2016 13:34 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 16 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:34 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 1500 250 50 03/30/2016 13:37 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 151 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:37 POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 100 25 5 03/30/2016 13:40 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 147 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:40 OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 910 250 50 03/30/2016 13:31 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 47 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:31 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 4 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 638 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/30/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118799 Analytical Method:E200.7 Unit:µg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118799 1603D59-001DMS/MSD Instrument:ICP-JY Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E200.7 QC Summary Report for Boron Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Boron ND 47.7 5.0 50 -95 80-120 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 719 682 750 96 91 70-130 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Boron 63.8 60.7 50 12.39 103 97 80-120 4.95 20 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 967 885 750 129 118 70-130 8.89 20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 5 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 639 McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Rd Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 (925) 252-9262 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold Requested Tests (See legend below) Report to: Zan Rubin 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 (510) 704-1000 FAX:(510) 704-1001 PO: 03/28/2016 Client ID ProjectNo:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 1 of 1 Date Logged: Date Received:03/28/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Balance Hydrologics Bill to: Gustavo Porras Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710 Requested TAT:1 day; Date Add-On:03/30/2016 ClientCode:BH Email:zrubin@balancehydro.com EDF Fax Email HardCopy ThirdParty A Excel J-flagWriteOn cc/3rd Party: WaterTrax A1603D91-001 Water 3/28/2016 13:45MCUS-1 A1603D91-002 Water 3/28/2016 14:30MCDS-1 A1603D91-003 Water 3/28/2016 15:22POND-1 A1603D91-004 Water 3/28/2016 16:00OUTFALL-1 Prepared by: Briana Cutino NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense. Comments:Boron added 3/30/16 1day TAT. BORON_TTLC_W1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Legend: Add-On Prepared By: Maria Venegas Page 6 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 640 Lab ID Client ID Collection Date & Time Date Logged: TATMatrixTest Name Containers /Composites WORK ORDER SUMMARY Work Order:1603D91 Comments:Boron added 3/30/16 1day TAT. Client Name:BALANCE HYDROLOGICS Project:216027 QC Level:LEVEL 2 Hold SubOutBottle & Preservative 3/28/2016 Sediment Content 3/30/2016Date Add-On: Zan RubinClient Contact: zrubin@balancehydro.comContact's Email: McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" 1603D91-001A MCUS-1 3/28/2016 13:45 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-002A MCDS-1 3/28/2016 14:30 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-003A POND-1 3/28/2016 15:22 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-004A OUTFALL-1 3/28/2016 16:00 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1 of 1Page - STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission). NOTES: - MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client. Page 7 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 641 Page 8 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 642 APPENDIX B Borings from Marsh Creek Bridge Planset May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 643 NO. Notes: Standard Penetration Test Sampler : I.D . = 1.4"; O.D. = 2'' Modified California Sampler : I.D. = 2.5"; O.D. = 3" Hammer Assembl y: A 140 lb hammer with a 30" drop (Automatic Hammer) This LOTB sheet was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil & Ro ck, Logging, Classifi cation, and Presentation Manual (2010 ) See Caltrans 2010 Standard Plans A10F, A10G and A 1 OH for Soil and Rock Legends. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise shown. Base map is pro vided by Mark Thomas & Compan y, Inc 2015. 570 ~Elev. 562.0' 560 14 25 550 GWS 540 -;:::::' 530 w w LL. z 520 0 F <( > w _J 510 w 500 PLAN 1" = 20' .•.. ~iriinciWEL:i~oa~!~Dti~~«e ·sJ1~ri:° 1~ry ~ifMe~rg;n;. moist ;. plasticity fines; (LL=39, Pl=20}. ~CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC}; very dense; brown ; · · · · ·, · · ·moist;· coarse to · fine ·GRAVtL; · coarse to · fine ·SANO ,·· -· -SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM}; very dense; brown; moist; : coarse to fine GRAVEL; fine SAND; Sandstone fragments.: -· -Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND (GP); very dense; • brown while; moist; coarse to fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine : SAND; Quartz sandstone, Quartz boulder at 25 fl. • .... J":\srnlMENTARY ROCK {CLA:r'STONE),. brown .to gray , ..... .; .. ' intensely weathered, moderately soft to moderately hard , · intensely fractured, 450 psi, 65 min . Gray, slightly weathered, moderately soft, 450 psi. (UC=J .,.1.6.1.. psi,.E=l33 ,300 . psi). 490 03-11-14 Terminote.d .. at .. Elev .... ~497.0' ERi = 85% Groundwater was encountered at about 20 fl 480 *MC * LINE REVISIONS DES.: DESCRIPTION BY DATE DRAYM : OiKD.: DATE: SCALE: FlD. BK. V. SHERBY G. BOYKO 3-20-2015 337+00 PROJECT ENGINEER PLANS APPROVAL DATE 338+00 MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. 3000 OAK ROAD, SUITE 650 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 ~Elev. 560 .0' 10 13 03-07-14 Terminated al Elev .: ~490.0' ERi = 85% PCC 341+65 ,49 BENCHMARK ELE VATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (NG VD29), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BENCHMARK #3596, USC&GS DISC STAMPED "Z-1202 1969" ON THE NORTHEASTERLY END OF THE 2 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ON THE BRIDGE OVER MARCH CREEK APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EASTERLY OF MARCH CREEK SPRINGS RESORT. ELE VA TION = 562.042 FT (NG VD29). lean · CLAY .with SAND ·(cl}:· meaium ·stiff fci . stiff ;·yenow1sh · brown ; moist; fine SANb; medium plasticity fines. (UC= 1.3 tsf}. .-.. -.. -. · ~~ffi; GJ t1r~; · \g~?inr:'~W'tlfMe;g~rl~ iie1r~~ · ~A0lo~; · --SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM}; medium d~nse lo dense ; brown ; moist; coarse to fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND ; Grovel up lo1.5 inches in size. · ~ (+#4=39.3%,. -'-#200=1 U%}: .................•................... SEDIMENTARY ROCK (SANDSTONE}, fine-grained, gray, l inlensely weathered, moderately hard lo hard, intensely fractured, 350-400 psi, 40 mm; , · Sancklone ·boulder from · 20 to ·2·1 ··ft;· hard;· white. · · · · · · · SEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE}, gray , in tensely weathered, intensely fractured, 350-400 psi, 50 min. . ~~te:~1~rr'ha}~i;g~~7en1:,t;:e~o~~g;Jiy',1lat,if:et 450 . psi:. 400 psi, 30 min . Soft lo moderately soft, 400 psi, 20 min ; .. 400 . psi, .. 35 . min, .. (UC=62 psi, E=5,000 psi}. 400 psi, 30 min . 400 psi, 30 min . · 400 · psi;· 25 ·min:·· Moderately fractured, 400 psi, 22 min . 570 560 550 540 530 -;:::::' w w LL. 520 z 0 F <( > w 510 _J w 500 490 Groundwater was · not encountered · in the upper about 20 fl and not measured below that during drilling due to rotary coring method PROFILE Vert. 1" 1 O' Hor. : 1" = 20' 480 339+00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ , CA 94553 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 2 3 ®15)% ~~IB51~TI~[L o [D) [ffi~ \WI~ [M (Gl f ~2~!; 5 STATE PLANE EAST COORD . NORTH COORD MARSH CREEK ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT LOG OF TEST BORINGS ALE NO. SHEET OF 17 ALE NAME: PEN TBL: 117 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 644 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 645 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 646 1 February 26, 2016 ROBERT M HIRSCH (Arbitrator/Mediator) LAW OFFICES POST OFFICE BOX 170428 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117 Rmhirsch@gmail.com 415-362-9999 Re: Project Name: Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (Bridge 28C-141) County File No. CP 15-39 Initial Study of Environmental Significance INTRODUCTION My wife and I are the owners of the home located at 12807 Marsh Creek Road, Contra Costa County, and provide this Comment in response to the Notice of Public Review, (Notice), dated January 27, 2016. We received the Notice on February 8, 2016. We are affected by the proposed project and submit these Comments in opposition to the County’s current plan. We are aware that James Gray is submitting comments on behalf of the residents at 12801 Marsh Creek Road, and join in those comments, and incorporate them by reference here.1 1 We will not address here the significant environmental impact on the trees, shrubs, wildlife, ground water and creek that the proposed Project would have, as Mr. Gray addresses those matters. But it is beyond our understanding how the Study can minimize the destructive nature of the proposal when the destruction is clear. Comment Letter No. 2 1 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 647 2 Our Comments are focused upon safety issues, which we believe exist and are not addressed in the Initial Study of Environmental Significance (Study). Our house is located on the curve, East of the bridge. We have an incline from our drive away to the road and an approximately 8-foot, soft shoulder, before we access Marsh Creek Road. The curve to the east of our driveway gives us a little more than 200 feet of visibility as we exit our property. It is currently dangerous to both enter and exit our property because of the short distance from the blind curve to our driveway, and because of the speed at which vehicles travel on this stretch of road. We will be significantly impacted by the Bridge Project. INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE The Study states the following: Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Regulatory Setting, e) at page 11: “The right-of-way acquisition would be needed in order to straighten out the existing curve that is considered a safety hazard.” Mineral Resources, Land Use Planning b), at page 57: “The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan’s Transportation Circulation Element’s policies, including the following: - Policy #5-9: To provide a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system.” Transportation/Traffic, a) at page 72: “The proposed project would widen shoulders through the project area, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety.” 2 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 648 3 Transportation/Traffic, Environmental Setting, d) at page 73: “The project area ranks high for accidents within Contra Costa County. As part of the proposed project, the curve in the road would be realigned to provide a straighter approach that is safer than the existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have no impact.” (Emphasis in original). Mandatory Findings of Significance, c) at page 77: The Project has “Less Than Significant Impact” on “environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly of indirectly.” PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT STUDY This Study proposes four design alternatives for the Bridge Project. Alternative 2 has been selected, according to the Study. It realigns the road between 19.5 and 22 feet North, and increases the road elevation. The design speed is targeted at 50 mph, and the curve East of the Bridge is straightened out. This Alternative cuts significantly into the property at 12801 Marsh Creek Road and impacts our property next door. Alternative 3, realigns the road centerline only 5.5 feet, essentially widening the Bridge where it currently stands. The design speed is reduced to a safer 40 mph. SAFETY CONCERN Although the studies mentioned above assure us that safety is enhanced by the proposed Bridge and Road design, it is not. As noted by the County already, the project area ranks “high for accidents.” By maintaining a design speed of 50 mph, and straightening out the curve of the road, so drivers can push the gas pedal a little harder, 3 4 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 649 4 the County is assuring us that it will be even more difficult to enter and exit the affected properties. It will be harder to slow down in this area to turn into the driveway at 12807 Marsh Creek Road. This stretch of road needs a reduced design speed. Additionally, the current plan calls for increasing the incline of driveways at 12801 and 12807 Marsh Creek Road and eliminating much, if not all, of the soft shoulder that we currently use to access the roadway. This is a deadly combination. From our the driveway at 12807, we will have almost no opportunity to enter the roadway without risking a serious accident from vehicles racing around the blind curve from the East. There are many other spots along this road, within just a few miles of the Bridge site, which have reduced speed limits. We are putting the County on notice that it is increasing the risk for accidents causing serious bodily harm or death in this area if the Bridge Project goes forward as designed. God help any victims, and the County and Board of Supervisors if our fears come to pass. We urge the County to adopt a more conservative, safer design to the new Bridge—one that replaces the Bridge but does not increase the risk of deadly accidents. It is impossible to understand why this issue is not addressed anywhere in the studies referenced here. We will obviously consider taking any necessary legal action necessary to protect ourselves, our family and friends, and the affected public. Respectfully Submitted, 4 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 650 5 Robert M Hirsch, Attorney at Law Shauna I. Marshall, Emerita Professor of Law, Hastings College of the Law May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 651 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 652 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 1 Dewatering would occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. How will this water be re-routed around the construction site? The cofferdam method(s) considered “acceptable to CDFW” needs to be described in sufficient detail to correctly determine if locally significant impacts to the biological community. This community exists year round due to inflow from underground spring, located within 100' north of existing bridge. Biological study conducted on August 30, 2013, didn’t make note of the upstream dry, but down stream had water flow. Commenter notes that most of the dewatering zone in the downstream (north direction) is outside of the county right-away; therefore encroaching (on order of 150- ft) into the property of private residence (12801) adjacent to the project. As discussed in the project description, water within the creek would be rerouted using cofferdams. The specifics regarding dewatering will be determined during the permitting phase of the project; however, minimum components of the dewatering system will include an upstream and downstream cofferdam to isolate the work area, as well as a silt filtering area for work area water to be treated prior to release. Cofferdams would be made of clean materials and creek flows would be allowed to bypass the work area at all times (no water impoundment would occur). The cofferdam method was adequately assessed in the analysis presented in the IS/MND. A hydrogeologic analysis of Marsh Creek in the area of the bridge was performed to investigate the source of the water feeding a pool within the creek downstream of the work area and right of way. General mineral, boron, and specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring; however, given elevated base flow volume, results are not sufficiently discriminating to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. Subsequent field verification will be conducted during lower (spring or summer) flows to determine whether additional consideration is necessary to accommodate groundwater flow. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments for additional detail regarding these possible accommodations. A copy of the hydrogeologic report is attached. The existence of a possible spring and presence of a pool downstream of the project area does not change the impact determinations in the IS/MND. As noted in the project description, construction may require right of way or temporary construction easements from several adjacent parcels. No permanent land acquisitions are anticipated to be needed. 2 The changes in both the horizontal and vertical alignments require reconstruction of Marsh Creek Road on both sides of the bridge (900 feet total). According to the NES (Natural Environmental Study, March 2015) only 800’ on both sides of the bridge will be needed. Please explain this 100’ of discrepancy. As discussed in the IS/MND, the Natural Environment Study (NES) is one of a number of studies developed and used during project impact analysis and design. The project design has been refined based on additional considerations. Approximately 900 feet of the road requires reconstruction or overlay/widening. 3 The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right-of-way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. What is the alternative plan if the right-of-way or temporary easements are not agreed upon? The County's Real Estate Division will follow the appropriate industry standards and procedures to obtain necessary property rights. 4 The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The recommendation is based on the following: There is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to 15063 (b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. “Significant effect” on the environment will definitely be a factor. Removal of 36 trees, several bushes/ shrubs and personal landscape. Change to the entire scenic environment. Not to mention the wildlife habitat not taken into study for the nocturnal wildlife. The findings presented in the IS/MND are correct as reported. The IS/MND used the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as well as established and applicable CEQA thresholds, to determine impact findings. Responses to comments regarding specific findings are addressed and conclusions are substantiated throughout this matrix. Based on further analysis of the project design relative to trees along the north side of the roadway, it has been determined that 11 trees along the north side of the bridge that were identified as being removed will now be retained. A final tree removal plan is underway and will be provided to commenter as soon as it is available. 5 This conclusion is rebuttable. Evidence provided in following sections in many cases do not provide sufficient evidence/analyses to support this document statement. Comments addressing specific items are presented in the following section. The findings and significance conclusions presented in the IS/MND are correct as reported. This comment is addressed (and conclusion substantiated) through specific responses provided throughout this matrix. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 653 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 6 Does It appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? Please explain question 3. “No” has been marked and this There is significant public concern. SAFETY Two residence families will be directly impacted, they are part of the public. Please see discussions presented in the IS/MND impact analyses. No significant impacts were identified using established CEQA guidelines and thresholds. Please see the responses to comments 22, 36, 82, 93, and 97. 7 The existing bridge has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. Please reconcile this statement with the public record “Caltrans Bridge inspection maintenance report(CSMIR) “Dated July 2015, page 90, 4th item identified as Bridge # 28C0141. Column “SD/FO” rates this bridge as “FO” NOT “SD” The rating has changed since the County originally applied for federal funds in August 2010. The application in 2010 used the inspection dated 8/26/2008, which defined the bridge as structurally deficient. The most recent bridge inspection report, dated 7/24/14, defines the bridge as functionally obsolete. 8 The proposed bridge would be an approximately 90-foot-long, single-span bridge. Please confirm that ENTIRE project description is accurate. For instance retaining walls on 65% plans are different from this description. The project description as presented in the IS/MND is accurate with exceptions discussed in responses to comments 28 and 31. These changes do not affect the findings of the IS/MND. Specific to the comment on the retaining wall, that change (as described in the IS/MND) was made to avoid impacts on private property and lessen the need for property acquisitions. 9 Two retaining walls may also be necessary: the first retaining wall would be along the north side of the roadway (west of the bridge), would have an average approximate height of 10 feet, and would be 183 feet long; the second smaller retaining wall would be set back from the roadway on the north side of the road (west of the bridge) and would be approximately 7 feet high and 90 feet long. The final design of these walls will be determined prior to construction. The widening and realignment of Marsh Creek Road to construct the new bridge may require right of way or temporary easements from several adjacent parcels. Please clarify the parcels involved in this acquisition of right-of-way whether temporary or permanent; and alternate plan if these acquisitions are not obtained. Please see page 66 of the IS/MND (Population and Housing, item B) for a list of parcel numbers requiring temporary construction easements. Please see the response to comment 3 regarding the easement process. 10 Overhead electric, phone, and cable lines cross the creek along the south side of the road. An underground water line is attached to the downstream (north) side of the bridge. The overhead electric line poles and the water line attached to the existing bridge will be relocated. Who pays for these utilities to be relocated? Who will be reimbursing the private residence adjacent to the project for the install and all cost of the existing fire hydrant mandated by the county for fire protection because of a house fire? Hydrant is ““Blue Collared”- For Fire use only” not construction, rehabilitation, or relocation of bridge/roadway. Per agreements for operating in the County right of way, utility companies will pay for the necessary relocations to accommodate the project, including all costs to relocate the fire hydrant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 654 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 11 The HCP/NCCP complies with Section 10(a)(l )(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 and as such covered activities are authorized incidental take of HCP/NCCP-covered special status species subject to mitigation fees for both permanent and temporary impacts to species habitats and implementation of specific conditions and conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential effects to species and/or its habitats. Please quantify what the “incidental take” is expected, with respect to the local habitat destruction/wildlife killed or displaced that will result from the project as planned. As described in the IS/MND and the HCP/NCCP Planning Survey Report (PSR), "incidental take" refers specifically to impacts on special status species. Habitat avoidance and minimization measures, listed as mitigation measures in the Biological Resources section, are built into the project to be consistent with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). 12 Provide specific citation of what HCP/NCCP actually allows, authority/jurisdiction for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy to authorize special species take on private property without specific permits from CDFW, compensation to property owners for said takings, and fees paid to a government agency will compensate for wiping out a year round creek channel population/habitat primarily located on private property. The HCP/NCCP is a Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit as long as appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are followed and appropriate fees are paid. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are signatory agencies to the HCP/NCCP. As noted in the IS/MND, the County fully intends to implement appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and pay all required fees to obtain take coverage for HCP/NCCP-covered species that may be impacted as a result of project construction. Impacts to Marsh Creek are addressed in subsequent responses. Please see the responses to comments 55 and 66 regarding compensation. 13 Please clarify where this document describes mitigation measures for this impact on private property. The wildlife of the state is under the jurisdiction of the California Fish and Game Code and is regulated by both CDFW and USFWS (where species are federally listed). Waters of the state and waters of the U.S. are under the jurisdiction of the state and federal government and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). These are public resources and will be protected as such under relevant laws and regulations. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) outlines all mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. 14 The HCP/NCCP requires reporting and fee payment to the HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers authority formed by the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County (Jones & Stokes Associates 2006). Residents of 12801 were first notified of this project in mid- October 2015 by letter informing them of the need to relocate their driveway due the project defined in its current scope. Residents contend that delaying formal description of all local agencies effectively precluded sufficient time to perform fact finding, seek professional opinions, and prepare more specifically directed comments pertaining to regulatory agency authority. The CEQA Guidelines allow for 30 days for public review and comment. The County has followed these guidelines for notification. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 655 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 15 A drainage ditch and a perennial stream channel are in the project area. There would be temporary and permanent impacts to these resources during construction. Please explain what specific impacts to the stream are, both temporary and permanent impacts to these resources. There is a significant possibility of permanent impact from disruption of natural springs in the creek adjacent to the existing bridge. Commenter notes that NES failed to identify groundwater source of perennial wetland downstream of bridge, and significance of this water source not only locally, but in the surrounding region. This information needs further study and professional evaluation relative to its potential significant impact on the environment. Commenter contends this is another issue warranting preparation of a full EIR, not a mitigated Negative Declaration. Areas of temporary and permanent impacts (broken down by habitat type in accordance with the HCP/NCCP) to Marsh Creek are presented in the IS/MND and PSR. As discussed in the IS/MND, the County will mitigate for permanent and temporary impacts to the stream in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for significant impacts that cannot be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. All of the proposed project’s adverse impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with appropriate mitigation. Qualified staff from Balance Hydrologics have conducted field reconnaissance, collected site and surrounding area samples, and analyzed these data in an effort to characterize the source of the summer water in the channel and to determine whether bridge construction would have any lasting impact on the pool downstream of the bridge. A detailed discussion of the results of the study is included in the responses to comments 67 and 75. 16 As noted above, a drainage ditch and seasonal wetland adjoin the project area, and would sustain minimal temporary impacts during construction. Characterization of adjacent wetland as “seasonal” is not correct. Commenter has supplied information regarding natural spring activity which sustains a year round wetland just north of the present bridge. As such, this wetland will sustain major damage from construction activities (especially dewatering) and likely permanent damage from disruption of the groundwater source sustaining the wetlands. Comment noted. The text is incorrect as written; there is not a seasonal wetland in the project area. The text should indicate that a drainage ditch and perennial stream (Marsh Creek) are within the project area. Stream impacts due to bridge construction including dewatering are included in the calculations of the HCP/NCCP impact fees. Please see the responses to comments 67 and 75 for further discussion. 17 See previous comment-conclusion that impacts are minimal and temporary are inconsistent with actual site conditions present at the project site Please see the responses to comments 15 and 16. 18 Therefore, a waiver certification will be requested from the State Water Resources Control Board. Commenter notes that active construction will be occurring over two seasons and portions of the work are actually within the creek bed. The tributary watershed at this proposed project is over 23 square miles. Special measures are needed to protect the downstream creek features as well as disturbed areas within the construction. Given these issues, commenter notes that waiver may not be appropriate for disturbed areas within the creek and adjacent areas that may be subject to erosion/sedimentation from seasonal stream flows. Comment noted. The County will present the project details to the Water Board and follow the appropriate procedures to obtain either an erosivity waiver or permit coverage. Regardless of whether the project qualifies for an erosivity waiver, appropriate best management practices will be implemented to ensure the potential for erosion and sedimentation is addressed. 19 Therefore, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement will be obtained from CDFW for the proposed project. Whom will be obtaining this agreement and how will it be monitored, and how often? The County will obtain a permit from CDFW and comply with permit conditions. 20 Commenter requests status of consulation to date and concrens/input provided by CDFW revelent to present scope. If, not performed, provide written statement why this was not considered necessary in reaching conclusions expressed in this document. Commenter contends this communication would be material to conclusions expressed in this document and recommendation for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration A permit application to CDFW is not considered complete by that agency until the CEQA process is complete. The County will obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and comply with permit conditions. No advance consultation regarding wildlife is warranted or necessary given that the project is covered by the HCP/NCCP and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts are pre- determined by the HCP/NCCP. 21 The proposed project will comply with all provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. This statement needs to address each specific provision of the fish and game code explicitly; explaining how the proposed project will be in compliance and whether the measures proposed have obtained concurring opinion of CDFW prior to formally certifying this document The CEQA process must be completed in order for CDFW to consider the permit application for the project complete. Compliance with the California Fish and Game Code will be determined by CDFW during the permitting phase of the project. Please also refer to the responses to comments 12 and 20. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 656 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 22 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Commenter contends that factual information pertaining to environmental conditions available or readily obtainable with due diligence was not considered in making this determination. Further review of factual information, especially relative to the permanent wetland immediately to the north of existing bridge is expected to show that there will be a significant impact to the environment and that an EIR would be required as CURRENTLY PROPOSED. Information relating to pre-design feasibility studies conducted by project proponent and reviewed by commenter suggest that a design for bridge replacement essentially in-situ using a southerly alignment shift to gain additional lane and shoulder width be reconsidered. Flood study could be re- evaluated for a lower frequency (50 year recurrance period) which should allow deck elevation be lowered and reduce length of roadway grade and geometry changes. Design speed could be revised downward to be consistent with adjacent roadway conditions and in consideration of long term plan for the portion of Marsh Creek Road system within Mt. Diablo foothill zone. Per the response to comment 15, and as discussed in the response to previous and subsequent comments, an EIR is not required for the project, as no significant impacts were identified. The County has selected a design for the new bridge that maximizes public safety while minimizing private harm. The alignment that was ultimately chosen for the new road/bridge was the result of a detailed alternatives analysis that considered many factors including cost, design speed, safety, constructability, environmental impacts, right of way impacts, staging, and traffic handling. The selected bridge alignment best meets the relevant requirements. The design speed is different from the speed limit; it incorporates a buffer to ensure that safety is maintained. The County has analyzed reducing the design speed and has determined that it is inappropriate to do so due to the road classification, average daily traffic, and the posted speed of the road. County policy is to design improvements on roadways with a safety factor or buffer (from 5 to 10 mph) to the posted speed. Because Marsh Creek Road is currently posted at 45 mph, the appropriate design speed for improvements is a minimum of 50 mph in accordance with County policy. 23 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Mitigation possible by alignment redesign to avoid destroying most of habitat on North side of existing bridge; otherwise commenter contends this is a potentially significant impact. The County has selected the bridge alignment that meets relevant requirements and project goals. Alternative alignments are not feasible due to additional cost, reduced design speed, reduced safety, and more difficult construction methods. Using CEQA guidelines, the aesthetics analysis assesses potential impacts to scenic vistas. As noted in the IS/MND, the project will result in impacts to trees; however, it will not result in impacts to scenic ridges, hillsides, or rock outcroppings, which are the noted scenic vistas in the County. Further, CEQA case law has established that public views, not private views, require analysis under CEQA. Case law has noted that the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, rather than particular persons. The Marsh Creek Road alignment is dominated by oak savanna, oak woodland, scrub, and native grasslands. After construction, the scenic environment would not be significantly changed. 24 Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? Commenter contends that damage will occur to habitat noted above unless redesign to move alignment away from north side is implemented as mitigation. Please see the response to comment 23. Marsh Creek is not designated or eligible as a State Scenic Highway. Please see the response to comment 4 regarding refinement (reduction) of the project’s tree impacts. 25 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Commentor notes same concern as previous comments-Removal of most trees (approx. 36+ of aprox 46 trees along north side of bridge) will signifantly degrade view; both to motorists and to 12801 MCR residents. As noted in the response to comment 23, the CEQA Guidelines require assessment of a project's impacts on the broad environment, not a specific view from a specific residence. The Marsh Creek Road alignment is dominated by oak savanna, oak woodland, scrub, and native grasslands. After construction, the visual character and surrounding scenic environment would not be significantly changed. As noted in the response to comment 4, design plans have been refined since the IS/MND was published. Based on this refinement, 11 trees along the north side of the bridge that were identified as being removed will now be retained. A final tree removal plan will be provided to the commenter as soon as it is available. 26 Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Please explain how the Aesthetics to the scenic rual backdrop of the area at the project is not substantially impacted when all of the mature vegetation is going to be removed within project area? Although bridge construction will require removal of some mature vegetation, removal of several trees in the vicinity of the bridge will not remove all of the mature vegetation in the project area, nor will it significantly change the visual character and surrounding scenic environment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 657 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 27 There are no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important visual resources within the project area as reported in the technical studies prepared for this project (LSA Associates 2015; Contra Costa County 2015a). This conclusion is rebuttable. Commenter contends that large number of trees adjacent to bridge materialy contribute to the rural character within the project area-they provide visual screening of the residence at 12801 MCR and promote visual asthetics which will mitigate the visual impact of a modern highway character that the project creates. Mitigation by bridge realignment and grade lowering would significantly mitigate visual impacts. Please respond. Please see the responses to comments 22, 23, 25, and 26. 28 The new bridge and bridge approaches would remain at existing elevations; therefore, existing views to and from the bridge would not be substantially altered. Statement is inconsistent with 65% design drawings. Drawings show a variable and minimum 2-foot increase in bridge deck elevation from existing structure. Following sentence is therefor rebuttable; please provide justification for conclusion BASED ON ACTUAL project design or revise accordingly Comment noted. The new bridge would be 1 to 2.5 feet higher and roadway approaches would be a maximum of 2.5 to 4 feet higher than existing elevations. While the elevations are changing from existing conditions (as the commenter notes), they are not changing to an extent that would significantly affect public views in general. 29 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. Please explain how the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the scenic vista when the vegetation including mature trees will be removed from 99% of one side of the road. Only 1 tree is marked for removal from the opposing side of the project road way. (Removes viewscreen/sound buffer from Residence 1. It will take many years for revegetation to equivalent of what is there now) Please see the responses to comments 23, 25, and 26. 30 There are also no designated or eligible cultural, historical, or natural resources that could be considered important scenic resources within the project area Previous comments earlier indicated existence of a year-round biological community which includes protected species in the creekbed. Natural springs feed this community and support the trees shading the area The trees are a substantial indication of a healthy riparian community which materially contributes to the scenic vista in immediate project area. Comment noted. The site providing biological value does not result in these resources being considered scenic. Please see the responses to comments 23 and 25. 31 The vertical alignment of the new bridge is not expected to change from that of the existing bridge, so the proposed project would not change the perspective of existing views. The vertical alignment will be changed significantly (2 to 2.5-ft) and the roadway deck would be superelevated to conform to a horizontal curve according to the 65% plans.See previous comments Widening the bridge from 32’ to 47’. (15’ increase) The sun has a substantial effect on the drivers (eastbound drivers face direct sunlight shortly after sunrise; westbound traffic face same direct light situation now. Proposed project removal of trees adjacent on north side will make morning direct sunlight exposure significantly worse. Add realignment proposed will direct headlights into 12801 residence are. Comment noted. The vertical alignment will be changed as discussed in response to comment 28, and the roadway deck will be superelevated to conform to a horizontal curve as noted in the 65% plans. The bridge would be widened to 43 feet as noted and analyzed in the IS/MND. These changes to the bridge alignment and width are not to an extent that would significantly affect the views of the public in general. The project does not involve the installation of any new sources of light or glare. Any incremental increase in the amount of sunlight hitting a driver’s eyes as a result of tree removal would be a negligible impact relative to driving throughout the remainder of Marsh Creek Road; therefore, no changes are required. 32 However, the width of the bridge would increase in size from 30.5 to 47 feet in width. Suggest checking and revising stated dimensions to conform to project plans Comment noted. The proposed width of the bridge is 43 feet, not 47 feet. The dimensions were refined as the design of the bridge has been finalized. 33 Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact related to light and glare. Commenter contends this conclusion is rebuttable. Need to consider effect on commuting motorists from additional loss of vegetation screening direct sunlight. Please see the response to comment 31. 34 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Removal of 36 trees in an area of approximately 20” by 80 feet (1600 SF) constitutes loss of forest land. Can be Mitigated by revising project alignment design The project area (including these trees) is not classified as forest land, therefore, no changes are required. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 658 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 35 The proposed project may also result in the need for CCCPWD to acquire a small portion of grazing land along the north side of the roadway just west of the bridge crossing for staging and permanent right of way acquisition. Commenter understand from verbal communication with Neil Leary on 2/16/16 that permanent right of way acquisition no longer required due to design decision to build wall to retain roadway embankment. Commenter notes redesign to move roadway south would likely eliminate the requirement to build wall. Comment noted. 36 The right-of-way acquisition would be needed in order to straighten out the existing curve that is considered a safety hazard. Parcel number is needed for exact location. “Stating that the existing curve is considered a safety hazard.” Please provide evidence documenting severity the safety issue to this existing curve. There hasn’t been an vehicle accident on this curve in over 46 years. Safety hazard to the residences of the said land has not been taken into consideration. Moving their entrance/exit to residence has been moved closer to the curve that will have a higher design speed and less reaction time visual distance. The design as currently depicted doesn’t provide any additional shoulder width (over 8’ provided) to provide transition onto roadway allowing resident/guest to get some speed before entering traffic lanes. Comment noted. The existing curve does not meet the County's current design speed standards. The project would improve the curve to a higher factor of safety to meet design speed requirements. The County has evaluated the new driveway location. Because the existing fence is being removed and the curve is being straightened, the new driveway location would have better sight distance than existing conditions. The paved shoulder at the new driveway will be significantly wider than the existing condition (8 feet vs. less than 1 foot in width), allowing for increased all weather use in ingress and egress of the new driveway. The existing condition does provide a large unpaved gravel shoulder that is used for ingress and egress of the property off the main road. County engineering will coordinate with the property owner on the appropriate flaring of the new driveway conform off the paved shoulder for ingress/egress. County engineering will also coordinate with the owner on the final location of the driveway. 37 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Item d. is significant to the resident within 200’ of the project and staging area for construction equipment. They are both Senior Citizens ( late 70’s and 80 years of age). With respect to dust and emission from construction equipment. Air quality will be substantially impacted. The finding is correct as reported in Section D of the IS/MND. As discussed in the IS/MND, the analysis used toxic air contaminant (TAC) thresholds developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and considered the receptors identified in this comment in completing this analysis. These thresholds are developed to be protective of sensitive receptors, including the elderly. 38 All engines will meet or·exceed lJSllPA/CARB Tier 3 off-road emission standards; or Tier 4 engined equipment-Readily available Emission level will be even lower than recommendation described. The commenter is correct; Tier 4 equipment would reduce emissions further than reported. As stated in the IS/MND, the project will require at least Tier 3 emission standards. Tier 4 off-road equipment is not uniformly available for all equipment, as it is still in the process of being phased in through the regulatory process. Requiring at least Tier 3 equipment ensures emissions will be below thresholds. 39 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Requirement should be modified to include, and additionally water as frequently to suppress all visible dust. As noted in the IS/MND, the dust control measures will be consistent with the BAAQMD requirements. Watering will be employed during high levels of dust. 40 Where is the source of water coming from? Should there be more watering for dust control? Safety of the drivers on the road, residences in area. The water would come from a water truck, which would use water from municipal sources. Watering will be employed during high levels of dust. 41 Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. This is irrelevant. Consider removing. Comment noted. The project does not involve use of building pads. 42 A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 48 hours is too long to respond to persons residing there and NOT ACCEPTABLE for dust issue at adjacent residences. Response should be within 1 hour during active work hours and 4 hours for events occurring outside working hours The County will follow BAAQMD guidelines as noted in the IS/MND. 43 Is this 48 hours based on working hours or continuous hours from time of complaint. Dust monitors need to be located at both residences to the northeast of the project. They are within the distance being affected. A response will be made within 48 continuous hours from the time of complaint. The regulations do not dictate that nearby residences have dust monitors, and, because dust levels are below applicable thresholds, dust monitors are not warranted. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 659 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 44 Since the proposed project would replace an existing substandard bridge with a new one with the same carrying capacity and meeting all current safety standards, it would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would have a less than significant effect on traffic flow locally and regionally. Thus, the proposed project's operational ambient CO impacts would be less than significant. There would be a direct operational impact to the traffic during commute times, as hours of construction have been set for 7am -7pm and weekends with approval. As well as to the locals that live in the area. Temporary construction-related impacts on traffic are discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of the IS/MND. Two lanes of traffic would be maintained at all times during construction. Any delays associated with construction would occur for short periods (approximately 10 minutes). These delays would occur outside of peak commute hours. The finding reported in Section B is correct, and is related to operational impacts following construction. 45 Table 3: Construction Criteria Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Prior to Mitigation There is significant health impact to residents at 12801, as previously stated for toxic air contaminant impact. Please see the response to comment 37. As noted in Table 4, mitigation to be implemented as part of the project will reduce the impact to below applicable thresholds. 46 The Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (MMRP; included as Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, the parties that will be responsible for ensuring implementation of these measures, and implementation of the measures will be verified. Who will be responsible for ensuring that County effectively implements these measures? Need to identify. How often and how long will they be at job site? Where will real time air monitoring devices be placed in order for proper measures to be verified? The resident engineer or inspector will ensure that the air quality mitigation measures are met. Please refer to the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP). The resident engineer will be on-site continuously. No real-time air monitoring is required or warranted as impacts will be less than significant. 47 With only one existing residential receptor within 200 feet of the bridge site, substantial on-going odor impacts of the 7-month construction period would be unlikely. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. There are no odors now. Any odor would be an impact and would be significant. What is the plan for odors that may happen from this project? How will the resident within 200’ be accomodated? Comment noted. As noted in the IS/MND, objectionable odors are not expected. Any objectionable odors should be reported to the resident engineer or inspector and will be addressed accordingly. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 660 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 48 Summary Questions A through F Commenter disagrees with determinations a., b., c. and d., and contends that impacts are potentially significant. Commenter notes that Project Proponent (CCCty Public Works) is part of the same political entity (Contra Costa County) which is charged with ensuring that project environmental process complying with CEQA. How is public to be assured that these conclusions are impartial? The is no independent entity outside County Control to be accountable for the assertion/conclusions made in this document. The County would be responsible for additional costs associated with substantial work undertaken to revise and/or augment work already performed. This biological resources section is based on limited “eyeballs on” field survey work performed by biological consultant. (Natural Environmental Survey, prepares for Caltrans and dated March 2015. ) Wildlife (fauna) survey was performed on a single date (8/30/13). The report did not provide any description of the planned scope of the field work the consultant was committing to follow. (multiple visits, dusk or dawn observations, etc.- these would be expected for a consultant to define in a business proposal to the client.). Commenter requested field records of this activity to determine how much effort was contemplated/contracted for; this is material to supporting conclusions of less than significant impact vs. a potentially significant impact. Commenter noted that Section 2.5 provided caveat that conclusions were based on data collected on site “at the time of the site visit”. There is no certification or statement in this document holding the preparers professionally accountable for their work. Please respond with description of EIR process features and procedural controls that assure transparency and accountability of proponent for accuracy/justification of conclusions presented. The project falls within the HCP/NCCP Service Area and is a covered project (Bridge Replacement, Repair, Retrofit). Under the HCP/NCCP framework, presence of HCP/NCCP-covered species is assumed where habitat for these species occurs. In compliance with the HCP/NCCP, several qualified biologists conducted species-specific planning surveys on 8/30/13, and botanists conducted surveys on 4/16/13, 6/7/13, 8/30/13, and 3/21/14. The protocol for all biological surveys is provided in the HCP/NCCP and summarized in the PSR. The likelihood for HCP/NCCP covered species to occur in the project area was conservatively based on presence of suitable habitat. Habitat conditions within the survey area have not changed since surveys were conducted; therefore, the results remain representative of existing conditions. The HCP/NCCP is a Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit as long as appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are followed and appropriate HCP/NCCP fees are paid. CDFW and USFWS are signatory agencies to the HCP/NCCP. As noted in the IS/MND, the County fully intends to implement appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and pay all required fees to obtain take coverage for HCP/NCCP-covered species that may be impacted as a result of project construction, as well as to comply with all regulatory permits obtained for the project. As presented in the IS/MND, potentially significant impacts would be sufficiently mitigated through implementation of the applicable avoidance and minimization measures, including preconstruction surveys identified in the biological studies and IS/MND, and through payment of more than $82,000 in mitigation fees to the Habitat Conservancy. Therefore, no changes to the impact findings are required. 49 Special Status Wildlife Species Consideration and not noted or scene because they are either nocturnal or out of the study focus times, are the following: Hawks – red tail, Coober socks Shark Shin Bats – Pallid Big Eared Owls –Screech Great Horned Ducks -Mallard (nesting pair) Quail – Nest in the blackberry bushes set for removal Deer – bring their fawns for water and grazing grasses Comment noted. Under the HCP/NCCP framework, planning surveys are intended to identify presence of habitat and are not required to be conducted at any particular time of day nor during any particular season (with the exception of botanical surveys which were conducted during appropriate blooming periods as noted in the response to comment 48). Presence of HCP/NCCP-covered species is assumed where habitat for these species occurs. All wildlife mentioned have been accounted for in identifying the proposed avoidance and minimization measures set forth in the IS/MND to be implemented during construction. Mitigation measures BIO-1 (disturbance to habitats and trees), BIO-3 (migratory bird protective measure), BIO- 6 (special status bats) and BIO-10b (wetland pond and stream protective measures) will be implemented prior to and during construction as appropriate to avoid disturbing wildlife in or adjacent to the project area. 50 California red-legged frog There are red legged frogs in this water way. Residents at 12801 have observed the redlegged frog in the creek area for 46 years. Comment noted. Presence of California red-legged frog (CRLF) in Marsh Creek is acknowledged by the project’s biological studies and IS/MND. CRLF was observed by biologists during planning surveys for the project. Because CRLF is a covered species under the HCP/NCCP and because the project is covered under this permit, mitigation for the potential impact to occupied CRLF habitat consists of payment of mitigation fees, in addition to the measures outlined in the IS/MND under mitigation measure BIO-4. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 661 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 51 Western pond turtle is a HCP/NCCP covered species and a California Species of Special Concern. There is a family of pond turtles which nest and bare their hatchlings. They have been established for at least 46 years during 12801 owners residency. Comment noted. Presence of suitable foraging, dispersal, and breeding habitat for western pond turtle is acknowledged by the IS/MND. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 prior to construction will isolate the work site so wildlife can use protected riparian habitat without entering the construction site. Impacts from habitat disturbance will be mitigated through payment of mitigation fees to the Habitat Conservancy consistent with mitigation measure BIO-5. 52 The nearest record is 1.39 miles from the project site. No pond turtles were observed during the survey. See comment above Data collected from the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database is one of many tools used to determine habitat suitability for each species, but may not capture all occurrences. The IS/MND identified suitable riparian/aquatic habitat and adjacent upland habitat for western pond turtle within the project area. Therefore, this species was considered in the impact evaluation presented in the IS/MND under mitigation measure BIO-5. Please see the response to comment 51. 53 Although not observed with in the BSA, foraging habitat for pallid bar and Townsend's big-eared bar is present within the BSA within the site's native grasslands and al the edges of the oak savanna. 12801 residents have observed bats at dusk for many years on their property and over the creek Although bats were not observed during the surveys, biologists identified suitable bat habitat within the biological survey area. As a result, the IS/MND (BIO-6) evaluates project construction on bats and provides appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation to avoid disturbance to bats during construction. Please see mitigation measure BIO-6 in the IS/MND for details. 54 There are four records of San Joaquin kit fox occurrences within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2013). Residents of 12801 have observed kit fox families training pups in the grassy area at far west end of BSA for many years, the last sighting being in the summer of 2015. This area is on property owned by 12801 residents. Potential presence of San Joaquin kit fox is acknowledged, although deemed unlikely, by the project’s biological studies and IS/MND. The IS/MND provides an impact analysis for San Joaquin kit fox (impact analysis BIO-8) and describes a detailed avoidance and mitigation approach for this species consistent with the HCP/NCCP (mitigation measure BIO-8). Focused preconstruction surveys will be conducted by qualified biologists 30 days prior to construction to determine whether suitable burrows are present. If an occupied den is detected, both CDFW and USFWS will be notified. Please see mitigation measure BIO-8 for specific details about minimization measures under every scenario. 55 These conservation measures are incorporated into the species mitigation provided in this impact analysis, to offset potential project impacts. Please describe how project impacts to wildlife on private property adjacent to the project(including the BSA) are addressed by the HCP/NCGP. The HCP/NCCP does not distinguish between public and privately owned property for species impact avoidance measures or mitigation. Wildlife habitat outside of the work area will be protected by installation of exclusion fencing as appropriate. Please see the response to comment 51. 56 3. All no-take species will be avoided. Please explain how aquatic community is to be relocated to “avoid” take of turtles/CRLF No-take species are those species for which the HCP/NCCP does not provide incidental take coverage. CRLF and western pond turtle are not defined as no-take species under the HCP/NCCP. Mitigation measure BIO-4 describes the process by which USFWS and CDFW will be responsible for translocating CRLF, if present, prior to construction. For western pond turtle, please see the responses to comments 51 and 52 and mitigation measure BIO-5 in the IS/MND. With implementation of applicable avoidance and minimization measures and payment of appropriate HCP/NCCP fees, the project will have coverage for incidental take of CRLF and western pond turtle via the Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 incidental take permit and California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 incidental take permit (the HCP/NCCP permit). A qualified biologist will be present during creek dewatering to capture and relocate wildlife in the work zone, as appropriate. 57 5. Temporary stream diversions, if required, will use sand bags or other approved methods that minimize in stream impacts and effects on wildlife. Please describe how invasive procedures in limited access condition protect wildlife. Or describe techniques that will avoid that situation during stream diversion. The project has been designed to be consistent with HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.14 Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside the Urban Development Area (Chapter 6). In compliance with that measure, several avoidance and minimization measures will be used for protection of biological resources within and adjacent to the biological survey area. Please see mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-10b in the IS/MND for details. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 662 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 58 8. On-site monitoring will be conducted throughout the construction period to ensure that disturbance limits, best management practices (BMPs) and HCP restrictions are being implemented properly. Please clarify what organization is to monitor; and how organized to avoid conflict of interest with proponent conducting work. Biological monitors must be approved by the regulatory agencies (CDFW and USFWS) prior to project activities. The County contracts with several independent biological consulting firms, all of which employ qualified biologists meeting state and federal agency requirements for conducting surveys and identifying special status species. Monitoring biologists are hired to protect resources and advise the project’s resident engineer on resource protection and regulatory compliance. Further, Public Works Environmental Services staff monitors project construction and advises the project’s resident engineer and department management on regulatory compliance. 59 11. Cut-and-fill slopes will he revegetated with native, non-invasive nonnative, or nonreproductive (i.e., sterile hybrids) plants suitable for the altered soil conditions. How and whom will water this for growth potential? Seeds are distributed just prior to first rains via a hydroseeding technique that provides adequate initial hydration for seed germination. Vegetation will be drought tolerant and no additional irrigation will be required. 60 Trail fence posts will be placed at or outside of the driplines of avoided trees to the extent feasible based on the limits of the area to be graded. Fence posts need be 5’ outside the drip ring of the tree. Comment noted. 61 All trimming will be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Will this arborist be on site at all times for supervision of this process? A certified arborist will be present during tree trimming activities. 62 No preconstruction surveys are required. Commenter notes that survey is necessary during design phase to quantify extent of impact-concerns on impacts to adjacent perennial aquatic community already noted and measures such as planned dewatering may render local relocation impractical or ineffective. Appropriate habitat for CRLF is present and acknowledged by the project’s biological studies and the IS/MND. Please refer to mitigation measure BIO-4 for applicable CRLF protective measures required by the HCP/NCCP. 63 Impact BIO-5 - Disturbance to Western Pond Turtle and Their Habitat There is nesting Western Pond Turtles in the creek waters. Area observed is within 150’ of proposed project. Dewatering would have massive impact on this population. This situation needs to be specifically addressed in the EIR Wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed prior to construction activities to isolate the work area and preclude wildlife from entering the construction work area. Creek flows will be bypassed around the work area to maintain downstream flows. Construction will occur in the late spring through early fall months (dry season). Please see the responses to comments 51 and 52 and mitigation measure BIO-5 in the IS/MND. 64 Impacts to western pond turtle and their habitat would be mitigated through payment of applicable development fees and wetland mitigation fees for permanent and temporary impacts, totaling $83,217.82, as required under the HCP/NCCP (Sections 4.1.1.4 and 4.4.2). Note that no mention made of mitigation of habitat destruction on adjacent property owner land. Please see the responses to comments 11, 12, 51, 52, 55, 63, and 66. 65 Although the occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox within the BS1 is unlikely, the site nevertheless supports marginally suitable foraging and movement habitat. Statement is erroneous; interview with adjacent residents during field survey would have alerted biologist to this possibility. NO interaction with residents was attempted; when resident 12801 asked about purpose of related tree tagging work, biologist/arborist provided nonformative and evasive answers and made no effort to refer questions to County client that was manging the work. Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 54. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 663 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 66 Compensatory mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts to habitats will be achieved through payment by CCCPWD of development fees and wetland mitigation fees. The proposed project would provide a development fee of $13,909.19 for permanent impacts and a development fee of $2,119.99 for temporary fees. A wetland mitigation fee of $41,659.62 for permanent impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats, and a wetland mitigation fee of $25,529.02 for temporary impacts to stream and riparian woodland habitats. Specific to riparian habitat, fees will offset permanent impacts to 40 linear feet of stream and permanent impacts to riparian woodland as a result of the loss of 0.091 acre of riparian canopy. Additionally, the fee will offset temporary construction impacts to 249 linear feet of stream and 0.306 acre of riparian habitat. Therefore a total combined mitigation fee for the project will be $83,217.82. These fees are here because temporary and permanent impacts to habitat is unavoidable. No compensation to adjacent property owner’s habitat also affected by the project even mentioned. Please justify legal basis for this or acknowledge obligation under the law. This project is covered by the HCP/NCCP, which was developed to protect natural resources while streamlining the environmental permitting process. The project is located in HCP/NCCP Zone 2 (Natural Lands) and is covered under rural infrastructure projects. Activities covered under the HCP/NCCP are considered to have received Incidental Take authorization from the USFWS and CDFW if appropriate avoidance measures are implemented and appropriate mitigation fees are paid. These avoidance and mitigation measures are described in detail in the IS/MND. The issue of property owner compensation is addressed by our Real Estate Division during the acquisition phase of the project. Property owner compensation is not a CEQA issue. Therefore, no changes to the IS/MND are required. 67 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 10A and 10B as described under checklist item b) above, would reduce impacts to wetlands to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Is mitigation scope limited to BSA; is proponent committed to mitigate all impacts to downstream perennial waters on land owned by 12801 residents. The total stream length within the biological survey area is 495 linear feet. As noted in the IS/MND, dewatering will occur in the work area extending approximately 150 feet upstream and 130 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Water quality impacts downstream of construction would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures BIO-10a and 10b. A hydrogeologic evaluation was conducted to assess the potential for impacts to the creek system. According to Balance Hydrologics, no lasting hydrological impacts are expected as a result of the temporary dewatering. However, they note that compaction of the channel bed could result from use of heavy equipment in the channel. They recommend the County work with hydrologists, geomorphologists, and/or engineers to minimize these impacts through measures such as: 1. Minimizing use of heavy equipment within 20 feet of the reported spring 2. Minimizing grading and redistribution of bed sediment 3. Minimizing compaction by retaining existing bed material under weight-dissipating mats The County will follow these recommendations to ensure channel compaction is minimized. 68 Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. NES study does not provide conclusive evidence supporting this assertion. Please provide specific supporting evidence or cite references in supporting documents to justify this statement. Please specifically address resident amphibian and turtle communities in perennial waterway downstream of project All wildlife and habitat impacts will be appropriately mitigated via the HCP/NCCP. See the responses to comments 50, 51, 52, and 56 for more information on CRLF and western pond turtles. 69 Landslides? Consider Sliding triggered by excavations for retaining walls The geotechnical report prepared for the project evaluated the potential landslide risk. The IS/MND findings are consistent with the results of this report. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 664 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 70 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Need to consider sliding hillside or soil erosion if retaining walls are not constructed between construction work seasons. Please see the response to comment 69. 71 The project area is not located within a potential landslide area (Contra Costa County 2005). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Please explain this: All of Marsh Creek is a slide area. Grader equipment keeps the road clear during the winter/rainy season for traffic to move through safely. The project area has not been designated by the County as high landslide potential. As substantiated by the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the IS/MND findings are appropriate. 72 Conclusion needs more site specific substantiation then consulting a small scale generalized map. Please provide evidence proving this point. Please see the response to comment 71. 73 Therefore, proposed project impacts associated with soil erosion would be less than significant. Commenter disagrees with this conclusion. Commenter has pointed out possible conditons in downstream creek channel/channel slope adjacent to project limits that could be subject to SIGNIFICANT erosion or bank collapse from channel flow through the new bridge opening. Lower flow profile at bridge will translate to higher fow velocities in downstream reach of channel. Planned destruction of trees at edge project will weaken channel banks and reduce erosion resistance. This is a SIGNIFICANT impact which needs to be considered in the project design An area of armoring within Marsh Creek has been described in the IS/MND and accounted for in stream impact calculations that determine HCP/NCCP stream impact fees; therefore, no changes to the IS/MND are required. Final payment of fees will be based on the final design of the bank armoring and any other erosion control devices. Please see the responses to comments 80 and 81 for further detail. 74 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? Existing Fire Hydrant in front of 12801 MCR must be relocated to suitable location in front of residence. Comment noted. The existing fire hydrant has been accounted for by project design. 75 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 pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Commenter contends the presence of existing well, natural springs in creek at project site not addressed at all needs to be evaluated in detail prior to drawing any conclusion. This a significant impact. A hydrogeologic analysis of Marsh Creek in the area of the bridge was performed to investigate the source of the water feeding a pool within the creek downstream of the work area and right of way. General mineral, boron, and specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring; however, given elevated base flow volume, results are not sufficiently discriminating to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. Subsequent field verification will be conducted during lower (spring or summer) flows to determine whether additional consideration is necessary to accommodate groundwater flow. Balance Hydrologics concluded that if alluvial flows are the source of the reported spring, no further mitigation measures are warranted as construction activities would not deprive the system of inflow. However, Balance Hydrologics further concluded that if Panoche bedrock waters are the source of the spring, then construction activities should avoid sealing off the source by placing drainage pathways through and/or below the abutment footings to maintain spring flow to the creek. These accommodations will be field fit if conditions warrant. In other words, during excavation for the abutments, if spring flows are encountered at an elevation that could be blocked by abutment construction, drainage pathways through and/or under the abutment will be constructed to ensure flows are allowed to continue to source the creek and pool. With these accommodations, impacts will remain less than significant, even if flows are sourced from Panoche bedrock. The existence of a possible spring and presence of a pool downstream of the project area does not change the impact determinations in the IS/MND. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 665 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 76 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? Significant damage to immediate down stream channel and channel bank adjacent to the project wil occur without significant positive mitigation is not in the plan. Please see the responses to comments 73, 75, 80, and 81. 77 Design needs to consider level of protection actually provided under present site condition and extent of potential construction disturbance (such as damage/killing of trees rooted in channel walls immediately adjacent planned structure. Question c answer be reconsidered in light of potential significant increase to final channel protection scope. This change may be more extensive than considered in the current document, or minimized if bridge location is moved upstream as mitigation to address other significant project impacts. Please note that property owner of 12801 MCR exclusively bears the risk of downstream damage Please see the responses to comments 73, 75, 80, and 81. 78 The existing bridge structure constricts the Marsh Creek channel, resulting in flood waters backing up and inundating the underside of the bridge (WRECO 2015). Provide documented evidence to support this statement. Residents of 12801 MCR have NEVER observed the creek to rise to the level indicated in 46 years. This is critical to assess the suitability of the project as proposed in 65% design. Results of a HEC-RAS flow analysis in Marsh Creek show that the water surface during a 100-year storm event will inundate the bottom of the existing bridge and backup flows upstream of the bridge. The design flows used in the analysis were developed using CCCFC&WCD hydrologic methods and incorporate future planned uses for the watershed. Design flows can, therefore, be conservative if the watershed is not currently developed to its highest planned use. Please see the response to comment 80. 79 The proposed project would not affect groundwater supply; therefore, there would be no impact. There is ground water flow in the area of construction coming from underground springs and a well that filters under ground to the creek. The perennial inflow is due to an abandoned 30’ deep well hand excavated and wood cribbed to an opening approx.. 6’X6’. The well is reported by the property owner to be located approximately 10’ to 20’ north of the existing R/W (offset ~ 50’ or so left perpendicular to edge exist’g pavement at approx. plan MC station 337+70. Well was reported to have been loosely backfilled with gravel and dirt by property owner to remove a safety hazard about 15 years ago. Well was reportedly hand dug by Chinese laborers well over 100 years ago. This well is a likely source of springs observed by 12801 residents in the creek bank feeding perennial water in creek immediately downstream of the existing bridge. It has sustained a substantial population of wildlife both resident (frogs and turtles, seasonal nesting ducks, small fish(~3” in length) and transient wildlife seeking water in dry months (deer and birds, coyotes, kit fox, bats, the common ones-racoons. Please see the responses to comments 67 and 75. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 666 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 80 The proposed project would modify the existing Marsh Creek stream channel within the project area, including removal of the existing bridge abutments and construction of new abutments that are further apart to allow for a less constricted stream channel. The abutments would be designed following Caltrans standards to minimize the potential for erosion and minimize the potentials for siltation. The design would widen the currently incised channel around the existing bridge to allow for lower velocity flows during storm events. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. More study in detail needs to be done here. When the stream channel within the project area is modified and new abutments are further apart to allow less constricted stream channel then the flow down stream becomes impeaded and erodes the present soil because of narrow pass through for the water to travel. The final project design will maintain or reduce stream velocities and stream bank erosion potential downstream of the project limits. Final determination of the bank armoring and channel details will be completed as part of final design. Considerations include rock slope protection, rock vein, contoured rock slope protection, rootwad installation, other measures or a combination of measures to achieve the hydraulic performance requirements for velocity and scour potential as well as meet permitting agency requirements. 81 The discussion needs to be expanded to include effects on existing channel conditions immediately adjacent to the county right of way property. The existing right side channel wall is stabilized within the right of way and immediately downstream by several old trees whose root systems are the primary armoring of the sidewalls. There are patches of very old masonry slope protection in places along this section. Furthermore, the channel slightly bends to the left in this area. The removal of the trees is required by the planned construction; and there is no evidence in the current design that planned improvements will protect the channel wall immediately downstream adjacent to the slope protection within the right of way. This is a significant local impact that puts the adjacent property owner (Residence 1) at significantly increased risk from channel wall erosion and bank recession/collapse during high runoff events. Please refer to the response to comment 80 for more information on the types of treatments to be used. The existing bank erosive potential beyond the project limits will not be worsened as a result of the project; however, existing rates of bank erosion and existing bank erosive potential as a result of future high runoff events are likely to persist post-construction, as reduction in the bank erosive potential beyond the project limits is outside the scope of the project. 82 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or the regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose or avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Commenter notes concern that absent of long term plan for future use of the MCR corridor through Mt. Diablo foothill zone makes any answer to question non- informative relative to an accepted policy of the County. The project is consistent with the County’s General Plan. The County has studied the entire Marsh Creek Road corridor and uses that study to identify and prioritize locations for safety improvements as funding becomes available. The long-term plan for Marsh Creek Road was clarified in an amendment to the Precise Alignment Plan approved by County Board of Supervisors on June 10, 1997. This amendment concluded that the ultimate plan for the roadway would involve a two-lane configuration and setting aside additional right of way to accommodate future trails, slope easements, and safety improvements. This plan for a two-lane road within a larger (four-lane sized) right of way is in alignment with the County General Plan for the entire Marsh Creek Road corridor. Accordingly, this bridge project is consistent with the County’s plans for the corridor. 83 Policy 5-A: To provide a safe, efficient, and balanced transportation system This policy is general and not specific; document needs to discuss how the project complies with the policy; discussion needs to address unique location and existing state of MCR and resources needed to make it “safe”. The County has selected the bridge/roadway alignment that meets the relevant requirements. Please see the response to comment 82. 84 Policy #5-17: The design and scheduling of improvements to arterials and collectors shall give priority to safety over other factors including capacity This statement needs to be elaborated on to discuss the amount of “improvement” provided by this project in relation to the entire 12 miles + Marsh Creek Road corridor. Interesting, again how does project fit into overall MCR safety improvement strategy? No discussion to help acces whether project is actually in line with realistic plan (affordable, doable with some timeframe consistent with General Plan timeframe) to improve overall safety of MCR. Please see the responses to comments 82 and 83. 85 Therefore, the proposed project would have no Impact. Conclusion requires substantiation as detailed above. Please see the responses to comments 82, 83, and 84. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 667 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 86 The project area is located within the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP inventory area and is a covered activity. Compliance with the HCP/NCCP is covered under the Biological Resources section. Because the project complies with the HCP/NCCP, the proposed project would have no impact. Need to provide evidence to substantiate this conclusion. Detail on specific elements of the referenced plan The IS/MND provides an in-depth discussion of the project's compliance with the HCP/NCCP in the Biological Resources section. All mitigation measures, including development and wetland mitigation fees, were developed in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. 87 Table 6: Nearby Receptors Sensitive to Noise Please explain how the noise is shielded by landscape trees and native trees when the native trees between the project and the residence are removed? Table 6 is located in the Environmental Setting subsection. The purpose of this table is to summarize existing conditions at the sensitive receptors. As such, native and landscape trees are listed as existing forms of shielding at the three sensitive receptors. 88 It is anticipated that the proposed project would use standard construction equipment, which includes but is not limited to: large rotary drilling machine, crane, excavator, tractor, backhoe, grader, dump truck, water trailer, compactor, skid steer, pick-up trucks, paver, hopper, and generator, no pile driving will occur. NES report reads as follows “The reinforced concrete bridge abutments will be supported by deep piles that will either be driven or drilled to a depth of 60 feet.” Please clarify. As noted on page 64 of the IS/MND, the project will not use any pile driving equipment, which has been further refined by project design from what was originally analyzed in the Noise Technical Memorandum and Natural Environment Study. 89 The project would remove 2 non-native woodland trees to the south, but the majority of native and landscape trees would remain and continue to shield the commercial facility from noise. Please revisit your drawings with tree removal. The count of trees here is only in the riparian area. What about the staging areas that affect over 20 healthy trees just to store equipment and job supplies. With the additional trees to be removed the almost entire habitat area will be destroyed (with exception of 2 mature sycamore trees). The trees in this area also serve as a sound barrier to the noise created by the events West of the project at Marsh Creek Springs. This privacy and buffer will be truncated (destroyed). Tree buffer needs to be restored and mitigated to equivalent level as to what is presently there. Please see the responses to comments 4 and 25 regarding tree removal. The General Plan classifies the existing traffic noise level of Marsh Creek Road between Clayton and Deer Valley Road as 65 dBA (please refer to General Plan noise contours for Marsh Creek Road). The operational noise impact analysis presented in the IS/MND assumed no shielding is in place for either current (without-project) or future (with-project) conditions between noise coming from traffic on the bridge and general noise in the study area at the sensitive receptors. 90 This is not a commercial facility it is residential and event area which often times has large amounts of overflow parked vehicals along the road on both sides of Marsh Creek Road from the address of 12510 to 12801 and on to 12807. Comment noted. As of February 26, 2016, Old Marsh Creek Springs states on its website that the "facility has held many weddings, quinceañera, anniversaries, and company picnics." Business hours are listed as 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. This property is privately owned and operated, doing business as Old Marsh Creek Springs Park. The business operates primarily as a wedding chapel, renting the property to generate profit. 91 Daily schedule described will be a substantial disruption to residents. Working hours need to be no later than 5 PM on weekdays and weekend work only in extreme circumstances to maintain contract schedule. Comment noted. The work hours noted are consistent with the noise element of the County’s General Plan. 92 Construction activities are anticipated to be conducted in phases over the course of approximately two years, with More defined times of construction including onsite servicing of equipment. More defined course of construction duration “approximately two years” all other reports state two seasons including this one. Construction is likely to span two seasons between the summer of 2017 and the fall of 2018, pending Caltrans and federal approvals. Please see the response to comment 91 for proposed construction days and times. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 668 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 93 construction work occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends. Statement that equipment noise controls and “intermittent nature of construction” will reduce impacts to Resident 1 to less than significant level needs substantialtion. The commenter contends that the contractor building the project will be contractually tied to a period of performance and subject to liquidated damages for late completion. That the work will be “intermittent” to the point the writers suggest is ridiculous to anyone familiar with properly designed public works construction. The residents at Residence 1 are retired people living at that location live there all the time. They will be exposed to construction operations essentially the entire duration of the project. Almost all of the work will be right next to Residence 1 and involve demolition and other significant noise generation sources such as air compressors, air powered tools, material handling and equipment operating under substantial loads. All equipment is equipped with highly audible backup alarms which will be extensively activated due to constricted work areas around the bridge site. The term “intermittent” was used to describe the typical nature of construction, which often includes various types of equipment operating at various levels (or not at all) at one or more times throughout a given period. Noise specialists at Anchor QEA ran a desktop model to assess the noise impacts associated with construction. According to the results of that model, ambient noise levels will increase with construction; however, implementation of equipment noise controls and other administrative measures including work hour restrictions will reduce the levels to less than significant. The purpose of the project is to improve the long-term safety of the bridge for the local community, including those who reside at Residence 1. Any equipment alarms that may sound during construction are necessary to ensure the safety of construction personnel, as well as anyone else in the immediate area; this is necessary for public safety. 94 Public Services Intro Consider indirect increase in demand for police service for accident response. The IS/MND appropriately considered the potential impacts on police service. The project would not increase demand for police services or impede existing service. A temporary road would be maintained during construction, so access through the project area is not expected to be disrupted for more than short and intermittent periods. 95 Transportation/Traffic Intro No comments specific to this section (Neg. Dec) EIR Comment noted. 96 The existing bridge over Marsh Creek has been deemed structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in recent Caltrans bridge inspection reports. This is not the same status rating as the Caltrans structure maintenance investigations report of July 2015? Please explain the discrepancy. Please see the response to comment 7. 97 The proposed project has been designed so that existing traffic can be accommodated during construction, while minimizing impacts to the surrounding right-of-way, including existing buildings. Safety to the residences in the direct area hasn’t been considered. The analysis provided in the IS/MND does not differentiate between user groups, and considers the safety of all users. 98 The proposed project would maintain traffic flow and safety during construction. Construction of the new bridge would be staged to accommodate two lanes of traffic throughout construction. Does this discussion make sense? Is culvert replacement part of this review? Please see the response to comment 91. As noted in the IS/MND, construction will include a traffic management plan that will accommodate existing users. 99 A temporary partial road closure may be required over a long weekend to complete the replacement of the culvert west of the project. Please share the drawings and placement of this culvert. Haven’t seen anything on this activity / construction. This text no longer applies. As the design of the project has been finalized, the need for a partial road closure will no longer be required. 100 The proposed project would widen shoulders through the project area, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. Commenter contends that Increase to pedestrian/bicycle safety for 1000 feet on 12+ miles is insignificant. Comment noted. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 669 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 101 The proposed Project would improve safety by replacing a bridge that is structurally obsolete, widen existing shoulders, and straighten a sharp curve. Please explain the Caltrans structure maintenance and investigations report. There is not such rating as Structurally obsolete. Please see the response to comment 7. 102 Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Commenter’s position is General conclusion is rebuttable given evidence provided; and contends that there is potential significant environmental impacts to the project area. Comments have been provided elsewhere , in particular regarding the biological elements and impacts in immediate project area. Please see the responses to comments provided in this matrix. After review of the comments provided by this and other commenters, the County has found that the IS/MND findings do not change as a result of public comment. 103 Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'" means that the Incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Commenter’s position is this general conclusion is rebuttable; and contends that there is potential significant environmental impacts to the project area as comments provided in this document suggest Please see the response to comment 102. 104 Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? A substantial amount of stress has been experienced by the (Dortzbachs’- 46-years residents at 12801 Marsh Creek Rd.) when NO REASONABLE SAFETY into and out of their property is considered, and the planned work poses a real threat to the creek channel bank adjacent to their driveway. They are also faced with the destruction of creek habitat and wildlife “incidental take” in the portion of the creek on their property. They consider the creek and its life a major source of enjoyment and continuity in their lives; this is also a MAJOR stress on them These residents (Dortzbach’s) are Senior Citizens 78 and 80 and this project is a MAJOR disruption in their lives, ever since the County sent them a letter in October 2015 regarding the proposed work. They were not informed of the proposed project by the County Public Works department until the project was at an advanced state of design. They have been cooperative with the “Biologist” for plant/animal study, refused to tell why they there or EVEN REFER THEM TO A COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE FOR ANSWERS when Dortzbachs asked the Biologist what their reason for tagging the trees was for. Comment noted. Please see the response to comment 102. Issues raised in this comment are addressed throughout this response matrix. As noted in the response to comment 36, County engineering will coordinate with the property owner regarding the final location of the driveway. As noted in responses to comments 4 and 25, the project design relative to tree removal has been refined, resulting in the retention of 11 additional trees. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 670 Comment No. Text Commented On Comment CCCPWD Response 105 Within the broader context used to assess cumulative impacts, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly increase traffic volumes to Marsh Creek Road and would improve safety within the project area by replacing an old bridge with a new bridge that meets all current safety standards. The safety doesn’t extend to the two affected residents right next to the project. Commenter contends that geometric configuration of 1000+ feet of superelevated roadway will encourage drivers to speed even more than current situation encourages. Please see the responses to comments 6, 22, 36, and 83. 106 All environmental monitoring/enforcement should be responsibility of individuals OUTSIDE the direct Public Works Project/Construction Management chain of command. Please clarify planned arrangement and describe how it will allow function to be performed independent of other project management functions Please see the responses to comments 46 and 58. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 671 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 672 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 673 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 674 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 675 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 676 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 677 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 678 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 679 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 680 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 681 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 682 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 683 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 684 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 685 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 686 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 687 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 688 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 689 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 690 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 691 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 692 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 693 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 694 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 695 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 696 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 697 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 698 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 699 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 700 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 701 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 702 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 703 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 704 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 705 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 706 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 707 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 708 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 709 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 710 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 711 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 712 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 713 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 714 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 715 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 716 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 717 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 718 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 719 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 720 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 721 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 722 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 723 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 724 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 725 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 726 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 727 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 728 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 729 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 730 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 731 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 732 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 733 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 734 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 735 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 736 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 737 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 738 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 739 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 740 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 741 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 742 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 743 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 744 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 745 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 746 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 747 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 748 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 749 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 750 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 751 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 752 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 753 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 754 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 755 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 756 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 757 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 758 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 759 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 760 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 761 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 762 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 763 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 764 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 765 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 766 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 767 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 768 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 769 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 770 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 771 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 772 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 773 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 774 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 775 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 776 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 777 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 778 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 779 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 780 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 781 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 782 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 783 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 784 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 785 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 786 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 787 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 788 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 789 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 790 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 791 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 792 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 793 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 794 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 795 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 796 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 797 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 798 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 799 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 800 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 801 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 802 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 803 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 804 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 805 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 806 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 807 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 808 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 809 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 810 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 811 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 812 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 813 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 814 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 815 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 816 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 817 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 818 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 819 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 820 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 821 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 822 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 823 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 824 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 825 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 826 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 827 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 828 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 829 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 830 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 831 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 832 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 833 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 834 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 835 Report prepared for: Contra Costa County Environmental Services Division Prepared by: Zan Rubin Krysia Skorko Barry Hecht Balance Hydrologics, Inc. April 2016 MARSH CREEK BRIDGE POOL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 836 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 837 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 General Technical Approach and Work Conducted.................................................................. 2 1.3 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 4 2. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Hydrography, Climate, Antecedent Conditions ........................................................................... 5 2.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Lithology and Geochemical Properties ............................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Faults and Springs ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.3 Geological Controls on Flow .............................................................................................. 6 3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Sampling Locations and Methods ................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Geologic Interpretation ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution ................................................................................ 9 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Geologic Interpretation ................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution .............................................................................. 10 4.2.1 Specific Conductance...................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Dissolved Minerals .............................................................................................................. 11 5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 12 6. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................... 14 7. REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................................. 15 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 838 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Water quality sampling results LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Geologic location map of Marsh Creek and surrounding area Figure 2. Stage record from Marsh Creek Fire Station (MRH) gage Figure 3. Geologic map of Kirker Pass and surrounding area Figure 4. Schematic cross section A-A’ and B-B’. Figure 5. Schematic longitudinal profile. Figure 6. Sampling location map Figure 7. Piper plot of water quality samples APPENDICES Appendix A. Water Chemistry Lab Results Appendix B. Borings from Marsh Creek Bridge Planset May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 839 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study assesses potential impacts of reconstructing Bridge No. 28C-0141 along Marsh Creek in Contra Costa County on yields from a reported spring and on the perenniality of the pools downstream of the spring. Our approach was intended to identify the source(s) of spring water, and to identify the source of the spring as either shallow alluvial water or deeper (bedrock) groundwater, such that flows to the pool and the channel downstream are not adversely affected. We found that: • Construction of the bridge is unlikely to significantly affect water entering from the shallow, alluvial aquifer, but it could potentially affect springs originating and conveyed through fractures in the bedrock if these fractures were inadvertently sealed during foundation installation. • Perennial flow in the bridge reach is likely due to thinning alluvium, with the canyon walls forcing water in the alluvium to the surface. • No visual evidence of springflow was observed, but elevated baseflow conditions prevented observation of the streambed. • We established that ‘general mineral’ and ‘boron’ analyses can be used to distinguish inflow from the bedrock forming the sides of the valley from the waters in Marsh Creek and the shallow alluvium to which it is connected. Because the post-storm flows of late-March 2016 were so much greater than bedrock-sourced springflow, we were not able to detect evidence of the springs in samples taken upstream and downstream of the existing and future bridges. • Specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring signature, but, given the elevated post-storm streamflow, results are not sufficiently precise to rule out a contribution of spring flow from bedrock sources which could prove to be significant factor in sustaining the pool in summer. • We recommend a follow-up sampling visit during late-spring or summer baseflow to identify the location of possible springs and quantify the composition of spring water. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 840 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Contra Costa County Public Works Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation District 4, proposes replacing the existing Marsh Creek Road Bridge (Bridge No. 28C-0141). The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing single-span bridge with a new, wider single-span bridge to accommodate safe two-way traffic across Marsh Creek on Marsh Creek Road. The new bridge will meet current design standards of Contra Costa County Public Works, Caltrans, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and include wider shoulders and wider lanes. In response to public comments on the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department requested that Balance Hydrologics investigate potential impacts to the pool downstream of the existing bridge. In particular, Balance was asked to investigate the possibility that the pool, reported by residents to be perennial and fed by springs, may be impacted by bridge construction including the temporary dewatering of the channel that will occur during bridge construction. 1.2 General Technical Approach and Work Conducted The purpose of this study is to assess potential impacts of bridge construction on the reported springflow and on the perenniality of the pool(s) downstream of the spring. Our approach was to identify the source(s) of water being supplied to the pools through the spring, and to identify the source of the spring as either shallow alluvial (hyporheic) water or deeper (bedrock) ground water. Controls on the flow in this reach were also assessed through geologic observations. The working hypothesis is that there are 2 major potential sources of water at this location. The first is hyporheic water flowing within the valley-floor deposits (alluvium) adjoining and beneath the stream, and to which it is interconnected. During summer, most of the flow through the hyporheic zone is a mixture of water from Marsh Creek, and shallow groundwater contributions from the valley-bottom flats along Marsh Creek. Another potential source is the water entering from the rocky sideslopes of the canyon through the faults and fractures characteristic of the Panoche formation, the dominant local bedrock type, on either side of the valley. Either source (hyporheic or bedrock) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 841 can emerge to the surface under pressure as a flowing spring. The pressure depends on local or regional flow paths through the alluvium or bedrock. We selected this approach because construction of the bridge is unlikely to significantly affect water entering from the shallow, alluvial aquifer, but it potentially could affect the Panoche bedrock waters if these are conveyed into the channel through fractures or faults and the fractures were sealed off due to foundation installation. One way of assessing how much flow enters from the Panoche formation bedrock is a contrast in the composition of the groundwater within the Panoche and alluvial aquifers. Much of our analysis is based on identifying how these sources may differ. Based on past experience in this part of Contra Costa County, we selected three possible constituents which might be useful: a) Overall salinity, measured as specific conductance, a widely used method of making such determinations in the field, b) Boron concentrations, which tend to be elevated in some Contra Costa streams, and c) Ionic fingerprinting, which looks at the ratios of the eight or nine most common ions, a method in wide use since the 1940s for distinguishing water sources. The work was complicated by the season of inquiry. Responding to mid-March storms, Marsh Creek was flowing at above-normal winter flows during the window in which this work was completed. Hence, we used all three potential water-quality tracers to seek an understanding of the local conditions. Finally, we considered local hydrogeologic conditions. Because the spring is reported to audibly gurgle during summer, it is implied that the water is under slight to moderate pressure. This is consistent with the location of the spring, reported to emerge in the midst of a hydraulic riffle (a topographic high point along the longitudinal profile of a stream). If the Panoche waters were simply seeping into the alluvium, they would be doing so within the pool (a topographic low along the stream profile) downstream of the bridge. The fact that the water reportedly enters the stream in a riffle, near midstream, and that it gurgles, suggests that the water is under several inches of pressure. If local Panoche waters are the source of the spring, they would logically get there in a defined fracture or joint. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 842 Balance’s scope of work on this project included a preliminary site assessment on March 17, 2016. During this visit, Balance staff made observations of channel conditions at the proposed bridge realignment location, local geology and vegetation, and asked local residents about hydrologic conditions in Marsh Creek and surrounding areas. Following this visit, Balance staff reviewed geologic and topographic maps and historical aerial photos, and older water-quality reports on Marsh Creek. On March 28, 2016, Balance staff collected water samples from Marsh Creek, a nearby groundwater seep, and a seasonal pond in order to quantify and compare geochemical signatures of Marsh Creek stream water and groundwater. This report outlines the findings of our site assessment, geologic interpretation, and water chemistry analysis. Balance was also asked to assess if the temporary dewatering of the channel during bridge construction could reduce the rate or volume of shallow groundwater water flowing to the springs, or perenniality of flow and of the downstream pool. We can think of no reasonable mechanism through which the temporary dewatering of the channel will cause lasting hydrologic impacts, so that question is not included in the following sections. 1.3 Acknowledgements We appreciate the assistance of Hillary Heard, Leigh Chavez, and Neil Leary from Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, and Sean Lohmann, Jennifer Roth, and George Molnar from LSA, with the development of the scope of this investigation and for providing us with background information and descriptions of the site. We are also grateful to the residents along Marsh Creek for taking the time to share their knowledge of the site, Its history, and their observations of hydrological conditions. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 843 2. HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 Hydrography, Climate, Antecedent Conditions The contributing drainage area of Marsh Creek to the project site consists of 23.1 square miles of steep, grassland, oak woodland, and chaparral draining the northeast portion of Mount Diablo and surrounding hills (Natural Heritage Institute, 2007). (see Figure 1). Mean annual rainfall in this portion of Contra Costa County is approximately 19 inches per year, as shown on precipitation and average annual rainfall distribution maps developed by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Our investigation occurred during March 2016. Rainfall during Water year 2016 (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016) has been approximately about average (year to date) following several dry years. A substantial rain event on March 13 generated the second largest flows of the year. Following that event, two weeks of warm and dry weather brought Marsh Creek flows down considerably, although flows maintained an elevated winter baseflow condition during our March 28 visit (Figure 2). 2.2 Geology 2.2.1 Lithology and Geochemical Properties Geologic maps of the region (Figure 1) show that the project site is underlain by north- dipping sedimentary strata of the Cretaceous-age Panoche formation (Dibblee 2006). The Panoche is a sequence of cemented sandstones and mudstones or shales. It is similar in texture and in geochemical composition to the Markley sandstone member of the Kreyenhagen formation, which outcrops a few miles to the north in the vicinity of Kirker Pass (c.f., Hecht and others 2011, Figure 3). In the Kirker Pass area, much of the groundwater movement occurs through north-south trending faults and master fractures. The geologic map shows that these faults and fractures extend southward to the Marsh Creek canyon; further, Marsh Creek Springs, a resort and spa dating to the early 20th century, is built around springs which seemingly emanate from one of these faults or master fractures. The springs in the Marsh Creek canyon, though, have proven to be much less salty than the springs and seeps near Kirker Pass, so it has been more difficult to ‘trace’ springflow emanating from the deep bedrock fractures. Rhyolitic volcanic rock intruded into the Panoche along the creek in the vicinity of the site (Figure 1). The channel itself flows within an alluvial valley that thins in the downstream direction. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, shown in planview in Figure 1, are discussed in more detail in section 2.2.3 and cross sections are shown in Figure 4. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 844 The alluvium, or valley-fill deposits shown in Figure 4, extend to a depth of about 2-10 feet below the existing streambed, based on borings shown in the bridge plans (Appendix B). Beneath the alluvium is hard sandstone and shale bedrock. The lowest 5 feet of the alluvium are described as “coarse to fine gravels and coarse to fine sands”, likely a highly-permeable zone through which much hyporheic flow can pass. Other permeable zones occur throughout the alluvium. A dug well about 25 feet deep and about 40 feet northwest of the existing bridge had been used for water supply for many years before being abandoned and filled some years ago. The neighbors stated that the well had a high yield, also supporting the data from the borings showing easy movement of groundwater through the alluvial deposits beneath the stream. 2.2.2 Faults and Springs In our 2011 study (Hecht and others, 2011), samples analyzed for general mineral composition near Kirker Pass showed that the bedrock in this region has connate waters (the original waters in which these sandstones were deposited) flowing from springs emanating from north-south trending faults (Figure 3). This means that groundwater at this location near Kirker Pass has high specific conductance, an index of salinity) compared to creek water, and higher concentrations of total dissolved solids and minerals. Hecht and other’s 2011 report concluded that the groundwater-fed creeks in the region had a specific conductance of 2900 to 3700 µS/cm, and TDS concentrations of 1900 to 2300 mg/L. Boron was also present in quantities of approximately 1 mg/L. The Marsh Creek Road bridge site is located along a similar north-south trending fault through similar bedrock geology to those features studied in the Kirker pass region, (Figure 1), so we deemed it likely that springs emanating from this fault might share comparable geochemical signatures. If present, these signatures would be distinguishable from the creek water even if discharge from the springs is low relative to discharge from the creek because the signatures are so distinct. 2.2.3 Geological Controls on Flow Perennial and ephemeral reaches are interspersed along the middle section of Marsh Creek (Natural Heritage Institute and others, 2007). In Mediterranean climates with seasonal precipitation, springs, seeps, and groundwater flow from the hillsides are often the sources of dry season pools and streamflow. Perennial pools and perennial reaches are typically controlled by variations in the thickness of alluvium and the permeability of bed sediment and underlying bedrock (Costigan and others, 2016; Payn and others, 2009; Stanford and Ward, 1993). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 845 The Marsh Creek channel flows through valley-floor deposits (“alluvium”) upstream of the bridge. This wedge progressively narrows downstream from the County’s Marsh Creek Detention Facility access road downstream to the project site. The valley immediately downstream of the project site is quite narrow. The stream flows through bedrock walls, and the alluvial sediments forming the bank and bed are much thinner. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, shown in planview in Figure 1, show the progressive downstream thinning of the alluvial deposits (and alluvial aquifer). These cross sections, while not quite to scale, illustrate the concept of the alluvial wedge thinning in the downstream direction. Bedrock outcrops constrict both sides of the channel in section B-B’. Shallow groundwater connected to the creek and flowing through the alluvial wedge is forced to the surface as the alluvium thins and the underlying bedrock lies closer to the surface. This process, shown schematically in Figure 5, is often a control on where perennial pools are found through the region. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 846 3. METHODS 3.1 Sampling Locations and Methods Following a hydrogeological reconnaissance on March 17, we chose sampling sites and collected four samples for general mineral and boron analysis (Figure 6): 1) at the existing Marsh Creek bridge, just upstream of where neighbors reported the presence of a spring, 2) Marsh Creek about 300 feet downstream of the reported springs (location of the reported spring assumed approximately 20 feet downstream of existing bridge, though not observed during our field visits), 3) a pond ~0.45 mile upstream adjacent to Marsh Creek Road, and 4) a groundwater seep draining into Marsh Creek ~0.75 mile downstream from the bridge. In addition, we measured specific conductance from several sites upstream and downstream of the bridge (Figure 6) from the Marsh Creek Detention Facility (~0.75 mile upstream of the bridge) downstream to the next bridge on Marsh Creek Road (~1 mile downstream of the project bridge). Samples for all analytes were collected directly from the stream, pond and seep using pre-cleaned laboratory bottles, with the exception of samples for metals (Fe, Mn), which were field –filtered through 0.45-micron glass fiber filters into acidified bottles according to standard procedures. Al l samples were stored on ice and were delivered by hand to McCampbell Analytical Inc. in Pittsburg, CA. All samples arrived in good condition and within hold times. General mineral testing includes the following analyses: Alkalinity (speciated), calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, plus lab specific conductance, pH, and total dissolved solids by evaporation. A 1-day rush analysis was requested, and results were received the next day. Laboratory QA/QC procedures were checked over by Balance staff, and additional analyses were requested to confirm the accuracy of results. The laboratory reports are included as Appendix A. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 847 3.2 Geologic Interpretation Geologic and topographic maps of the region were studied and ground-truthed in the field. Reaches of the creek with bedrock constriction were mapped with GPS points. These reaches were identified in the field as narrow points in the valley with bedrock outcroppings along the channel bed or banks. Historical aerial photographs were also studied to look for an increased presence of riparian vegetation in sections of the channel with bedrock constrictions, as another indication of where perennially wet, or shallow groundwater, sections of the creek are located. We were not able to reach any conclusions, given the degree of land-use effects. 3.3 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution Rain falls as water that is nearly pure H 2 O. Through contact with organic matter, soil, and bedrock, the water picks up a chemical signature that can be used to distinguish different flow paths. Our approach was based on the understanding that springs, seeps, and ponds would exhibit a signature distinctive of the bedrock contacted along those flow paths. In addition to the chemical signature specific to the flow path, there is a typical increase in specific conductance (a measure of electrical conductance that is an indicator of solute concentration) that increases as water takes longer flow paths with prolonged contact with bedrock and soil. Water samples were collected on March 28, 2016 from the Marsh Creek bridge site and from Marsh Creek ~300 feet downstream of the bridge (below the reported location of the spring). Ideally we would have sampled the spring reported to be present at the Marsh Creek bridge site directly. However, since the spring was not apparent on our sampling visit, we sampled the nearby seep and pond sites as analogues expected to carry similar signatures as the reported spring. Major ions results were plotted in a Piper diagram (Figure 7), a commonly-used method to characterize (or ‘fingerprint’) water from different sources for comparison. We also plotted typical surface and groundwater samples from nearby Kirker Pass for comparison. Specific conductance was measured in the field at 6 sites along Marsh Creek upstream and downstream of the bridge and at the pond and seep sites using YSI Model 30 conductance meters calibrated prior to sampling at the Balance workshop. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 848 4. RESULTS 4.1 Geologic Interpretation The Marsh Creek bridge site is at the downstream end of a wide to narrow trending alluvial valley (Figure 1). The bed material of Marsh Creek is composed of cobbles and gravels which typically have high permeability, allowing ready and easy exchange between the creek and adjoining sands and gravels of the alluvial aquifer. Water draining from the adjoining hillsides can also move easily into either the alluvium or the channel. Since the Marsh Creek/alluvial waters and bedrock hillside waters come from different sources, each with their own mineral signatures, the ionic chemistry of waters emanating at the reported spring beneath the bridge (and other springs in the area) will be a blend of these sources. Through our review of the geologic maps (Figure 1) and boring logs (Appendix B) and then through field verification, we confirmed that Panoche formation bedrock is exposed along the channel ~1000 feet downstream of the existing bridge site showing that alluvium is indeed thinning (from approximately 2- 10 feet thick below the streambed at the bridge site to zero feet at the observed bedrock 1000 feet downstream). Perennial stream reaches are common where bedrock forces subsurface flow to surface of a channel, and we expect that perennial flow at the bridge site is primarily the result of valley confinement and bedrock forcing alluvial water to the surface, as discussed in section 2. 4.2 Water Fingerprinting by Proportional Dilution 4.2.1 Specific Conductance There was little variation in specific conductance along the length of Marsh Creek from the detention facility downstream to the bridge crossing located a mile downstream of the project bridge (Figure 6, Table 1). Conversely, pond water (Location 3) had a very low specific conductance (~110 µS/cm), suggesting that the seasonal pond was sourced by recent rainwater that had not had time to dissolve minerals from the ground, rather than deeper groundwater that had emerged. The seep water (Location 4; potentially similar to springs that may be present at the bridge site) had considerably higher specific conductance than water in Marsh Creek. ~1036 µS/cm vs. 728 µS/cm. This suggests that at the current (March 28, 2016) elevated baseflow discharge of Marsh Creek (measured at 7.11 cubic feet per second 1 (cfs)) local spring contribution to the project reach from bedrock sources is minor. Under the presumption that spring water 1 Our measurement of 7.11 cubic feet per second is equal to 3190 gallons per minute. 0.08 cfs is equal to 36 gallons per minute. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 849 at the bridge site was of a similar specific conductance as the seep, we expected to have been able to detect the specific conductance signature of a spring with a discharge as low as 0.08 cfs or approximately 1% of the flow of Marsh Creek. We used a YSI-30 handheld specific conductance meter for our field measurements. The YSI meter has a typical accuracy of 0.5%, but we conservatively assumed a 1% margin of error (i.e. we estimated that we would have reliably detected a specific conductance increase of approximately 7 µS/cm between the upstream and downstream Marsh Creek samples). No increase was detected. During summer baseflow conditions, local springs may contribute a greater proportion of flow, and we may be better able to identify changes in specific conductance. However, if spring water is hyporheic water (shallow groundwater flowing just below the surface in the streambed) and not deep bedrock groundwater) then we would expect to find similar values of specific conductance between streamflow and springflow because the spring would be discharging hyporheic water which is likely to have a similar specific conductance. 4.2.2 Dissolved Minerals The two Marsh Creek samples (one at the existing bridge, the other ~300 feet downstream of the bridge) had essentially identical water chemistry (ionic) signatures (Table 1, Figure 7). The pond water proved to be mostly rain, with a specific conductance of 110 µS/cm. The geochemical signature of the seep was distinct from both Marsh Creek samples. In particular, boron was 1.5 mg/L in both Marsh Creek samples and only 0.9 mg/L in the seep. Chloride was 46 mg/L in Marsh Creek samples, and 26 mg/L in seep. And the ratio (by weight) of calcium to magnesium was 2:1 in Marsh Creek samples and 1.5:1 in the seep sample. Results of our water chemistry analyses were inconclusive regarding the presence and signature of the reported spring. While we did find distinct signatures between the nearby seep and Marsh Creek, the magnitude of difference relative to the sampling and analysis accuracy was not sufficient to identify the source of spring water under winter post-storm conditions. Repeated sampling during late spring or summer may be able to distinguish different sources and the relative contributions from those sources. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 850 5. CONCLUSIONS • No visual evidence of springflow observed, but elevated baseflow conditions prevented observation of the streambed. Residents living near the Marsh Creek bridge location have reported seeing left bank or midchannel springs in the approximate position of the proposed new bridge location. They report that the springs are important in sustaining summer ponding just downstream from the bridge. When we visited the site on March 28, 2016 we did not observe any sign of springs or seeps in the bank or bed of the channel; however, we did not really expect to “see” the spring, because during winter, the elevated baseflow conditions obscure evidence of seepage up through the channel bed or the base of the banks. • General mineral and boron analysis did not show effects of bedrock springs, but elevated post-storm streamflow conditions may have diluted the influence of a small spring or a spring source with similar solute composition as streamflow. Our results at winter flows show that there is no change in the water chemistry of Marsh Creek as it flows through the project reach. We conclude that perennial flow in the bridge reach during winter base flows is likely due to thinning alluvium and bedrock control forcing water in the alluvium to the surface. The importance of these local and valley-scale landforms was summarized by Payn et al., 2009 “Exchanges between stream channel and subsurface flows are driven by variability in hydraulic gradients that are induced by structural variability in channels and valley floors.” • Specific conductance analysis did not reveal a spring, but, given elevated baseflow discharge, results are not sufficiently precise to rule out minor spring flow at the bridge location. The specific conductance measurements we made were sufficiently quantitative to determine that a spring source contributing more than about one percent of the flow (0.08 cfs, or about 36 gallons per minute) might have been apparent, but was not. However, based on our experience elsewhere in coastal California, a spring source would be able to sustain the pool at late-summer flows as low as about 0.01 to 0.02 cfs (about 4.5 to 9.0 gallons/minute), so the presence of a spring with minor flows feeding the summer pool has not been ruled out and would need to be field-verified during lower (spring or summer) flows. • Boron is likely to be a useful indicator of water source during summer baseflow. The sampling established that boron concentrations differ enough that at summer flow conditions it is likely that the proportionate contribution of the local May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 851 canyon-side groundwater could be identified -- perhaps supplemented with specific conductance measurements extending from the spring to the base of the downstream pool. If the local (spring) contribution is large, it would mean that water is coming up through bedrock fracture zones. If there is not a significant change in boron concentrations or specific conductance as the creek flows through this reach, then the primary source of the pool water will be from the alluvial aquifer. • Bridge construction is unlikely to significantly impact springs if sourced from alluvial (hyporheic) water. If springs reported by neighbors are actually shallow alluvial (hyporheic) groundwater emerging into the streambed from upstream on Marsh Creek, then it is possible that changing the hydraulics around the bridge may change the hyporheic flow paths, but would not ultimately deprive the system of inflow since that hyporheic water will likely emerge elsewhere nearby. • Bridge construction is unlikely to impact bedrock-sourced springs, unless fractures are filled by bridge footings. If the spring source is from bedrock, emerging through fractures, then the emergence is controlled by discernible head differentials (which drive ‘gurgling’ reported by Marsh Creek residents) that will likely not be disrupted by placement of the bridge footings. The exact location of emergence may shift, but it is unlikely that the flow from the spring could be blocked by the localized compaction caused by the new bridge footings. However, it is possible that bridge footings placed directly on top of key fractures could compact and fill those fractures, preventing springflow from emerging in that location. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 852 6. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES • We recommend follow-up sampling during late-spring or summer baseflow to identify the location of possible springs and quantify the composition of spring water. The quantification of spring source and discharge will be feasible at lower flows. For example, boron concentrations are known to increase in streams as discharge decreases. Bedrock-sourced springs can be expected to change very little as the season progresses. Hence, differences between the stream (currently 1.5 mg/L and likely to increase to 2 to 3 mg/L) and bedrock springs (likely to remain similar to the 0.9 mg/L recently observed) will be accentuated. • If bedrock-sourced springs are indeed present, project designers can mitigate impacts by minimizing disruptions to springflow. The spring reportedly enters the stream in a riffle and “gurgles”, suggesting that the water is under several inches of pressure. If alluvium-sourced waters are the source of the spring, no further measures are necessary. If Panoche bedrock waters are the source of the spring, they would logically get there within a defined fracture. If so, the design of the bridge should avoid sealing off this source by placing drainage pathways below and/or through abutment footings to maintain the spring flow to the creek. • Avoid channel compaction due to grading. We can think of no reasonable mechanism through which the temporary dewatering of the channel will cause lasting hydrologic impacts. However, the reason for dewatering the channel is to facilitate work in the channel and that work may compact the channel bed through using heavy equipment or alter bed material sizes through grading. We recommend that project managers work with hydrologists, geomorphologists, and/or engineers to minimize these potential impacts through measures such as 1) minimizing use of heavy equipment within 20 feet of the spring, 2) minimizing grading and redistribution of bed sediment, and 3) minimizing compaction by retaining existing bed material under weight-dissipating mats. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 853 7. REFERENCES CITED Costigan, K. H., Jaeger, K. L., Goss, C. W., Fritz, K. M., and Goebel, P. C., 2016, Understanding controls on flow permanence in intermittent rivers to aid ecological research: integrating meteorology, geology and land cover: Ecohydrology, doi: 10.1002/eco.1712 Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., 2006, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. H. Esmaili and Associates, 1978, Nonpoint sources of groundwater pollution in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA. Hecht, B., Richmond, S., and Krause, J., 2011, Initial Interpretation of general-mineral water- quality analyses: Balance Hydrologics Memorandum to Team Kirker, March 4, 2016. Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of chemical characteristics of natural waters: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. Natural Heritage Institute and Delta Science Center at Big Break, 2007, The Past and Present Conditions of the Marsh Creek Watershed: 4th edition, 71p. Payn, R. A., M. N. Gooseff, B. L. McGlynn, K. E. Bencala, and S. M. Wondzell, 2009, Channel water balance and exchange with subsurface flow along a mountain headwater stream in Montana, United States: Water Resources Research., 45, W11427, doi:10.1029/2008WR007644 Piper, A.M., and Garrett, A. A., and others, 1953, Native and contaminated waters in the Long Beach–Santa Ana area, California: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1136. Stanford, J. A., and Ward, J. V., 1993, An Ecosystem Perspective of Alluvial Rivers: Connectivity and the Hyporheic Corridor: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12(1), 48– 60. http://doi.org/10.2307/1467685 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 854 TABLES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 855 PARAMETER UNITS DESCRIPTORS Sample I.D.1. Marsh Cr Bridge- Upstream 2. Marsh Cr Bridge- Downstream 3. Pond 4. Seep Detention Center Bridge Aspara Drive Wp336 Wp 335 Lab used McCampbell McCampbell McCampbell McCampbell Sample collected by ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr ks, zr Sample filtering field filtered field filtered field filtered field filtered FIELD MEASUREMENTS Date MM/DD/YY 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 3/28/16 Time HH:MM 13:45 14:30 15:22 16:00 15:30 15:00 14:45 14:40 Specific conductance (@ 25 C°)umhos/cm 728 728 113 1036 718 724 739 733 Conductance (@ field temp)umhos/cm 574 578 108 834 578 592 587 579 Temperature deg C 14 14.3 22.7 14.8 14.9 15.5 14.3 13.9 WATER QUALITY INDICATORS Alkalinity (total)mg/L CaCO3 232 228 52.4 400 Hardness (total)mg/L CaCO3 228 372 326 426 Hydroxide mg/L CaCO3 0 0 0 0 pH pH Units 8.3 8.3 7.5 8.05 Specific conductance (@ 25 C°)umhos/cm 679 677 115 950 Total dissolved solids (TDS)mg/L 408 405 68 592 GENERAL MINERALS Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)mg/L 232 228 52 400 Bicarbonate (HCO3)mg/L 283 278 64 488 Calcium (Ca)mg/L 62 60 11 83 Carbonate (as CaCO3)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Carbonate (CO3)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Chloride (Cl)mg/L 46 46 0.45 26 Iron (Fe)mg/L 0.028 0 1.7 0 Magnesium (Mg)mg/L 30 29 5.5 56 Manganese (Mn)mg/L 0 0 0 0 Potassiuim (K)mg/L 2.2 2.1 3.5 2.4 Sodium (Na)mg/L 55 53 5.7 3.5 Sulfate (SO4)mg/L 69 68 0 120 OTHER CONSTITUENTS Boron (B)mg/L 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.91 LAB CHECK Major Cations (Ca+Mg+K+Na+Fe+Mn)meq/L 8.01 7.74 1.40 8.96 Major Anions (HCO3+CO3+Cl+SO4+F+NO3)meq/L 7.37 7.27 1.06 11.22 Ion Balance (Cations/Anions)--1.09 1.06 1.32 0.80 TDS/SC --0.60 0.60 0.59 0.62 NOTES Observer key: ks = Krysia Skorko, zr= Zan Rubin Lab results: 0 = not detected; blank value = not tested Field SCT Measurements OnlyWater Quality Sampling Locations Sampling Locations Table 1. Summary of field parameters and water-quality analyses of water samples collected from Marsh Creek and nearby seep and pond. Contra Costa County, California. 216027 water quality spreadsheet, WQ Table 1 ©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 856 FIGURES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 857 B’ B A A’ © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 1 .Geologic location map of Marsh Creek and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA. Cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ are shown in planview. Legend: Kp = Panoche Formation sandstones and shales Tvr = Rhyolite volcanics Qa = Valley Alluvium Qls = landslide deposits = Creeks = Roads N 0.25 mi North-south trending faults Proposed Bridge Marsh Creek Road N May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 858 Marsh Creek Stage Record Figure, Daily Stage 2016©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.0.10.20.30.40.50.60.710/1/1510/29/1511/26/1512/24/151/21/162/18/163/17/164/14/16Stage (ft)Measured Stage3/28 Sampling VisitFigure 2. Annual stage record for Marsh Creek Fire (MRH) gage operated by Contra Costa County. Record shows elevated spring baseflow conditions during sampling on March 28. Graph shows water year 2016, Contra Costa County, California.May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes859 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 3 .Geologic map of Kirker Pass and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA.. Legend: Kp = Panoche Formation Tkm = Markley sandstone member of Kreyenhagen Formation Qls = Quaternary deposits N 0.25 mi Kirker Pass North-south trending faults May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 860 B’B A A’A’ Kp KpTvr Valley Alluvium (Qa) Valley Alluvium (Qa) Marsh Creek Channel Marsh Creek Channel © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc Figure 4 .Schematic cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, looking upstream. Not to scale. These sections illustrate the thinning alluvium in the downvalley direction. Cross section locations are shown in Figure 1. A-A’ is in the upstream portion of the valley. Further downstream near the bridge (B-B’), valley alluvium has thinned and bedrock constrictions are likely forcing hyporheic water close to the surface. Upstream: At bridge: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 861 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Figure 5 .Schematic longitudinal profile illustrating thinning alluvium. Not to scale. This profile illustrate the thinning alluvium in the downvalley direction, which is likely forcing hyporheic water close to the surface. Proposed Bridge – Flow forced to surface here Cross section A-A’ –thick alluvial wedge Cross section B-B’ –thin alluvial wedge –region of perennial pools Flow path Bedrock Alluvium May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 862 © 2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.Source: Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2006 : Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-193, scale 1:24,000. Figure 6 .Water quality sampling sites and bedrock observations, Marsh Creek and surrounding area, Contra Costa County, CA. Legend: . = Water chemistry sampling sites . = SCT measurement sites . = observed bedrock constrictions N 0.25 mi Detention Center Bridge Proposed Bridge (1,2) Seep (4) Pond (3) Aspara Drive WP 336 WP 335 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 863 216027 water quality spreadsheet from MW, piper diagram ©2016 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. This diagram shows cations in the ternary graph on the left and anions on the right graph. The diamond graph in the center illustrates both cations and anions. Hardness dominated water plots to the left and top of the diamond graph, soft monovalent-salt dominated water to the right, and soft alkaline water towards the bottom. Piper diagram illustrating ionic signatures of water samples collected from Marsh Creek, pond, seep, and nearby groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) sites from Kirker Pass, Contra Costa County, California. Figure 7. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 864 APPENDICES May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 865 APPENDIX A Water Chemistry Lab Results May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 866 WorkOrder: Report Created for:Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 Project Contact:Zan Rubin Project Name:216027 Project P.O.: Project Received:03/28/2016 Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/29/2016 by: Angela Rydelius, Laboratory Manager 1603D91 The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative. Analytical Report 1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP McCampbell Analytical, Inc. "When Quality Counts" Page 1 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 867 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation 95% Interval 95% Confident Interval DF Dilution Factor DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test DUP Duplicate EDL Estimated Detection Limit ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor LCS Laboratory Control Sample MB Method Blank MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level of Quantitation MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate N/A Not Applicable ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount. PDS Post Digestion Spike PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate PF Prep Factor RD Relative Difference RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation RRT Relative Retention Time SPK Val Spike Value SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure ST Sorbent Tube TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure TEQ Toxicity Equivalents WET (STLC)Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers H samples were analyzed out of holding time S Surrogate spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits c1 surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. Page 2 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 868 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Quality Control Qualifiers F1 MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD is out of acceptance criteria; LCS validated the prep batch. Page 3 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 869 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E300.1 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Inorganic Anions by IC MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 46 5.0 50 03/29/2016 02:56 Sulfate 69 5.0 50 03/29/2016 02:56 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 02:56 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 46 5.0 50 03/29/2016 03:37 Sulfate 68 5.0 50 03/29/2016 03:37 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 03:37 POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 0.45 0.10 1 03/29/2016 13:56 Sulfate ND 0.10 1 03/29/2016 13:56 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):AO Formate 98 85-115 03/29/2016 13:56 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 4 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 870 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E300.1 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Inorganic Anions by IC OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 IC3 118697 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Chloride 26 5.0 50 03/29/2016 04:57 Sulfate 120 5.0 50 03/29/2016 04:57 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):AO Formate 0 85-115S 03/29/2016 04:57 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 5 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 871 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Total & Speciated Alkalinity as Calcium Carbonate MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 232 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Bicarbonate 232 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 09:55 Analyst(s):HN MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 228 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Bicarbonate 228 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:01 Analyst(s):HN POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 52.4 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Bicarbonate 52.4 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:04 Analyst(s):HN Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 6 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 872 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Total & Speciated Alkalinity as Calcium Carbonate OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 Titrino 118733 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Alkalinity 400 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Carbonate ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Bicarbonate 400 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Hydroxide ND 1.00 1 03/29/2016 10:14 Analyst(s):HN Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 7 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 873 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.8 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Metals MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 62,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:19 Iron 28 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Magnesium 30,000 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Potassium 2200 50 1 03/29/2016 09:27 Sodium 55,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:19 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 101 70-130 03/29/2016 12:19 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 60,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:26 Iron ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Magnesium 29,000 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Potassium 2100 50 1 03/29/2016 09:34 Sodium 53,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:26 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:26 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP (Cont.) Page 8 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 874 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.8 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Metals POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 11,000 100 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Iron 1700 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Magnesium 5500 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Potassium 3500 50 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Sodium 5700 100 1 03/29/2016 12:38 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:38 OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 ICP-MS2 118687 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Calcium 83,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Iron ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Magnesium 56,000 100 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Manganese ND 20 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Potassium 2400 50 1 03/29/2016 09:40 Sodium 76,000 500 5 03/29/2016 12:32 Surrogates REC (%)Limits Analyst(s):BBO, DVH Terbium 103 70-130 03/29/2016 12:32 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 9 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 875 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Analytical Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Unit:pH units @ 25°C pH MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.26 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:12 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.31 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:15 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 7.53 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:18 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118704 Analytes Result Qualifiers DF Date AnalyzedAccuracy Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID pH 8.05 H ±0.05 1 03/28/2016 18:21 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 10 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 876 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2510 B-1997 Analytical Method:SM2510 B-1997 Unit:µmhos/cm @ 25°C Specific Conductivity at 25°C MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 679 10.0 1 03/28/2016 18:50 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 677 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:00 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 115 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:05 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118719 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Specific Conductivity 950 10.0 1 03/28/2016 19:10 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 11 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 877 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:SM2540 C-1997 Analytical Method:SM2540 C-1997 Unit:mg/L Total Dissolved Solids MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 408 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:05 Analyst(s):RB MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 405 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:10 Analyst(s):RB POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 68.0 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:15 Analyst(s):RB OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 WetChem 118727 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Total Dissolved Solids 592 10.0 1 03/28/2016 21:20 Analyst(s):RB Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 12 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 878 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118697 Analytical Method:E300.1 Unit:mg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118697 1603D83-007DMS/MSD Instrument:IC3 Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E300.1 QC Summary Report for E300.1 Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Chloride ND 0.919 0.10 1 -92 85-115 Sulfate ND 0.965 0.10 1 -96 85-115 Surrogate Recovery Formate 0.0921 0.0929 0.10 92 93 85-115 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Chloride 287 287 1 290 51,F1 61,F1 85-115 0.0333 15 Sulfate NR NR 1 22 NR NR 85-115 NR 15 Surrogate Recovery Formate 0.0998 0.0983 0.10 100 98 85-115 1.55 10 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 13 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 879 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/29/16 Date Prepared:3/29/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118733 Analytical Method:SM2320 B-1997 Unit:mg CaCO₃/L Instrument:Titrino Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2320 B-1997 QC Summary Report for Alkalinity 1603C38-001G 198 1 221 1 11.1 <20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 14 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 880 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118687 Analytical Method:E200.8 Unit:µg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118687 1603D59-001DMS/MSD Instrument:ICP-MS2 Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E200.8 QC Summary Report for Metals Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Calcium ND 5260 100 5000 -105 85-115 Iron ND 5110 20 5000 -102 85-115 Magnesium ND 5210 20 5000 -104 85-115 Manganese ND 5290 20 5000 -106 85-115 Potassium ND 5310 50 5000 -106 85-115 Sodium ND 5260 100 5000 -105 85-115 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 746 736 750 99 98 70-130 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Calcium 45,100 45,200 5000 40,000 103 103 70-130 0 20 Iron 5410 5510 5000 130 106 108 70-130 1.80 20 Magnesium 30,200 30,400 5000 25,000 108 112 70-130 0.661 20 Manganese 5190 5170 5000 64 103 102 70-130 0.328 20 Potassium 11,100 11,200 5000 5900 104 107 70-130 1.44 20 Sodium 61,900 61,600 5000 57,000 103 99 70-130 0.340 20 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 770 796 750 103 106 70-130 3.30 20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 15 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 881 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF Precision Acceptance Criteria Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118704 Analytical Method:SM4500H+B-2000 Unit:pH units @ 25°C Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM4500H+B-2000 QC Summary Report for pH 1603D54-001A 7.98 1 7.98 1 0 0.1 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 16 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 882 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118719 Analytical Method:SM2510 B-1997 Unit:µmhos/cm @ 25°C Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2510 B-1997 QC Summary Report for Specific Conductivity 1603D91-001A 679 1 680 1 0.10 <2 SampID Sample Result Sample DF Dup / Serial Dilution Result Dup / Serial Dilution DF RPD Acceptance Criteria (%) Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/28/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118727 Analytical Method:SM2540 C-1997 Unit:mg/L Instrument:WetChem Matrix:Water Extraction Method:SM2540 C-1997 QC Summary Report for Total Dissolved Solids 1603D59-001F 338 1 346 2 2.34 <20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 17 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 883 McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Rd Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 (925) 252-9262 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold Requested Tests (See legend below) Report to: Zan Rubin 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 (510) 704-1000 FAX:(510) 704-1001 PO: 03/28/2016 Client ID ProjectNo:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 1 of 1 Date Logged: Date Received:03/28/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Balance Hydrologics Bill to: Gustavo Porras Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710 Requested TAT:1 day; ClientCode:BH Email:zrubin@balancehydro.com EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdPartyExcel J-flagWriteOn cc/3rd Party: WaterTrax A1603D91-001 Water 3/28/2016 13:45MCUS-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-002 Water 3/28/2016 14:30MCDS-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-003 Water 3/28/2016 15:22POND-1 A A A A A A A1603D91-004 Water 3/28/2016 16:00OUTFALL-1 A A A A A A Prepared by: Briana Cutino NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense. Comments: 300_1_W Alk_W FEMNMS_TTLC_W METALSMS_W PH_W SC_W TDS_W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Test Legend: 11 12 The following SampIDs: 001A, 002A, 003A, 004A contain testgroup. Page 18 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 884 Lab ID Client ID Collection Date & Time Date Logged: TATMatrixTest Name Containers /Composites WORK ORDER SUMMARY Work Order:1603D91 Comments: Client Name:BALANCE HYDROLOGICS Project:216027 QC Level:LEVEL 2 HoldDe- chlorinated SubOutBottle & Preservative 3/28/2016 Sediment Content EDF Fax Email HardCopy ThirdPartyExcel J-flagWriteOn Zan RubinClient Contact: zrubin@balancehydro.comContact's Email: WaterTrax McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" 1603D91-001A MCUS-1 3/28/2016 13:45 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-002A MCDS-1 3/28/2016 14:30 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-003A POND-1 3/28/2016 15:22 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1603D91-004A OUTFALL-1 3/28/2016 16:00 1 dayWaterE200.8 (Fe & Mn)1 Various Trace 1 dayGeneral Mineral †Trace 1 of 1Page † General Mineral testing includes the following analyses: Alkalinity (speciated), Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Chloride, Sulfate, EC, pH, TDS. Legend: - STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission). NOTES: - MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client. Page 19 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 885 Page 20 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 886 Sample Receipt Checklist McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client Name:Balance Hydrologics WorkOrder №:1603D91 Date Logged:3/28/2016 Logged by:Briana Cutino Matrix:Water Carrier:Client Drop-In Shipping container/cooler in good condition?Yes No Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice?Yes No Chain of custody present?Yes No Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?Yes No Samples in proper containers/bottles?Yes No Sample containers intact?Yes No Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?Yes No All samples received within holding time?Yes No NASample/Temp Blank temperature Yes No NAWater - VOA vials have zero headspace / no bubbles? pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2; 522: <4; 218.7: >8)?Yes No NA * NOTE: If the "No" box is checked, see comments below. Temp:7.7°C Chain of Custody (COC) Information Yes NoSample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes NoDate and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes NoSampler's name noted on COC? Sample Receipt Information Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information Sample labels checked for correct preservation?Yes No Project Name:216027 (Ice Type:WET ICE ) Comments:Method SM4500H+B (pH) was received passed its 0.01-day holding time. Total Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt for EPA 522?Yes No NA UCMR3 Samples: Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt for EPA 218.7, 300.1, 537, 539? Yes No NA Date and Time Received:3/28/2016 16:52 Received by:Alexandra Iniguez Page 21 of 21 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 887 WorkOrder: Report Created for:Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 Project Contact:Zan Rubin Project Name:216027 Project P.O.: Project Received:03/28/2016 Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/30/2016 by: Angela Rydelius, Laboratory Manager 1603D91 A The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative. Analytical Report 1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP McCampbell Analytical, Inc. "When Quality Counts" Page 1 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 888 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation 95% Interval 95% Confident Interval DF Dilution Factor DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test DUP Duplicate EDL Estimated Detection Limit ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor LCS Laboratory Control Sample MB Method Blank MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ML Minimum Level of Quantitation MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate N/A Not Applicable ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount. PDS Post Digestion Spike PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate PF Prep Factor RD Relative Difference RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation RRT Relative Retention Time SPK Val Spike Value SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure ST Sorbent Tube TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure TEQ Toxicity Equivalents WET (STLC)Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers H samples were analyzed out of holding time S Surrogate spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits c1 surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. Page 2 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 889 Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Quality Control Qualifiers F1 MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD is out of acceptance criteria; LCS validated the prep batch. Page 3 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 890 Analytical Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Received:3/28/16 17:20 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 Extraction Method:E200.7 Analytical Method:E200.7 Unit:µg/L Boron MCUS-1 1603D91-001A Water 03/28/2016 13:45 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 1500 250 50 03/30/2016 13:34 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 16 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:34 MCDS-1 1603D91-002A Water 03/28/2016 14:30 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 1500 250 50 03/30/2016 13:37 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 151 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:37 POND-1 1603D91-003A Water 03/28/2016 15:22 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 100 25 5 03/30/2016 13:40 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 147 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:40 OUTFALL-1 1603D91-004A Water 03/28/2016 16:00 ICP-JY 118799 Analytes Result DF Date AnalyzedRL Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Boron 910 250 50 03/30/2016 13:31 Surrogates REC (%)LimitsQualifiers Analytical Comments:c1Analyst(s):BBO Terbium 47 70-130S 03/30/2016 13:31 Angela Rydelius, Lab ManagerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 4 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 891 Quality Control Report McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" Client:Balance Hydrologics Project:216027 Date Analyzed:3/30/16 Date Prepared:3/28/16 WorkOrder:1603D91 BatchID:118799 Analytical Method:E200.7 Unit:µg/L Sample ID:MB/LCS-118799 1603D59-001DMS/MSD Instrument:ICP-JY Matrix:Water Extraction Method:E200.7 QC Summary Report for Boron Analyte MB Result LCS Result RL SPK Val MB SS %REC LCS %REC LCS Limits Boron ND 47.7 5.0 50 -95 80-120 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 719 682 750 96 91 70-130 Analyte MS Result MSD Result SPK Val SPKRef Val MS %REC MSD %REC MS/MSD Limits RPD RPD Limit Boron 63.8 60.7 50 12.39 103 97 80-120 4.95 20 Surrogate Recovery Terbium 967 885 750 129 118 70-130 8.89 20 QA/QC OfficerCDPH ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP Page 5 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 892 McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Rd Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 (925) 252-9262 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold Requested Tests (See legend below) Report to: Zan Rubin 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710-2227 (510) 704-1000 FAX:(510) 704-1001 PO: 03/28/2016 Client ID ProjectNo:216027 WorkOrder:1603D91 1 of 1 Date Logged: Date Received:03/28/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Balance Hydrologics Bill to: Gustavo Porras Balance Hydrologics 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 Berkeley, CA 94710 Requested TAT:1 day; Date Add-On:03/30/2016 ClientCode:BH Email:zrubin@balancehydro.com EDF Fax Email HardCopy ThirdParty A Excel J-flagWriteOn cc/3rd Party: WaterTrax A1603D91-001 Water 3/28/2016 13:45MCUS-1 A1603D91-002 Water 3/28/2016 14:30MCDS-1 A1603D91-003 Water 3/28/2016 15:22POND-1 A1603D91-004 Water 3/28/2016 16:00OUTFALL-1 Prepared by: Briana Cutino NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after results are reported unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days). Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense. Comments:Boron added 3/30/16 1day TAT. BORON_TTLC_W1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Test Legend: Add-On Prepared By: Maria Venegas Page 6 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 893 Lab ID Client ID Collection Date & Time Date Logged: TATMatrixTest Name Containers /Composites WORK ORDER SUMMARY Work Order:1603D91 Comments:Boron added 3/30/16 1day TAT. Client Name:BALANCE HYDROLOGICS Project:216027 QC Level:LEVEL 2 Hold SubOutBottle & Preservative 3/28/2016 Sediment Content 3/30/2016Date Add-On: Zan RubinClient Contact: zrubin@balancehydro.comContact's Email: McCampbell Analytical, Inc.1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: main@mccampbell.com"When Quality Counts" 1603D91-001A MCUS-1 3/28/2016 13:45 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-002A MCDS-1 3/28/2016 14:30 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-003A POND-1 3/28/2016 15:22 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1603D91-004A OUTFALL-1 3/28/2016 16:00 1 dayWaterE200.7 (Boron)1 Various Trace 1 of 1Page - STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission). NOTES: - MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client. Page 7 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 894 Page 8 of 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 895 APPENDIX B Borings from Marsh Creek Bridge Planset May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 896 NO. Notes: Standard Penetration Test Sampler : I.D . = 1.4"; O.D. = 2'' Modified California Sampler : I.D. = 2.5"; O.D. = 3" Hammer Assembl y: A 140 lb hammer with a 30" drop (Automatic Hammer) This LOTB sheet was prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Soil & Ro ck, Logging, Classifi cation, and Presentation Manual (2010 ) See Caltrans 2010 Standard Plans A10F, A10G and A 1 OH for Soil and Rock Legends. All dimensions are in feet unless otherwise shown. Base map is pro vided by Mark Thomas & Compan y, Inc 2015. 570 ~Elev. 562.0' 560 14 25 550 GWS 540 -;:::::' 530 w w LL. z 520 0 F <( > w _J 510 w 500 PLAN 1" = 20' .•.. ~iriinciWEL:i~oa~!~Dti~~«e ·sJ1~ri:° 1~ry ~ifMe~rg;n;. moist ;. plasticity fines; (LL=39, Pl=20}. ~CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC}; very dense; brown ; · · · · ·, · · ·moist;· coarse to · fine ·GRAVtL; · coarse to · fine ·SANO ,·· -· -SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM}; very dense; brown; moist; : coarse to fine GRAVEL; fine SAND; Sandstone fragments.: -· -Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND (GP); very dense; • brown while; moist; coarse to fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine : SAND; Quartz sandstone, Quartz boulder at 25 fl. • .... J":\srnlMENTARY ROCK {CLA:r'STONE),. brown .to gray , ..... .; .. ' intensely weathered, moderately soft to moderately hard , · intensely fractured, 450 psi, 65 min . Gray, slightly weathered, moderately soft, 450 psi. (UC=J .,.1.6.1.. psi,.E=l33 ,300 . psi). 490 03-11-14 Terminote.d .. at .. Elev .... ~497.0' ERi = 85% Groundwater was encountered at about 20 fl 480 *MC * LINE REVISIONS DES.: DESCRIPTION BY DATE DRAYM : OiKD.: DATE: SCALE: FlD. BK. V. SHERBY G. BOYKO 3-20-2015 337+00 PROJECT ENGINEER PLANS APPROVAL DATE 338+00 MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. 3000 OAK ROAD, SUITE 650 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 ~Elev. 560 .0' 10 13 03-07-14 Terminated al Elev .: ~490.0' ERi = 85% PCC 341+65 ,49 BENCHMARK ELE VATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 (NG VD29), CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BENCHMARK #3596, USC&GS DISC STAMPED "Z-1202 1969" ON THE NORTHEASTERLY END OF THE 2 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ON THE BRIDGE OVER MARCH CREEK APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EASTERLY OF MARCH CREEK SPRINGS RESORT. ELE VA TION = 562.042 FT (NG VD29). lean · CLAY .with SAND ·(cl}:· meaium ·stiff fci . stiff ;·yenow1sh · brown ; moist; fine SANb; medium plasticity fines. (UC= 1.3 tsf}. .-.. -.. -. · ~~ffi; GJ t1r~; · \g~?inr:'~W'tlfMe;g~rl~ iie1r~~ · ~A0lo~; · --SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM}; medium d~nse lo dense ; brown ; moist; coarse to fine GRAVEL; coarse to fine SAND ; Grovel up lo1.5 inches in size. · ~ (+#4=39.3%,. -'-#200=1 U%}: .................•................... SEDIMENTARY ROCK (SANDSTONE}, fine-grained, gray, l inlensely weathered, moderately hard lo hard, intensely fractured, 350-400 psi, 40 mm; , · Sancklone ·boulder from · 20 to ·2·1 ··ft;· hard;· white. · · · · · · · SEDIMENTARY ROCK (CLAYSTONE}, gray , in tensely weathered, intensely fractured, 350-400 psi, 50 min. . ~~te:~1~rr'ha}~i;g~~7en1:,t;:e~o~~g;Jiy',1lat,if:et 450 . psi:. 400 psi, 30 min . Soft lo moderately soft, 400 psi, 20 min ; .. 400 . psi, .. 35 . min, .. (UC=62 psi, E=5,000 psi}. 400 psi, 30 min . 400 psi, 30 min . · 400 · psi;· 25 ·min:·· Moderately fractured, 400 psi, 22 min . 570 560 550 540 530 -;:::::' w w LL. 520 z 0 F <( > w 510 _J w 500 490 Groundwater was · not encountered · in the upper about 20 fl and not measured below that during drilling due to rotary coring method PROFILE Vert. 1" 1 O' Hor. : 1" = 20' 480 339+00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARTINEZ , CA 94553 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES 2 3 ®15)% ~~IB51~TI~[L o [D) [ffi~ \WI~ [M (Gl f ~2~!; 5 STATE PLANE EAST COORD . NORTH COORD MARSH CREEK ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT LOG OF TEST BORINGS ALE NO. SHEET OF 17 ALE NAME: PEN TBL: 117 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 897 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 898 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 899 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes900 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Pacific Gas & Electric work agreement for the Hazel Avenue Storm Drain Repair, East Richmond Heights area. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: This work is located on Hazel Avenue, between Ralston Avenue and Sonoma Street in the East Richmond Heights area. The Hazel Avenue Storm Drain Repair work will require the installation of a manhole, two curb inlets, 42" storm drain pipe, curb ramp, and repair affected sidewalk and pavement. A portion of this work will be near a utility pole requiring the need for pole support to complete the storm drain repair work. This Pacific Gas & Electric work agreement details the arrangement between the County and Pacific Gas & Electric to have Pacific Gas & Electric crews perform the pole support and the cost for this work. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The utility pole support will not be performed which will delay the storm drain repair project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Chris Lau, (925) 313-7002 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Pacific Gas & Electric work agreement for the Hazel Avenue Storm Drain Repair May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 901 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The work is located in the vicinity of Mira Vista Elementary School and a traffic control plan will be implemented to limit impacts to school related traffic. ATTACHMENTS PGE Contract for Utility Pole Shoring May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 902 D R A F TRef: Contract ID: 1207316: 5702 HAZEL AVE, RICHMOND, 94805 May 9, 2016 CHRIS LAU 2475 WATERBIRD WAY MARTINEZ CHRIS LAUDear , * Only applies to Rule 15 Refundable Amounts. Amount shown is less credit for associated Applicant work. Please sign both copies of the agreement and return one copy of the agreement to the address below along with your payment and retain one copy for your records. If the agreement is not returned to PG&E within 90 days of the date of this letter, the proposed agreement is canceled and PG&E may need to re-estimate the job. This letter summarizes the agreements for this project. CA 94553 5702 HAZEL AVE, RICHMOND, 94805 $10,126.01 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL PAYMENT DUE Non-Refundable Payment Refundable Option* 50% Discount Option* TOTAL ** $10,126.01 $10,126.01OR Enclosed are gas and/or electric agreements for your project located at: Less Credit (Engineering Advance, etc.) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Relocation / Rearrangement Costs $10,126.01 $0.00 $0.00 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, A Government Agency ** The Income Tax Component of Contribution (ITCC) is included in the above charges when applicable. Mary Ruiz Sincerely, SVC PLNG Supervisor Should you have any questions regarding these contracts, please contact your project manager James Wong at 415- 695-3324 or J1WE@pge.com. Please send the executed Agreements and payment to: PG&E CFM/PPC DEPARTMENT PO BOX 997340 Sacramento, CA 95899-7340 RE: Contract ID: 1207316: 5702 HAZEL AVE , PG&E is committed to providing timely and efficient service and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this and future projects. Changes to the agreement, either to any of the terms or to the amount owing, are not permitted, and any change or interlineations voids the agreement. The payment of any amount less than the full amount shown will be deposited by PG&E, but PG&E will not begin any work on this contract until the amount is paid in full. The contract shall be deemed effective the date a fully executed copy is received by PG&E. Please allow 0 days from PG&E's receipt of the Agreement for construction to commence. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 903 62-4527 (Rev 1/91) Service Planning Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E Effective 4/02/91 Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part AD R A F TPage 1 of 2 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Agreement to Perform Tariff Schedule Related Work REFERENCES: Notification # ERR-PM # GRR-PM # 111474726 DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT (Original) DIVISION (Original) ACCTG. SVCS. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, A Government Agency (Applicant) has requested PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (PG&E), to perform the tariff schedule related work as located and described in paragraph 3 herein. PG&E agrees to perform the requested work and furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials and related facilities required therefor, subject to the following conditions: 1. Whenever part or all of the requested work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Applicant, Applicant shall first procure from such owners all necessary rights-of-way and/or permits in a form satisfactory to PG&E and without cost to it. 2. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless PG&E, its officers, agents and employees, against all loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person, including but not limited to, employees of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, or for the loss, destruction or damage to property, including, but not limited to property of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this agreement, however caused, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E, its officers, agents and employees. Applicant will, on PG&E's request, defend any suit asserting a claim covered by this indemnity. Applicant will pay all costs that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 3. The location and requested work are described as follows: (Describe in detail the materials and facilities to be furnished and/or work to be performed by PG&E. If more space is required, use other side and attach any necessary drawings as Exhibits A, B, C, etc): LOCATION: DESCRIPTION OF WORK: 5702 HAZEL AVE RICHMOND, 94805 PG&E TO SUPPORT POLE # 110230851 WHILE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PERFORMS REPAIRS TO A STORM DRAIN. 42685380 Value of Applicant Design Work Additional Applicant Design Plan Checks Facilities (Cable, Transformers / Gas Pipe) Trench, Conduits & Substructures Tie-In / Meters Trench Permits & Land Rights Inspection Fees plus ITCC @ Sub Total plus Non Taxable Work less Value of Relocation Applicant Design Work less Work Provide by Applicant less Salvage 0.0%Electric 0.0%Gas Total Payment Electric Gas $0.00 $3,742.84 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,383.17 $0.00 $0.00 $10,126.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,126.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1207316Contract # Engineering & Administrative Cost (-) (-) (=) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (=) (-) (+) (+) (+) D.0405055 Line Extension Costs - Residential $0.00 $0.00 D.0405055 Line Extension Costs - Non-Residential $0.00 $0.00 (+) (+) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 904 62-4527 (Rev 1/91) Service Planning Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E Effective 4/02/91 Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part AD R A F TPage 2 of 2 4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E, promptly upon demand by PG&E, as the complete contract price hereunder, the sum of ($10,126.01) Upon completion of requested work, ownership shall vest in:PG&E Applicant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, A Government Agency PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Mailing Address:2475 WATERBIRD WAY MARTINEZ, Title:Title: CA 94553 SVC PLNG Supervisor Ten Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Six Dollars And One Cents Applicant Executed this X day of By:By: CHRIS LAU Mary Ruiz Print/Type/Name #signDayWPA##signMonWPA# #signYrWPA# #sigWPA# #titleWPA# #Form 62-4527# May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 905 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, Bay Point area. County Project No. 0662-6R4062, Federal Project No. SR2SL 5928 (116), (District 5) (2) DETERMINE that the bid submitted by Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. (Bay Cities), demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements for this project and that Bay Cities has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for this project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Bay Cities in the listed amount ($1,362,749.50) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Bay Cities shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. (5) ORDER that, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925-313-2233 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, Bay Point area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 906 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, and bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (6) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. (7) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (8) DELEGATE, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705, to the Public Works Director or to any registered civil or structural engineer employed by the County the authority to accept detailed plans showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during trench excavation covered by that section. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Bay Cities be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The construction contract and associated fees of this project will be funded by 35% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Lifeline Transportation Grant Funds, 16% Safe Routes to School Funds and 49% Local Gas Tax Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with the Board, payment to the Habitat Conservancy Plan for $24,563.02 is authorized to be paid, and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On May 3, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., $1,362,749.50; Payment: $1,362,749.50; Performance: $1,362,749.50 Granite Rock Company, $1,471,110.00 Hess Concrete Construction Co., Inc., $1,505,619.00 The bidder listed first above, Bay Cities, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $108,360.50 less than the next lowest bid. This is a federally funded project subject to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal and requirements. The Public Works Director reports that the lowest monetary bidder, Bay Cities, attained DBE participation of 10.2% and submitted adequate documentation of good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal (19.00%) and requirements for this project. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board determine that Bay Cities has demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal for this project and has complied with the DBE requirements for this project and recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Bay Cities. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by Bay Cities is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 907 The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 Exemption, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on December 18, 2014. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, and copies will be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Construction of this project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 908 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE plans, specifications, and design for the Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements Project, Bay Point area. County Project No. 0662-6R4054, Federal Project No. CML 5928 (122), (District 5) (2) DETERMINE that the bid submitted by Hess Concrete Construction Co., Inc. (Hess), demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements for this project and that Hess has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for this project. (3) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to Hess in the listed amount ($766,942.00) and the unit prices submitted in the bid, and DIRECT that Hess shall present two good and sufficient surety bonds, as indicated below, and that the Public Works Director, or designee, shall prepare the contract. (4) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds as noted below and any required certificates of insurance or other required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. (5) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925-313-2233 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: May 24, 2016 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:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for the Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road Bike and Pedestrian Improvements Project, Bay Point area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 909 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, and bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (6) ORDER that, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retentions into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. (7) DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Sections 4107 and 4110. (8) DELEGATE, pursuant to Labor Code Section 6705, to the Public Works Director or to any registered civil or structural engineer employed by the County the authority to accept detailed plans showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection during trench excavation covered by that section. (9) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to Hess be invalidated for any reason, the Board would not in any event have awarded the contract to any other bidder, but instead would have exercised its discretion to reject all of the bids received. Nothing in this Board Order shall prevent the Board from re-awarding the contract to another bidder in cases where the successful bidder establishes a mistake, refuses to sign the contract, or fails to furnish required bonds or insurance (see Public Contract Code Sections 5100-5107). FISCAL IMPACT: The construction contract and associated fees of this project will be funded by 75% Active Transportation Program Funds, 18% Safe Routes to School Funds, and 7% Bay Point Area of Benefit Funds. BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications were filed with the Board, payment to the Habitat Conservancy Plan for $2, 037.63 is authorized to be paid , and bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On April 26, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER, TOTAL AMOUNT, BOND AMOUNTS Hess Paving & Grading, Inc., $766,942.00; Payment: $766,942.00; Performance: $766,942.00 Redgwick Construction Co., $805,790.50 Granite Rock Company, $829,456.00 Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc., $869,735.80 The bidder listed first above, Hess, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid, which is $38,848.50 less than the next lowest bid. This is a federally funded project subject to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) contract goal and requirements. The Public Works Director reports that the lowest monetary bidder, Hess, attained DBE participation of 3.96% and submitted adequate documentation of good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal (15.00%) and requirements for this project. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board determine that Hess has demonstrated adequate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal for this project and has complied with the DBE requirements for this project and recommends that the construction contract be awarded to Hess. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by Hess is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 910 and this Board concurs and so finds. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 Exemption, and a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk on February 13, 2014. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, have been filed with the Clerk of the Board, and copies will be made available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Construction of this project would be delayed, and the project might not be built. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 911 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Hanna Engineering, Inc. (dba The Hanna Group), in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for construction management services for the Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, for the period of May 24, 2016, through the project closeout, Bay Point area. County Project No. 0662-6R4062, Federal Project No. SR2SL-5928 (116) FISCAL IMPACT: This project, including this Consulting Services Agreement, is funded by 35% Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Lifeline Transportation Grant Funds, 16% Safe Routes to School Funds and 49% Local Gas Tax Funds. BACKGROUND: This project will consist of roadway widening, sidewalk, curb and gutter installation and drainage improvements in the Bay Point area, along Canal Road between Bailey Road and Loftus Road. The Hanna Group was selected to provide construction management services for the project after completing a request APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925-313-2233 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:CSA with Hanna Engineering, Inc., d/b/a The Hanna Group for the Canal Road and Sidewalk and Bike Lane Project, Bay Point area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 912 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for qualifications solicitation, technical proposal, and interview process. Public Works has successfully negotiated with The Hanna Group to provide the construction management services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board of Supervisors’ approval, this Consulting Services Agreement will not be in effect. A delay in the construction of the Canal Road and Sidewalk and Bike Lane project will occur, ultimately delaying the completion of the project. Project delay may also result in substantial additional project costs and jeopardize the funding. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 913 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4442 to establish a speed limits on Morgan Territory Road, and RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 1987/3220, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Clayton area. (No fiscal impact) FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact. BACKGROUND: Morgan Territory Road is classified as a minor collector roadway by the Federal Highway Administration. Such a classification requires that the speed limit be set according to standards established in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and CVC 22358, if the speed limit is to be set lower than the prima facie speed limit of 55 miles per hour. An Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) conducted per guidelines prescribed in those documents was used to establish an appropriate speed limit. The E&TS was conducted over two distinct segments of roadway, based on roadway alignment and collision history, which was higher on the southerly segment. The current posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour per Traffic Resolution 1987/3220, which covered both segments. Upon approval, the southerly segment will be lowered to 35 miles per hour and the northerly segment will remain at 40 miles per hour, as justified by the E&TS. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen (925) 313-2187 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: May 24, 2016 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:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish speed limits of 35mph and 40mph on certain segments of Morgan Territory Road (Road No. 7213) Clayton area. (District III) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 914 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Local law enforcement would be unable to enforcement speed limits on Morgan Territory Road. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TR Morgan Territory Rd 2016.4442 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution 2016.4442 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 915 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on May 24, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4442 Supervisorial District III TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4442 SUBJECT: Establish speed limits on Morgan Territory Road (Road No. 7213), Clayton area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: On the basis of Engineering and Traffic Surveys and recommendations thereon by the County Public Works Department’s Transportation Engineering Division, and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established (and other action taken as indicated): Pursuant to Section 22358(a) and Section 627 of the California Vehicle Code, no vehicle shall travel in excess of 40 miles per hour on Morgan Territory Road (Road No. 7213), beginning at the intersection of Marsh Creek Road (Road No. 3971A), to 1500 feet north of Oak Hill Lane; and THENCE, no vehicle shall travel in excess of 35 miles per hour on Morgan Territory Road (Road No. 7213), beginning 1500 feet north of Oak Hill Lane to 2600 feet south of the intersection of Meadow View Lane, Clayton area; Traffic Resolution 1987/3220 pertaining to the speed limit on Morgan Territory Road, is hereby rescinded. MS: mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) C: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department G:\transeng\2016\BO - TR\TR Morgan Territory Rd.doc 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: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 916 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes917 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute an Encroachment Permit for environmental surveys with East Bay Regional Park District, effective May 24, 2016 through December 31, 2016, with the option to request an extension through October 31, 2017, for the Morgan Territory Road Bridges Scour Project, (Project No. 0662-6R4030), Clayton area. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Local Road Funds BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County (County) Public Works Department is in the initial phase of the Morgan Territory Road Bridges Scour Project. It is necessary to conduct environmental surveys to determine the impact to the surrounding area before the project can move forward. As a condition to the Encroachment Permit, the District has requested the County to indemnify them during the effective dates of the permit. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The project would not be able to move forward. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Zaragoza, (925) 313-2223 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Execution of Encroachment Permit with East Bay Regional Park District May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 918 ATTACHMENTS Morgan Territory Rd. Bridges Scour Project May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 919 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 920 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 921 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 922 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 923 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 924 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 925 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4444 to prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Port Chicago Highway (Road No. 3481C), beginning at the intersection of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A) extending westerly to the intersection of Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Many commercial trucks and other vehicles from outside the area park, illegally dump, add nuisance, and are serviced on the unpaved shoulders within the public road right away. After the request to restrict parking by the Department of Conservation and Development’s Code Enforcement Division Staff, Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council members, the County's Sheriffs Office Deputies, Supervisor's Office Staff, and local truck companies, the Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Section recommends prohibiting parking at all times to eliminate parking through the section of roadway. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen (925) 313-2187 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: May 24, 2016 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:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Port Chicago Highway (Road No. 3481C), Bay Point area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 926 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vehicles will continue to park along the shoulder, dump loads and debris and cause a nuisance, leaving local authorities' power to enforce the California Vehicle Code limited. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TR Port Chicago 2016.4444 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution 2016.4444 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 927 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on May 24, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4444 Supervisorial District V TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4444 SUBJECT: Prohibit parking at all times on a portion of Port Chicago Highway (Road No. 3481C), Bay Point area. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on the recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportat ion Engineering Division, County Department of Conservation and Development’s Code Enforcement Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code, parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the north and south side of Port Chicago Highway (Road No. 3481C), beginning at the intersection of Driftwood Drive (Road No. 5094A) extending westerly to the intersection of Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), Bay Point area. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department DCD – Code Enf. 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: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 928 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes929 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2016/4443 to prohibit parking at all times on Nichols Road, and RESCIND Traffic Resolution No. 2007/4230, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Many commercial trucks and other vehicles from outside the area park, illegally dump, add nuisance, and are serviced on the unpaved shoulders within the public road right away. After the request to restrict parking by the Department of Conservation and Development’s Code Enforcement Division Staff, Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council members, the County's Sheriffs Office Deputies, Supervisor's Office Staff, and local truck companies, the Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Section recommends prohibiting parking at all times to eliminate parking on the roadway. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Vehicles will continue to park along the shoulder, dump loads and debris and cause a nuisance, leaving local authorities' power to enforce the California Vehicle Code limited. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Monish Sen (925) 313-2187 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit parking at all times on Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), Bay Point area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 930 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS TR Nichols Road 2016.4443 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution 2016.4443 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 931 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on May 24, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4443 Supervisorial District V TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2016/4443 SUBJECT: Prohibit parking at all times on Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), Bay Point. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on the recommendations by the County Public Works Department’s Transportat ion Engineering Division, County Department of Conservation and Development’s Code Enforcement Division and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 – 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established (and other action taken as indicated): Pursuant to Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code, parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the west and east side of Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), Bay Point area; and Traffic Resolution No. 2007/4230 pertaining to restricted parking on Nichols Road (Road No. 4993), is hereby rescinded. MS:mbt Orig. Dept.: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen (925-313-2187) c: California Highway Patrol Sheriff’s Department DCD – Code Enf 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: DAVID TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 932 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes933 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/369 accepting completion of landscape improvements for the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for subdivision SD08-09165, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon, (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Developer Fees. The funds to be released are developer fees that have been held on deposit. BACKGROUND: The developer has completed the landscape improvements per the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping), and in accordance with the Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The completion of improvements will not be accepted and the maintenance/warranty period will not begin. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Lori Leontini, Chris Hallford, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Industries of Northern California, The Continental Insurance Company C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of improvements for a Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for SD08-09165, San Ramon, (Dougherty Valley) area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 934 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/369 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/369 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 935 Recorded at the request of:Board of Supervisors Return To:Public Works, Engineering Services Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/369 Accepting completion of landscape improvements for a Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) for subdivision SD08-09165, for a project being developed by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) The Public Works Director has notified this Board that the landscaping improvements for subdivision SD08-09165, have been completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping) with Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, heretofore approved by this Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the landscape improvements have been COMPLETED as of April 12, 2016 thereby establishing the six-month terminal period for the filing of liens in case of action under said Subdivision Agreement (Right-of-Way Landscaping): DATE OF AGREEMENT May 3, 2011 NAME OF SURETY COMPANY THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the payment (labor and materials) surety for $75,500, Bond No. 929 518 818 issued by The Continental Insurance Company be RETAINED for the six-month lien guarantee period until October 12, 2016, at which time the Board AUTHORIZES the release of said surety less the amount of any claims on file. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the landscaping improvements for subdivision SD08-09165 are ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of the warranty and maintenance period , the San Ramon City Council shall accept the landscape improvements for maintenance in accordance with the Dougherty Valley Memorandum of Understanding. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the beginning of the warranty and maintenance period is hereby established, and the $1,500.00 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 573221, dated March 24, 2011) made by Shapell Homes, a Division of May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 936 $1,500.00 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 573221, dated March 24, 2011) made by Shapell Homes, a Division of Shapell Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and the performance/maintenance surety bond rider for $22,425.00, Bond No. 929-518-818 issued by The Continental Insurance Company be RETAINED pursuant to the requirements of Section 944.406 of the Ordinance Code until release by this Board. 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Lori Leontini, Chris Hallford, Chris Low, City of San Ramon, Shapell Industries of Northern California, The Continental Insurance Company May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 937 C.12XXXXMay 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes938 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes939 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/376 accepting Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes, for road acceptance RA06-01208 & RA06-01210, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The developer was required to construct Dougherty Road. The construction of this new road requires Dedication of Right of Way to the County for Roadway Purposes. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes will not be recorded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 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:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes for road acceptance RA06-01208 & RA06-01210, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 940 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/376 Offer of Dedication Road Purposes Exhibit A MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/376 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 941 Recorded at the request of:Board of Supervisors Return To:Engineering Services Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorMary N. Piepho, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/376 IN THE MATTER OF accepting Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes, for road acceptance RA 06-01208 & RA06-01210, for a project being developed by Shapell Industries Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as recommended by the Public Works Director, San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) area. (District II) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following instrument is hereby ACCEPTED FOR RECORDING ONLY: INSTRUMENT: Offer of Dedication for Roadway Purposes REFERENCE: RA06-01208 & RA06-01210, Dougherty Road; APN: 222-270-046 GRANTOR: Shapell Industries, a Delaware Corporation AREA: San Ramon (Dougherty Valley) DISTRICT: II 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 942 Recorded at the request of: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Return to: Public Works Department Engineering Services Division Records Section Area: San Ramon Roads: Dougherty Road, North Section Co. Road No.: n/a Development: RA 06-1208 & RA 06-1210 APN: 222-270-046 OFFER OF DEDICATION – ROAD PURPOSES Shapell Industries Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the undersigned, being the present title owner of record of the herein described parcel of land, do hereby make an irrevocable offer of dedication to CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California and its successors or assigns, the fee title to real property for street, highway landscaping and other public purposes, including maintenance thereof, situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as described and shown in Exhibit "A" (written description & plat map), attached hereto. It is understood and agreed that CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and its successors or assigns shall incur no liability with respect to such offer of dedication, and shall not assume any responsibility for the offered parcel of land or any improvements thereon or therein until such offer has been accepted by appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors, or of the local governing bodies of its successors or assigns. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and its successors or assigns and will be binding upon the title owner of record and the owner’s heirs, successors, or assigns. The undersigned executed this instrument on _____________________________________. Shapell Industries Inc., a Delaware Corporation (Signature) (Signature) (see attached notary) G:\engsvc\Land Dev\RA\RA 1210 Dougherty Road, Gale Ranch PH 4\Civil Plans\OF-6 Road Purposes.doc May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 943 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 944 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 945 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 946 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 947 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 948 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 949 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 950 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 951 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 952 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 953 C.14XXXXMay 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes954 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/373 approving the annual county miles in the Total Maintained Mileage for County Roads Report, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requires annual total mileage to determine the amount APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jim Stein, (925) 313-2343 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Annual County Miles in the Total Maintained Mileage for the County Roads Report May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 955 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of money allocated to the County from the gasoline tax. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The report cannot be submitted to Caltrans without the Board approval. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/373 Exhibt A MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/373 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 956 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/373 IN THE MATTER OF: Correcting the Total Maintained Mileage for County Roads Report. (All Districts) WHEREAS, Section 2121 of the Streets and Highways Code provides that in May of each year, each county shall submit to the State Department of Transportation any additions or exclusions from its mileage of maintained county roads, specifying the terminuses and mileage of each route added or excluded; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Transportation certified to the State Controller on May 1, 2015, that the total mileage of maintained county roads in Contra Costa County was 666.51 WHEREAS, the Public Works Director now reports that the total mileage of maintained county roads as of January 1, 2015, is 666.16 miles NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board finds and determines that the mileage of maintained County roads in Contra Costa County is 666.16, and that the mileage of each route added to or excluded from the County’s maintained roads is as shown in Exhibit “A,” such exhibit being made a part of this resolution. Contact: Jim Stein, (925) 313-2343 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 957 “EXHIBIT A” CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ROAD MILEAGE (+ & -) ADDITIONS to ROAD MILEAGE Road No. Road Name Class Mileage + or - CRS Page Coord. 5525CT Enderby St 7 +.19 6L22 5C 5525DG Mashona Ct 7 +.04 6L22 5C 5525DH Bengali St 7 +.44 6L22 5C 5525DJ Bengali Ct 7 +.11 6L22 5C 5525DK Vestland Ct 7 +.03 6L22 5C 5525DL Belarus St 7 +.25 6L22 5C 5525DM Evolene St 7 +.14 6L22 5C 5525DN Baltana Ct 7 +.02 6L22 5C 8840 Taylor Ln 7 +.09 6L14 4G Corrections to Road Mileage Road No. Road Name Class Mileage CRS Page Coord. 8987C Stone Rd (to be Windsweep Rd) 7 -.70 6K 8H 8987D Windsweep Rd (used to be Stone Rd.) 7 +.62 6K 8H 9143 Kellog Creek Rd 7 +.60 6L14 3K Road Mileage loss due to Annexation and Vacation Road No. Road Name Class Mileage CRS Page Coord 7181 Wilbur Ave 4 -.86 6K46 9A 7384 Viera Ave 4 -.08 6K43 10C 7384 Viera Ave 4 -.44 6K43 10C 7385A Santa Fe Ave 7 -.11 6K43 9C 7385B Walnut Ave 7 -.15 6K43 9D 7385C Bown Ln 7 -.11 6K43 9C 7185A Minaker Dr 7 -.02 6K43 9B 3887G Imhoff Pl 7 -.21 5K55 1D 3887F Imhoff Dr 7 -.07 5K45 10D 9273 Holland Tract Rd 7 -4.81 6K54 2H 4371 Port Chicago Highway 5 -.38 5K45 8G May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 958 “EXHIBIT A” CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ROAD MILEAGE (+ & -) ADDITIONS to ROAD MILEAGE Maintained Mileage Reported on January 1, 2014 671.92 Total Additions +1.31 Total Subtractions - 7.24 Total Corrections + 0.52 Maintained Mileage as of January 1, 2015 666.51 G:\engsvc\RECORDS\Road Log\2015 Exhibit A.docx RH:js 6/1/2015 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 959 C.13XXXXMay 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes960 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a month-to-month hangar rental agreement with John Hayes for a shade hangar at Buchanan Field Airport effective May 12, 2016 in the monthly amount of $177.07, Pacheco area. FISCAL IMPACT: The Airport Enterprise Fund will realize $2,124.84 annually. BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1970, Buchanan Airport Hangar Company entered into a 30-year lease with Contra Costa County for the construction of seventy-five (75) hangars and eighteen (18) aircraft shelters at Buchanan Field Airport. Buchanan Airport Hangar Company was responsible APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a hangar rental agreement with Buchanan Field Airport Hangar tenant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 961 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the maintenance and property management of the property during that 30-year period. On September 1, 2000, the County obtained ownership of the aircraft hangars and shelters, pursuant to the terms of the above lease. On February 13, 2007, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the new Large Hangar Lease Agreement for use with the larger East Ramp Hangars. On February 3, 2008, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved the amended T-Hangar Lease Agreement which removed the Aircraft Physical Damage Insurance requirement. The new amended T-hangar Lease Agreement will be used to enter into this aircraft rental agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action will cause a loss of revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund. ATTACHMENTS John Hayes Hangar Agreement May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 962 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 963 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 964 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District), or designee, to execute a contract amendment with WEST Consultants, Inc., effective January 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit from $100,000 to a new payment limit of $175,000, for on-call consulting services to provide hydrology and hydraulic engineering services, with no change to the original term of July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2017, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with this contract for on-call consulting services will not exceed $175,000 and will be funded by the FC District (Org 7505/Fund 250500) under various project specific activities. BACKGROUND: This is a contract with WEST Consultants, Inc., for on-call Civil Engineering Services in the areas of hydrology and hydraulic studies, modeling, and design. The FC District has needs for a variety of hydrology and hydrologic services. The FC District may also have a need for additional expertise in the design of flood control and drainage works or review of models or APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mark Boucher, (925) 313-2274 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Mike Carlson, Flood Control, Mark Boucher, Flood Control, Beth Balita, Finance, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 16 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with WEST Consultants, Inc., for On-Call Consulting Services, Countywide. (100% Flood Control District Funds) Project No.: Various May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 965 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) design submittals by others to the FC District. This contract allows the FC District to quickly task WEST Consultants, Inc., with review of the FC District’s work and other projects presented to the FC District. The Scope of Work in this contract for on-call consulting services covers a variety of hydrology, hydraulic, and civil engineering work, as well as engineering tasks that are currently done internally. This contract is intended to draw on outside expertise to critically review our work and make recommendations for revisions and improvements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the FC District will be unable to obtain expert assistance for hydrology related projects. The most urgent specific task is the review of proposed stream gauge locations for stream gauges to be installed this summer, funded by a grant from the State Department of Water Resources. Also, the FC District will not be able to augment staff with outside experts in development and review of projects. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 966 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to accept, on behalf of the County, a settlement reached by the California Attorney General in the class action lawsuit, State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-515784). FISCAL IMPACT: The County will receive a $10,000 payment, which will be deposited into the General Fund. The County also will be eligible to apply for technology grants paid from settlement funds. BACKGROUND: State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-515784) is a class action lawsuit filed by the State of California against several makers of cathode ray tubes. The lawsuit arises out of an alleged price-fixing scheme that inflated the prices of devices containing cathode ray tubes between March 1, 1995, and November 25, 2007. The California Attorney General, as parens patriae (i.e., under the State’s authority to act on behalf of others), filed the lawsuit on behalf of the State of California and several named public agency plaintiffs, including Contra Costa County. A previous partial settlement of the lawsuit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2014. The County received a notice that the California Attorney General has agreed to settle with remaining defendants Hitachi, LG, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Gould (925) xxx-xxxx 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: May 24, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize settlement of State of California, et al. v. Samsung SDI, Co., Ltd., et al. (S.F. Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-515784) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 967 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Panasonic, Samsung, and Toshiba, and related and affiliated entities. This settlement will require these remaining defendants to pay a total of $4.95 million into a settlement fund. If the County participates and the Court approves the settlement, the County, as a named plaintiff, will receive a direct payment of $10,000. An additional $1,895,946 will be allocated for technology grants to members of the plaintiff class. The County will be eligible to apply for grants if it participates in the settlement. The remaining settlement funds will be paid to the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco for administrative costs, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. The Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. If the County opts out of the settlement, it will not be eligible for a direct payment, nor can it apply for grants from settlement funds. Participating in the settlement will terminate the lawsuit against the named defendants that was brought on the County’s behalf, and will prevent the County from independently litigating against the named defendants over claims that were raised or could have been raised in the lawsuit. For these reasons, the Purchasing Agent recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County’s participation in this settlement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not receive a $10,000 settlement payment and would not be eligible to apply for technology grants paid with settlement funds. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 968 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Christopher Burish, Pedro Chavez, Luis Leon Zacapa Delgado, Enterprise-Rent-A-Car, Shanti Kotecha, Timothy McCarthy III, Margarita Sanchez-Reyes, and Kimberly Vasquez. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Balbas 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 969 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of Stacy McPherson and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $115,000, less permanent disability payments. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $115,000 less permanent disability payments. BACKGROUND: Attorney Mark A. Cartier, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of Stacy McPherson vs. Contra Costa County. The Board's May 10, 2016 closed session vote was: Supervisors Andersen, Piepho, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord 925.335.1450 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Setlement of Claim, Stacy McPherson vs. Contra Costa County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 970 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Mitchoff and Glover - Yes; Supervisor Gioia - Absent. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier May 10, 2016 vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 971 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of James Cavin and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $90,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $90,000. BACKGROUND: Attorney William R. Thomas, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of James Cavin v. Contra Costa County. The Board's May 10, 2016 closed session vote was: Supervisors Andersen, Piepho, Mitchoff and Glover - Yes; Supervisor Gioia - Absent. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier May 10, 2016 closed session vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharon Hymes-Offord 925-335-1450 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Settlement of Claim, James Cavin vs. Contra Costa County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 972 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 973 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of April 1, 2016, through April 30, 2016, as recommended by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: Settlement amounts are listed below. BACKGROUND: One agreement to settle pending litigation, as defined in Government Code section 54956.9, became final during the period of April 1, 2016, through April 30, 2016. Joanne Lewis v. United States, et al., USDC Case No. 15-cv-02319-CAB-JLB (SD Cal.). On February 9, 2016, the Board approved settlement of this lawsuit involving an arrest warrant. Settlement in the amount of $450,000, inclusive of attorneys fees and costs, was authorized in closed session by unanimous vote of all four members present (Dist. 1 Supervisor absent). The settlement agreement was fully executed on April 14, 2016. The funding source is the Risk Management Liability Internal Service Fund. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Thomas Geiger, 335-1800 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Public report of litigation settlement agreements that became final during the period of April 1, 2016, through April 30, 2016. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 974 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This report includes final settlements of litigation matters handled by the Office of the County Counsel. This report does not include litigation settlements that were reported by the Risk Management Division of the County Administrator’s Office as a consent item on the Board’s open session agenda. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The report would not be accepted. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N.A. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 975 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a $4,500 settlement agreement with the Marine Shale Processors Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is 100% General Fund. ($4,500 from the Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab budget) BACKGROUND: In 1995 and 1996, small amounts of hazardous waste from the Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab were sent to a waste processing and treatment facility near Amelia, Louisiana, known as the Marine Shale Processors Site. More than 7,700 entities sent hazardous materials to the facility, which closed in 1996 under a federal court order. The site is now a Superfund site. The County has received a remediation demand from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, through an entity known as the Marine Shale Processors Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group. The County is one of approximately 1,200 entities that were responsible for sending relatively small volumes of waste to the site. Each of these entities generated between 0.2 tons and 1.0 tons of waste to the site. County Hazardous Materials Programs staff reviewed hazardous waste manifest documents for the site and confirmed that approximately 0.56 tons of hazardous waste originating from the Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab was sent to the site under a contract with a hazardous waste disposal company. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: SHERIFF's OFFICE -CASTEN, Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Settlement Agreement with the Marine Shale Processors Site Potentially Responsible Parties Group May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 976 Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. § 1906 et seq.), entities that arrange for the disposal of hazardous wastes are among the parties that may be potentially responsible for the costs of remediating a Superfund site. As a “potentially responsible party” under CERCLA, the County has been offered the opportunity to enter into a May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 977 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) de minimis cash-out settlement agreement that would allow the County to exit the case and avoid the costs associated with any further investigation, remediation, and litigation. Under the proposed settlement, the County would pay $4,500 in exchange for a general release from all liability associated with the site. The settlement amount is non-negotiable. This Board order authorizes the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a settlement agreement with the Marine Shale Processors Site PRP Group. Upon receipt of a signed settlement agreement and a $4,500 payment, the Group will execute a release discharging the County from all liability associated with the site. The Group is authorized under CERCLA and an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to execute the release. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would continue to be a “potentially responsible party” under CERCLA with respect to the Marine Shale Processors Site. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 978 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for April 2016. 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. District I and District V have nothing to report. 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: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Balbas 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board Members meeting reports for April 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 979 ATTACHMENTS District IV April 2016 Report District III April 2016 report District II April 2016 Report May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 980 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff April 2016 DATE MEETING NAME LOCATION PURPOSE 4/6/2016 ABAG Regional Planning Committee Oakland Decisions on agenda items 4/6/2016 CCTA Planning Committee Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 4/6/2016 CCTA Special Meeting Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 4/7/2016 Family Justice Center Event Pleasant Hill Community Outreach 4/11/2016 Hiring Outreach and Oversight Committee Martinez Decisions on agenda items 4/12/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 4/14/2016 TRANSPAC Meeting Pleasant Hill Decisions on agenda items 4/19/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 4/20/2016 BAAQMD Board Meeting San Francisco Decisions on agenda items 4/20/2016 CCTA Authority Board Walnut Creek Decisions on agenda items 4/21/2016 GoMentum Mobility Summit Concord Community Outreach 4/21/2016 ABAG General Assembly Oakland Decisions on agenda items 4/22/2016 DCC In-Person Meeting Oakley Water Advocacy 4/23/2016 Assistance League Celebration Lafayette Community Outreach 4/26/2016 Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Decisions on agenda items 4/27/2016 Airport Committee Concord Decisions on agenda items 4/28/2016 Water: 2016 Event Sacramento Water Advocacy 4/28/2016 Clayton Business and Community Assoc.Clayton Community Outreach May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 981 Date Meeting Name Location Purpose 7-Apr Meeting with County Staff Martinez Business Meeting 7-Apr Meeting with Supervisor Glover and County Staff Martinez Business Meeting 7-Apr Open Space Parks & East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 7-Apr Phone Meeting with Civil Grand Jury Martinez Business Meeting 7-Apr Meeting with Brentwood Rotary President, Mike Crosby Brentwood Business Meeting 8-Apr Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Brentwood Business Meeting 8-Apr Delta Protection Commission "Delta Leadership Program" Luncheon Oakley Community Outreach 11-Apr Phone Meeting with Constituent Brentwood Business Meeting 12-Apr Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 12-Apr Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 12-Apr Housing Authority Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 12-Apr Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez Business Meeting 13-Apr * Phone Meeting with Delta Stewardship Council Staff Brentwood Business Meeting 13-Apr Meeting with Contra Costa Farm Bureau Martinez Business Meeting 13-Apr Meeting with Veteran Services Director, Nathan Johnson Martinez Business Meeting 13-Apr LAFCO Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 13-Apr Phone Meeting with Contra Costa Fire Chief, Jeff Carman Martinez Business Meeting 14-Apr Meeting with County Administrator, David Twa Martinez Business Meeting 14-Apr Finance Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 14-Apr Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee Meeting Martinez Business Meeting Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho – April 2016 AB1234 Report (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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 982 14-Apr Meeting with Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, County Administrator David Twa & Pittsburg City Councilmember Sal Evola Martinez Business Meeting 14-Apr State Route 4 Bypass Authority Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 14-Apr Transplan Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 15-Apr Committee on County Tax Collecting Procedures Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting 15-Apr Meeting with County Water Agency, Ryan Hernanez and Constituent Sacramento Business Meeting 19-Apr JetSuiteX Launch Event Concord Community Outreach 19-Apr Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 19-Apr Phone Meeting with Cushman & Wakefield Martinez Business Meeting 20-Apr Delta 6 Meeting Brentwood Business Meeting 21-Apr Contra Costa County Sanitary District Event Martinez Community Outreach 22-Apr Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Brentwood Business Meeting 25-Apr Phone Meeting with Delta Protection Commission Executive Director and Contra Costa Water Agency Brentwood Business Meeting 25-Apr Meeting with County Staff Martinez Business Meeting 25-Apr Meeting with Public Health Director, Dan Peddycord Martinez Business Meeting 25-Apr Meeting with Environmental Health Director, Marilyn Underwood Martinez Business Meeting 25-Apr East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Meeting Oakley Business Meeting 25-Apr Phone Meeting with County Staff Brentwood Business Meeting 26-Apr Board of Supervisors Meeting Martinez Business Meeting 26-Apr Meeting with Supervisor Gioia and Jim Levine, Bay Area Council Water Committee Martinez Business Meeting 26-Apr Interview with Contra Costa/East Bay Times Martinez Business Meeting 27-Apr * Phone Meeting with Delta Stewardship Council Staff Brentwood Business Meeting 27-Apr Meeting with County Staffs Concord Business Meeting 27-Apr Airport Committee Meeting Concord Business Meeting May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 983 27-Apr Tri Delta Transit Committee Meeting Antioch Business Meeting 28-Apr * Delta Stewardship Council Meeting Sacramento Business Meeting 28-Apr Meeting with Former Supervisor Larry Ruhstaller, Supervisor Mike Reagan and Former Supervisor Mike McGowan Sacramento Business Meeting * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 984 Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report April 2016 Date Meeting Location 6 Mental Health Commission Concord 7 Leadership CC - Panel Martinez 7 East Bay EDA Oakland 7 Family Justice Ctr Pleasant Hill 7 Mayors Conference Moraga 11 Juvenile Justice Plan Martinez 11 Family & Human Services Comm Martinez 12 Board of Supervisors Martinez 13 CCCERA Concord 13 LAFCO Martinez 14 Leadership SRV San Ramon 14 TWIC Martinez 15 DA Victims Rights Martinez 19 Board of Supervisors Martinez 19 SWAT Danville 20 CCCSWA Finance Walnut Creek 21 CCCTA Concord 21 VESTIA event Danville 22 Citizen Corp Council Danville 25 Public Protection Martinez 25 Internal Ops Martinez 25 TRAFFIX Danville 26 Board of Supervisors Martinez 27 CCCERA Concord 28 CCCSWA Walnut Creek 29 Child Abuse Prevention event Lafayette 29 Moraga Citizen of the Yr Moraga May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 985 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Board meeting minutes for April 2016, as on file with the Office of the Clerk of the Board. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 25101(b) requires the Clerk of the Board to keep and enter in the minute book of the Board a full and complete record of the proceedings of the Board at all regular and special meetings, including the entry in full of all resolutions and of all decisions on questions concerning the allowance of accounts. The vote of each member on every question shall be recorded. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County will fail to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 25101(b). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Balbas 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE the Board Meeting minutes for April 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 986 RECOMMENDATION(S): In the Matter of Recognizing How to be a Conservator Workshop and the volunteers who degenerate their time to the programs success. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County has a growing senior population who are unable to care for themselves and their finances. In the county, various volunteer programs help our aging seniors allow the county to save money and allocate resources to critical programs. One of these volunteer programs is the "How to be a Conservator" workshop. This workshop trains families and others on how to take care of a senior who is unable to provide properly for their personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, shelter and also who are unable to manage their own finances. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jen Quallick (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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:In the Matter of Recognizing How to be a Conservator Workshop and its Volunteers May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 987 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/147 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/147 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 988 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/147 Recognizing "How to be a Conservator" workshop and its volunteers. Whereas, Contra Costa County has a growing senior population with many who are unable to care for themselves and their finances; and Whereas, in Contra Costa County we are fortunate to have various volunteer programs which help our aging seniors and allow the County to save money and allocate scarce resources to other critical programs; and Whereas, one of the volunteer programs that is helping our seniors is the all-day “How to be a Conservator” workshop. This workshop trains families and others on how to take care of a senior who is unable to provide properly for his or her own personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, shelter and who also is unable to manage their own financial resources or resist fraud or undue influence. Trained California licensed professional fiduciaries donate their time to teach these monthly workshops; and Whereas, Superior Court Supervising Probate Judge John Sugiyama, Law Librarian Carey Rowan, and former County Commissioner Don Green have worked tirelessly for several years to promote and encourage family members who wish to be appointed as a conservator to take the conservator workshop. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, does hereby recognize the “How to be a Conservator Workshop” along with Judge John Sugiyama, Carey Rowan and Don Green for all they do to support senior citizens in Contra Costa County. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 989 PR.1, C.26 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 990 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/371, initiating proceedings for the formation of a new zone, Zone 2504, within County Service Area P-6, in the Rodeo area of the County. 2. FIX a public hearing for June 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., on the formation of Zone 2504 within County Service Area P-6. 3. FIX a public hearing for June 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the adoption of Ordinance 2016-13, which would authorize the levy of a special tax to augment funding for police protection services in proposed Zone 2504, and to authorize submission of the ordinance to the voters for approval at the August 23, 2016, election. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the proposed Police Services Special Tax District is paid for by the developer of the subdivision. BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision 9367 (County File #SD14-9367), the developer of the property identified as 509 Parker Avenue in the Rodeo area of the County is required to establish a Special Police Services Tax District for the 6-lot subdivision prior to recording the final map for the subdivision. The proposed special tax district would fund an increase in the level of police protection services that is provided in the area of Rodeo. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution of Intention to Form Zone 2504 of County Service Area P-6 in the Rodeo area (District V) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 991 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Adoption of a resolution of intent to form a new tax district (Resolution No. 2016/371) is required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming the proposed zone, which will serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the proposed zone if the tax measure is approved by the voters at a August 23, 2016, ballot. The resolution includes information regarding the name and boundaries of the zone, the different level of services to be provided, and the method by which the increased level of service is to be funded. The resolution also directs the Clerk of the Board to publish and mail notice of a public hearing regarding the proposed zone formation. It is recommended that the Board set this hearing for 9:30 a.m. on June 21, 2016. If at the conclusion of that public hearing the Board determines that more than 50% of the total number of voters residing within the proposed zone have filed written objections to the formation, Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b)(1), would require the Board to determine that a majority protest exists and to terminate the proceedings. The proposed police service district currently consists of a single 0.69-acre property owned by Michael McGhee, who per the conditions of approval for the subdivision is required to establish the police service district prior to recording the final map. If there is no majority protest and the Board elects to proceed with the formation of the zone, a second public hearing would be required to consider the approval of Ordinance No. 2016-13, pertaining to the proposed levy of a special tax on the subject parcel within Zone 2504 for police protection services and submission of the measure to the voters, pursuant to Government Code Section 50077, subdivision (a). It is recommended that this hearing be set at 9:30 a.m. on June 21, 2016, immediately following the hearing on the zone formation. If the Board thereafter adopts Ordinance 2016-13, then the tax measure would be submitted for placement on a August 23, 2016, ballot. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve this item, then Ordinance No. 2016-13 will not be adopted and formation of Special Tax Zone 2504 will not occur, and the Special Tax District will not be established at the June 21, 2016, hearing. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/371 Exhibit A- Legal Description Exhibit B - Map MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/371 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 992 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/371 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 2504 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE RODEO AREA OF THE COUNTY The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County proposes the formation of new zone in the Rodeo area of County Service Area (CSA) P-6, pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 2.3 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the California Government Code. 2. The boundaries of the territory to be included in the zone area are described in 'Exhibit A' and shown in 'Exhibit B', both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The formation of Zone 2504 is proposed to provide the County of Contra Costa with a method of financing an increased level of police protection services to the area within the zone. 4. The proposed zone would provide a level of police protection services that exceeds the level of service outside the zone, and if approved by the voters, the proposed zone would generate additional revenue in the form of special taxes to fund the increase in this level of service. 5. The increase in the level of service would be financed through the levy of a voter-approved special tax on all taxable parcels within the zone. 6. The name proposed for the zone is "Zone 2504" of CSA P-6. At 9:30 a.m. on June 21, 2016, in the Chamber of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553, this Board will conduct a public hearing upon the proposed formation of Zone 2504 of CSA P-6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to give notice of the public hearing by (1) publishing a notice that complies with Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (d)(1), pursuant to Government Code Section 6061; (2) mailing the notice to all owners of property within the proposed zone; (3) mailing the notice to each city and special district that contains, or whose sphere of influence contains the proposed zone; and (4) verifying that the notice is posted in at least three public places within the territory of the proposed zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 993 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes994 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 995 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 996 RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT the following individual to the District II Seat of the Contra Costa Commission for Women for a three-year term with an expiration date of February 28, 2019, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Stacey Howard Danville, CA 94526 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Commission for Women was established to identify major economic, educational, and social concerns of women in Contra Costa County, and to reach and inform all women on a variety of issues. The Commission consists of 26 members: one member from each Supervisorial District, 20 At Large members, and 1 Alternate At Large member. The IO Committee reviews nominations to the 20 At Large seats and their Alternate. Terms for all Commission seats are three years. Supervisor Andersen is pleased with Ms. Howard's involvement on the Commission and would like her to continue for another term. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Seat will become vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, Commission, Appointee C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE CONTRA COSTA COMMISSION FOR WOMEN May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 997 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 998 RECOMMENDATION(S): REASSIGN the following person from the 1st Alternate Seat of the County Service Area P-5 Citizens Advisory Committee to the Appointee 6 Seat for a term with an expiration date of December 31, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Candace Andersen: Jason Dudum Alamo, CA 94507 DECLARE a vacancy in the 1st Alternate Seat on the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee effective immediately, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Established on April 18, 1972, by Resolution Number 72/257, the purpose of the County Service Area P-5 Citizen Advisory Committee is to act as a liaison between the citizens of the P-5 Police District and the Office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County by: Advising the Board of Supervisors and the Office of the Sheriff of the community's needs and desires regarding police protection; Promoting public safety in the areas of home safety, traffic safety, vacation security and crime prevention through the neighborhood watch program; and maintaining oversight of expenditures of the public funds accruing in the P-5 Police District. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jill Ray, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: District 2 Supervisor, Maddy Book, CSA P-5 CAC, Appointee C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT TO THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-5 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 999 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Appointee 6 Seat would remain vacant. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1000 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Derek Jansen, DECLARE a vacancy in the At Large Alternate 1 seat on the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Committee, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The Fish and Wildlife Committee was established by the Board in December 1994 to advise the Board on fish and wildlife issues, make recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the Fish and Wildlife Propagation Fund, and to address issues surrounding the enforcement of fish and game laws and regulations of the County. The Committee is comprised of ten members: one nominated by each County Supervisor, four At-Large seats, and one At-Large Alternate 1 seat. Derek Jansen, the At-Large Alternate 1, notified staff of his resignation on March 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Board Order is not approved the vacancy will not be posted and the At-large Alternate 1 seat will remain vacant. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Vacancy on the Fish and Wildlife Committee May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1001 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT resignation of Edi Birsan, DECLARE a vacancy in the Economic Opportunity Council Private/Non-Profit Sector Seat No.2, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Employment & Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: The duties and responsibilities of the Economic Opportunity Council include: reviewing fiscal and programmatic reports submitted by staff and the performance of Community Services Block Grant contractors and the Weatherization program services; selecting its officers and appointing members to EOC Committees; making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on all program proposals and budgets related to Community Services Block Grant and the Weatherization program; and requiring and receiving budget and other reports prepared by staff every other month along with an Annual Report in September. Mr. Birsan was appointed to Private/Non-profit Sector Seat No.2 on May 5, 2015 and re-appointed on July 7, 2015 as the seat terms were re-aligned for a term end date of June 30, 2019. He submitted his resignation from this seat effective May 1, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6308 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Nancy Sparks, Christina Reich, Cassandra Youngblood C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:DECLARE Vacant Private/Non-Profit Sector Seat No. 2 on the Economic Opportunity Council May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1002 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Economic Opportunity will not be able to fill the vacancy. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1003 RECOMMENDATION(S): Re-Appoint the following individuals to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Advisory Committee, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: 1. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lia Bristol, (925) 521-7100 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Re-Appointments to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Advisory Committee May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1004 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) AMEND the seat term for the District IV Appointee, Andrew Bryant, on the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee, as stated in the Board Order of December 2, 2014, which should instead reflect a four year term expiring on January 1, 2019 based on the revised bylaws and amended seat terms that were adopted and approved in May 2013, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: District IV At-Large Andrew Bryant Walnut Creek, CA 94598 REAPPOINT the following individual to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee to a term to expire on April 1, 2018, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: 2. City of Walnut Creek Lesley Hunt Walnut Creek, CA 94596 REAPPOINT the following individual to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee to a term to expire on January 1, 2018, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: 3. City of Pleasant Hill Christopher Learned Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 REAPPOINT the following individual to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee to a term to expire on December 31, 2016, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff: 4. City of Concord Rosanne Nieto Concord, CA 94521 FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Iron Horse Corridor Management Advisory Committee was authorized by the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1997. It was established to assist Contra Costa County in developing a management program for the Iron Horse Corridor. In October of 2000 the Board expanded the Advisory Committee's role to continue implementation and monitoring of the Landscape Element of the Management Program and to assist in completion of the Joint Use Criteria and Standards, Public Information, and Finance elements of the Management Program. Advisory Committee seats include one representative from each jurisdiction or unincorporated community along the corridor, a District II seat, a District IV seat and a seat for the East Bay Regional Park District. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The above seats referenced in this board order on the Iron Horse Corridor Management Advisory Committee will be vacant. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1005 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5074 authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $17,650 in the Human Trafficking Advocacy Program Grant from the State of California increasing total funding from $32,350 to $50,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenue by $17,650. 100% State. BACKGROUND: The Human Trafficking Advocacy Program provides critically important services to victims of sex trafficking and labor trafficking in Contra Costa County. Additionally, funding from this grant allows the District Attorney's office to work collaboratively with law enforcement, community organizations and the county human trafficking coalition to increase awareness about human trafficking and provide training and outreach to the community. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations and estimated revenue for this grant will not be properly reflected in the FY 2015/16 budget. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cherie Mathisen 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mark Peterson, District Attorney Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment for Human Trafficking Advocacy Grant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1006 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5074 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5074 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1007 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1008 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1009 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1010 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1011 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5073 authorizing additional revenue in the amount of $50,000 in the District Attorney's Officer (0242) for the Underserved Victim Advocacy and Outreach Grant from the State of California, increasing total funding of this grant from $125,000 to $175,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenue by $50,000. 100% State. BACKGROUND: The Underserved Victim Advocacy and Outreach Program is supported by Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Assistance and is authorized and is authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended. The primary goal of the program is to enhance the safety of unserved/underserved victim populations in California by establishing victim advocacy programs solely dedicated to the unserved/underserved population, coordinate direct services in an enhanced response to victimization of specific crime populations among locally involved agencies and implement an outreach awareness program to the specific population determined as unserved/underserved. This grant will fund services to the designated unserved/underserved victim population. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cherie Mathisen 957-2234 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Mark Peterson, District Attorney Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriation Adjustment for Underserved Victim Advocacy Grant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1012 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Appropriations and estimated revenue will not be properly reflected in the FY 2015/16 budget. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5073 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5073 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1013 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1014 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1015 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1016 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1017 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT an "Oppose" position on SB 1170 (Wieckowski) Public Contracts: Water Pollution Prevention Plans, a bill that would prohibit a public entity, charter city, or charter county from delegating to a contractor the development of a plan to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works contract, or to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of a plan developed by that entity, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: At its May 7, 2015 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from the Public Works Director to recommend a position of "Oppose" to the Board of Supervisors on SB 1170. Status: 04/20/2016 From SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Do pass to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. (7-0) Bill Analysis - 04/18/2016 - Senate Environmental Quality Committee APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Oppose position on SB 1170 (Wieckowski) Public Contracts: Water Pollution Prevention Plans May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1018 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Existing law: 1) Under the federal Clean Water Act and the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act: a) Charges the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) with the regulation and protection of water quality. b) Prohibits the discharge of pollutants to surface waters unless the discharger obtains a permit from SWRCB. c) Establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program requiring the SWRCB and the nine California regional water quality control boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements which, among other things, regulate the discharge of pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activity to waters of the United States from construction sites that disturb one or more acres of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturb more than one acre of land surface. 2) Prohibits a local public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a bidder on a public works contract to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications on public works projects, except as specified. This bill: 1) Prohibits a public entity, charter city, or charter county from delegating to a contractor the development of a plan, as defined, used to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works contract, except as provided. 2) Prohibits a public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a contractor on a public works contract that includes compliance with a plan to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of a plan developed by that entity. 3) Provide that these prohibitions do not apply to contracts that use: a) Design-build. b) Best value. c) Construction manager at-risk contracts where the construction manager is authorized to retain a plan developer for the project owners. Background 1) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). Public and private owners of construction projects that disturb one or more acres of land must comply with the NPDES Permit (Permit), which regulates the discharge of stormwater and non-stormwater (such as improper dumping, spills, or leakage from storage tanks) from certain construction activities and is enforced by SWRCB's nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (regional boards). The Permit requires, among other things, the development of an SWPPP that demonstrates compliance with the Permit. An SWPPP is a comprehensive, detailed, site-specific, written document that: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1019 a) Identifies potential sources of stormwater pollution on a construction site; b) Describes stormwater control measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges from the project site, and c) Identifies the procedures the operator of the project site will implement to comply with the terms and conditions of the Permit. A project's SWPPP may be developed by the project owner or prepared by a contractor's SWPPP developer. The Permit requires SWPPPs to be prepared and certified by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD), who must be a registered engineer or other licensed professional. Many other SWPPP tasks (such as site inspections) must be conducted directly by, or under the supervision of, a QSD or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP), who must also be certified. There are extensive qualification and training requirements for both the QSD and QSP. Typically, the owner of the construction site is designated the "discharger" from the site and is therefore the "Legally Responsible Person" under the Permit. Consequently, the party required to ensure compliance with the terms of the Permit is the property owner, not the contractor. There are serious potential costs for failure to comply with the Permit. Any person who violates a condition of the Permit is subject to a civil penalty, which could be as high as $37,500 per calendar day of a violation, plus sanctions provided by the Clean Water Act. 2) Public Contracting. The Public Contract Code spells out requirements for public entities when contracting for public works projects. The Local Agency Public Construction Act requires local officials to invite bids for construction projects and then award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. This design-bid-build method is the traditional, and most widely-used, approach to public works construction. However, over the last two decades, legislators have gradually expanded local governments' authority to procure construction projects using various alternatives to the design-bid-build project delivery method, including "design-build," "construction manager at risk," and "best value" contracting. Chief among the potential benefits of these methods is that they transfer some of the risk associated with the construction from the public entity to the contractor. State law also controls some aspects of project design and execution. The Professional Engineers Act requires, among other things, engineering and architectural plans to be developed by licensed engineers or architects. Title 12 of the Civil Code (commencing with Section 2772) governs indemnity generally and provides that a contract requiring indemnification of a public agency for that agency's willful misconduct or sole negligence is void. However, Title 12 also provides that parties to a contract, including a public agency, may negotiate liability among themselves for design defects and any other liability relating to the contract. Finally, the Public Contract Code disallows public entities from requiring bidders to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the designs for public works projects, except on clearly designated design-build projects. Many public entities require contractors to include in their bids the cost of preparing and implementing SWPPPs, and have begun requiring contract provisions that indemnify the public entity against penalties associated with violations of the Permit and prohibit change orders associated with SWPPPs. In addition, construction costs in California declined sharply for several years beginning in 2007, creating intense competition for projects May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1020 among contractors, reducing margins. Some contractors want to restrict the ability of public agencies to require contractors to prepare SWPPPs as part of a public works contract. Contractors work on multiple construction projects over time, or even simultaneously. Accordingly, many develop preexisting relationships with QSDs or employ them within their own organization. Some larger public agencies may also retain their own QSDs, but it doesn't make sense for smaller ones that rarely build new public works to do the same. SB 1170 allows local agencies to contract separately with an engineer or architect for an SWPPP, but this simply puts a public agency in the position of being the general contractor for the project--requiring experience and relationships which smaller agencies may not have. Moreover, SWPPPs are ever-changing documents. Construction projects frequently change in response to unforeseen circumstances or issues with the site, and the SWPPP must be revised to reflect those changes. Contractors who are actually performing work on a site are in the best position to know when the plan must be modified. Requiring the contractor to develop and maintain the SWPPP--and ensuring that the contractor bears the risk of violating the Permit--sets up the right incentives for the people performing the work to ensure that the SWPPP effectively protects water quality. SB 1170 would remove these incentives and increase the burden on unprepared local agencies, potentially resulting in illegal pollutant discharges, fines to the state and local governments, and water quality problems. Comments 1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, this bill "ensures that adequate resources are allocated to the pollution prevention planning process by clarifying that public owners are responsible for the preparation of SWPPPs required on public works projects. This bill prohibits public owners from delegating responsibility to contractors for SWPPP design." The author further argues that "the bill clarifies existing law which requires licensed design professionals to create engineering and architectural plans." The author states that existing law already bars public owners from making contractors assume responsibility for the design of stormwater plans. The author asserts that this bill "clarifies the intent of the permit designation of project owners as the Legally Responsible Party." 2) Responsibility and Consequences. The Permit defines the "discharger" as "[t]he Legally Responsible Person or entity subject to the General Permit." The Permit defines the Legally Responsible Person as falling into specified eligible categories, including "[a] person, company, agency or other entity that possesses a real property interest . . . in the land upon which the construction or land disturbance activities will occur for the regulated site." The Permit states a contractor is not qualified to be the Legally Responsible Person, unless they fall into limited categories (those employed and duly authorized on U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Projects or those engaged in pollution and remediation projects). The Permit is typically held in the name of the property owner. Consequently, the party required to ensure compliance with the Permit is the property owner, not the contractor. The Permit also requires the discharger (i.e., owner) to file Permit registration documents, annual reports and other compliance information. The discharger must certify that the information provided regarding the project site is accurate and complete. The discharger must allow entry to the project site for inspections and provide records required to be kept under the Permit. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1021 Any person who violates a condition of the Permit is subject to a civil penalty, which could be as high as $37,500 per calendar day of a violation, plus sanctions provided by the Clean Water Act. 3) Contracting Agencies' Perspective. According to staff at SWRCB, the practice of delegating development of an SWPPP to the contractor is neither new nor unusual. This is frequently the practice they see in construction projects that must obtain a Permit and develop an SWPPP. They note that the discharger, or the responsible party for the Permit, is named on the Permit and is always the owner/agency, not the contractor. Thus, responsibility for compliance with the Permit remains with the owner/agency, regardless of which party develops the SWPPP. SWRCB staff also asserts that most municipalities don't have the expertise to develop SWPPPs and don't have the resources to retain QSDs on staff. QSDs are typically employed by environmental consulting firms that perform the work of developing SWPPPs under contract, either with a contractor (which is more common), or with the owner/agency. (Some large contracting firms keep QSDs on staff, but many smaller firms don't have the resources to do so.) Local contracting agencies indicate that they often require contractors to design and submit SWPPPs because a contractor's plan or approach for construction dictates the sequence of excavation, backfill, and temporary stockpiling of material on a typical project. They contend that a contractor-designed SWPPP can incorporate an optimal construction sequence selected by the contractor and incorporate it into their SWPPP, thereby maximizing efficiency and reducing costs. An owner-designed SWPPP would necessarily have to assume a sequence of excavation, etc. (and effects upon drainage) that might occur under one construction sequence/scenario. This might not be the optimum sequence that the contractor would elect to use (and would have incorporated into its own SWPPP plan). For this reason, it makes more sense to require the party actually responsible for the construction sequence of operations to be the one implementing its sequence into the design of an SWPPP. An owner-designed SWPPP would unnecessarily lock in all bidders to one single type of construction sequence/plan envisioned by the owner prior to the bid opening, one which may not necessarily be the lowest cost option. 4) Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel's Office, SB 1170 creates a new state-mandated local program. SB 1170 disclaims this mandate by saying that the Legislature finds that there is no mandate in the act. Ultimately, the Commission on State Mandates may make the final determination on whether a mandate exists. Related/Prior Legislation The provisions of SB 1170 are similar to those of AB 1315 (Alejo, 2015), except the amendments that were taken to SB 1170 limit the types of projects where the prohibitions apply, and that AB 1315 did not disclaim the state mandate and did not purport to be declaratory of existing law. AB 1315 was held under submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. DOUBLE REFERRAL: This measure was heard in Senate Governance and Finance Committee on March 30, May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1022 2016, and passed out of committee with a vote of 7-0. SOURCE: Associated General Contractors SUPPORT: American Subcontractors Association, California Chapter California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating, and Piping Industry California Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors, National Association California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association California State Council of Laborers California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers Northern California Allied Trades Southern California Contractors Association United Contractors Wall and Ceiling Alliance OPPOSITION: Association of California Healthcare Districts Association of California School Administrators Association of California Water Agencies California Association of Sanitation Agencies California Association of School Business Officials California Municipal Utilities Association California School Boards Association California Special Districts Association California State Association of Counties California State University Coalition for Adequate School Housing League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California Three Valleys Municipal Water District Urban Counties of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The support believes that SB 1170 "confirms that the public owner is required to be the 'Legally Responsible Person' under the Permit and this requirement will not be shifted to the contractor. SWPPP design responsibility/risk will be maintained with public owner that best knows the stormwater and drainage characteristics of the site and surrounding areas. The bidding contractor is far less familiar with the site and likely totally unfamiliar with the surrounding area at the time a contract is entered into." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The opposition states that "on projects that encompass at least one acre of land, SWPPPs must be developed to ascertain potential sources of stormwater pollution on construction sites and identify the control measures needed to be taken during the construction process. SWPPPs must be written, amended and certified by qualified personnel who are knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls and possess the skills needed to assess conditions at the construction site that could impact stormwater quality." The opposition argues that "public agencies rely on the expertise of qualified SWPPP developers, known as QSDs, to conduct this work. As agencies do not have the resources nor the regular workload required to employ such personnel throughout the year." May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1023 The opposition points out that "SWPPPs are currently in accordance with the general contractor's construction plans. As construction progresses, SWPPPs must often be modified to accommodate the constantly changing conditions of a construction site. The general contractor is in the best position to create the construction plan and contract for the corresponding SWPPP. A general contractor-developed SWPPP can incorporate an optimal construction sequence selected by the contractor thereby maximizing efficiency and reducing costs." The opposition argues that, "SB 1170 would turn this standing process on its head by prohibiting public agencies from contracting with the general contractor to develop a SWPPP and statutorily restricting the agencies remaining options to an engineer or architect. A separate entity developing a SWPPP would have to assume a sequence of work that might occur under one construction scenario but not another." Attachment A includes the bill text. Attachment B is a letter of opposition from CSAC. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: SB 1170 bill text Attachment B: CSAC Letter May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1024 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 2016 SENATE BILL No. 1170 Introduced by Senator Wieckowski (Coauthor: Senator Hill) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Alejo) February 18, 2016 An act to add Section 7107.5 to the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts. legislative counsel’s digest SB 1170, as amended, Wieckowski. Public contracts: water pollution prevention plans: delegation. Existing law prohibits a local public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a bidder on a public works contract to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications on public works projects, except as specified. Existing law requires the State Water Resources Control Board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards to prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law regulates the discharge of pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activity to waters of the United States from construction sites that disturbs one or more acres of land surface, or that is part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface. This bill would prohibit a public entity, charter city, or charter county from delegating to a contractor the development of a plan, as defined, 98 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1025 used to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works contract, except as provided. The bill would also prohibit a public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a contractor on a public works contract that includes compliance with a plan to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of a plan developed by that entity. The bill would provide that these prohibitions do not apply to contracts that use specified procurement methods. The bill would also declare that this is a matter of statewide concern. The bill would state that its provisions are declaratory of existing law, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that the Legislature finds there is no mandate contained in the bill that will result in costs incurred by a local agency or school district for a new program or higher level of service which require reimbursement pursuant to these constitutional and statutory provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 7107.5 is added to the Public Contract line 2 Code, to read: line 3 7107.5. (a)  As used in this section, the following definitions line 4 shall apply: line 5 (1)  “Plan” means a stormwater pollution prevention plan, water line 6 pollution control program, or any other plan required by a regional line 7 water quality control board to prevent or reduce water pollution line 8 or runoff on a public works project, pursuant to State Water line 9 Resources Control Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. line 10 (2)  “Plan developer” means a qualified stormwater pollution line 11 prevention plan developer or a qualified stormwater pollution line 12 prevention plan practitioner as those terms are defined in Appendix line 13 5 of State Water Resources Control Board Order No. line 14 2009-0009-DWQ. line 15 (b)  (1)  (A)  A public entity, charter city, or charter county shall line 16 not delegate to a contractor the development of a plan on a public line 17 works contract. 98 — 2 —SB 1170 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1026 line 1 (B)  Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a contract for line 2 architectural or engineering services relating to the development line 3 of a plan on a public works contract. line 4 (C)  This section does not restrict a public entity, charter city, line 5 or charter county from contracting with a duly licensed architect line 6 or engineer for the design of a plan. line 7 (2)  A public entity, charter city, or charter county shall not line 8 require a contractor on a public works contract that includes line 9 compliance with a plan to assume responsibility for the line 10 completeness and accuracy of the plan developed by that entity. line 11 (c)  Subdivision (b) shall apply regardless of the project delivery line 12 method required in a public works contract. line 13 (c)  Subdivision (b) shall apply to all public works contracts line 14 except contracts that use the following statutorily authorized line 15 procurement methods: line 16 (1)  Design-build. line 17 (2)  Best value. line 18 (3)  Construction manager at-risk contracts where the line 19 construction manager is authorized to retain a plan developer for line 20 the project owners. line 21 (d)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local line 22 public entity, charter city, or charter county from requiring a bidder line 23 or contractor on a public works contract to review any applicable line 24 plan and report any errors or omissions noted to the public entity line 25 or its plan developer. The review by the contractor shall be limited line 26 to the contractor’s capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed line 27 design professional or plan developer. line 28 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that it is of statewide line 29 concern to require a public entity, charter city, or charter county line 30 to be responsible for the development of, and completeness and line 31 accuracy of, a plan to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff line 32 on a public works project. line 33 SEC. 3. The addition of Section 7107.5 to the Public Contract line 34 Code made by this act does not constitute a change in, but is line 35 declaratory of, existing law, including, but not limited to, Chapter line 36 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business line 37 and Professions Code, Title 12 (commencing with Section 2772) line 38 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, and Section 1104 of the line 39 Public Contract Code. 98 SB 1170— 3 — May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1027 line 1 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds that there is no mandate line 2 contained in this act that will result in costs incurred by a local line 3 agency or school district for a new program or higher level of line 4 service which require reimbursement pursuant to Section 6 of line 5 Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and Part 7 line 6 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the line 7 Government Code. O 98 — 4 —SB 1170 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1028 March 23, 2016 The Honorable Robert Hertzberg Chair, Senate Governance and Finance Committee State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Senate Bill 1170 (Wieckowski)—Oppose [As Introduced] Hearing Date: March 30, 2016 – Senate Governance and Finance Committee Dear Senator Hertzberg: The organizations listed below must regrettably oppose SB 1170 (Wieckowski) related to stormwater pollution prevention. We represent a broad group of public agencies and organizations that plan, approve, construct, and maintain an extensive range of essential public infrastructure. Unfortunately, as currently written, SB 1170 would add significant new costs and inefficiencies to the delivery of this infrastructure. On projects that encompass at least one acre of land, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) must be developed to ascertain potential sources of stormwater pollution on construction sites and identify the control measures needed to be taken during the construction process. SWPPPs must be written, amended, and certified by qualified personnel who are knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls and possess the skills needed to assess conditions at the construction site that could impact stormwater quality. Public agencies rely on the expertise of qualified SWPPP developers, known as QSDs, to conduct this work, as agencies do not have the resources nor the regular workload required to employ such personnel throughout the year. SWPPPs are currently created in accordance with the general contractor's construction plans. As construction progresses, SWPPPs must often be modified to accommodate the constantly changing conditions of a construction site. The general contractor is in the best position to create the construction plan and contract for the corresponding SWPPP. A general contractor - developed SWPPP can incorporate an optimal construction sequence selected by the contractor, thereby maximizing efficiency and reducing costs. SB 1170 would turn this standing process on its head by prohibiting public agencies from contracting with the general contractor to develop a SWPPP and statutorily restricting the agencies’ remaining options to an engineer or architect. A separate entity developing a SWPPP May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1029 would have to assume a sequence of work that might occur under one construction scenario but not another. Public agencies, engineers and architects simply do not have the direct control over the day-to-day construction, let alone the expertise, to perform this function. Ultimately, the success or failure of a SWPPP lies with the general contractor carrying out the plan. If the legislature statutorily shifts the development and liability of the SWPPP to the public agency, or to a design professional or architect, it will create confusion and conflict within the public works process. SB 1170 will only further disconnect the entity responsible for the development of the SWPPP from the entity that performs the work related to the SWPPP. This is akin to asking the public agency or design professional to separately plan and contract for the security of the general contractor’s equipment on the job site, the number of portable restrooms needed or any other function that is intimately connected to the perf ormance and sequence of a construction project. For the aforementioned reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 1170 as currently drafted. Please do not hesitate to contact any of the signees below if you have any questions about our position. Sincerely, Jimmy MacDonald Legislative Representative California Special Districts Association Danielle Blacet Director of Water California Municipal Utilities Association Jean Hurst Legislative Advocate Association of California Healthcare Districts Faith Conley Legislative Representative California State Association of Counties Laura Preston Legislative Advocate Association of California School Administrators Ian Padilla Legislative Advocate Coalition for Adequate School Housing Whitnie Wiley Legislative Advocate Association of California Water Agencies Ronald Berdugo Legislative Representative League of California Cities May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1030 Adam Link Director of Governmental Affairs California Association of Sanitation Agencies Kathy Mannion Legislative Advocate Rural County Representatives of California Sara Bachez Assistant Executive Director California Association of School Business Officials Richard Hansen General Manager Three Valleys Municipal Water District Jolena Voorhis Executive Director Urban Counties of California May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1031 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2128 (Achadjian): Marriage, a bill that would amend existing law that allows a member of the Armed Force of the United States who is unable to appear for the license and solemnization of marriage to enter into that marriage by the appearance of an attorney in fact, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate impact. BACKGROUND: At its May 9, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered and supported the recommendation from the Clerk-Recorder to recommend a position of "Support" to the Board of Supervisors on AB 2128, as amended on 4/11/16. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Support position on AB 2128 (Achadjian): Marriage May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1032 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Status: 05/02/2016 In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE. (76-0) Bill Analysis - 04/29/2016 SUMMARY: Limits the power of a county clerk or the State Register to reject a power of attorney from a member of the Armed Forces stationed overseas and seeking to marry "by proxy." Specifically, this bill provides that proper completion of a power of attorney by a member of the armed forces, stationed overseas, serving in a conflict or a war and seeking to marry through an attorney-in-fact, is the sole determinant as to whether the county clerk's office and the State Registrar must accept the power of attorney and allow the military member to get married.EXISTING LAW allows a member of the United States armed forces who is stationed overseas and serving in a conflict or a war and is unable to appear for licensure and solemnization of his or her marriage to enter into that marriage by the appearance of an attorney-in-fact, commissioned and empowered in writing for that purpose through a power of attorney. (Family Code Section 420.) FISCAL EFFECT: None COMMENTS: To prevent fraud, California has historically had a prohibition on "marriages by proxy," that is, marriages where one of the parties is not present at the required solemnization and is instead represented by an attorney-in-fact. In 2004, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were raging, reservists were being called up for extended service with little warning. Based on the needs of the conflict, some ended up serving overseas for a year or longer, potentially wreaking havoc in the lives of their loved ones left behind. It was against that backdrop, the Legislature passed SB 7 (Brulte), Chapter 476, Statutes of 2004, which established a process for marriage by proxy for those members of the armed forces who are serving overseas in a conflict or war zone. When considering the bill, the Legislature heard from Theresa Arnold. Her fiance Marine Corps Lieutenant Thomas Cogan IV was stationed in Iraq. Theresa and Thomas are expecting their first child the next month, but under then-existing law, they have no way to get married prior to the birth of their child. Allowing marriage by proxy for members of the armed forces serving in a conflict or war overseas has helped ensure that military members' loved ones, including spouses and children, receive critical health and other benefits. In the case of Theresa Arnold and Thomas Cogan, their immediate marriage helped ensure that prenatal and birth costs were covered and that both Theresa and the baby received appropriate benefits should anything have happened to Lieutenant Cogan while in Iraq. Without that bill, they may not have been entitled to receive such benefits, whether in a timely manner or at all.California is now one of only a handful of states, including Texas and Colorado, that permit marriage by proxy. Montana allows a "double proxy marriage" in which neither party must be present in the state in order to legally marry, provided at least one party is either a resident of Montana or a member of the military. The current problem, according to the sponsor, the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, is that a small number of county clerks and state officials have questioned whether some of the overseas military members seeking to marry by proxy are actually in war or conflict zones and have, as a result, rejected some requests to marry by proxy or later rejected marriage licenses. Given the international nature of today's evolving threat of terrorism, it may not be clear to a county clerk or an official with the State Registrar where conflict zones are. Thus, it appears best to accept a military member's signed declaration, which as stated on the required form must be done under penalty of perjury, that he or she is serving in war or conflict zone. This bill does just that by providing that proper completion of a power of attorney by a member of the armed forces, stationed overseas and serving in a conflict or a war and seeking to marry through an attorney-in-fact, is the sole determinant as to whether the county clerk's office and the State Registrar must accept the power of attorney and allow the military member to get married. Analysis Prepared by: Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002829 Attachment A includes the bill text. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1033 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: AB 2128 bill text May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1034 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 11, 2016 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 15, 2016 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2128 Introduced by Assembly Member Achadjian February 17, 2016 An act to amend Section 420 of the Family Code, relating to marriage. legislative counsel’s digest AB 2128, as amended, Achadjian. Marriage. Existing law allows a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is stationed overseas and serving in a conflict or a war and is unable to appear for the licensure and solemnization of the marriage to enter into that marriage by the appearance of an attorney in fact. fact, commissioned and empowered in writing for that purpose through a power of attorney duly signed by the party stationed overseas and acknowledged by a notary or witnessed by 2 officers of the United States Armed Forces. This bill would remove the requirement that the member of the Armed Forces of the United States be serving in a conflict or war. provide that the completion of the power of attorney is the sole determinant as to whether the county clerk’s office or State Registrar will accept the power of attorney. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. 97 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1035 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 420 of the Family Code is amended to line 2 read: line 3 420. (a)  No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is line 4 required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall line 5 declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the line 6 marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as line 7 spouses. line 8 (b)  Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a member of the Armed line 9 Forces of the United States who is stationed overseas and serving line 10 in a conflict or a war and is unable to appear for the licensure and line 11 solemnization of the marriage may enter into that marriage by the line 12 appearance of an attorney in fact, commissioned and empowered line 13 in writing for that purpose through a power of attorney. The line 14 attorney in fact must shall personally appear at the county clerk’s line 15 office with the party who is not stationed overseas, overseas and line 16 present the original power of attorney duly signed by the party line 17 stationed overseas and acknowledged by a notary or witnessed by line 18 two officers of the United States Armed Forces. Copies in any line 19 form, including by facsimile, are not acceptable. The power of line 20 attorney shall state the full given names at birth, or by court order, line 21 of the parties to be married, and that the power of attorney is solely line 22 for the purpose of authorizing the attorney in fact to obtain a line 23 marriage license on the person’s behalf and participate in the line 24 solemnization of the marriage. The original power of attorney shall line 25 be a part of the marriage certificate upon registration. The line 26 completion of a power of attorney shall be the sole determinant line 27 as to whether the county clerk’s office and the State Registrar will line 28 accept the power of attorney. line 29 (c)  No A contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall not line 30 be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any line 31 religious sect. O 97 — 2 —AB 2128 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1036 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2642 (E. Garcia): Removing Barriers to Employment Act, that would create a grant program to help individuals receive the remedial education and work readiness skills to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship or employment opportunities, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: At its May 9, 2016 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from Stephen Baiter, Executive Director of Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County to recommend a position of "Support" to the Board of Supervisors on AB 2642 (E. Garcia): Removing Barriers to Employment Act: Initiative, as amended on 4/26/16. Status: 04/26/2016 In ASSEMBLY. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on APPROPRIATIONS. Bill Analysis 04/17/2016 : APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:"Support" position on AB 2642 (E. Garcia): Removing Barriers to Employment Act: Initiative May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1037 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) SUMMARY: Establishes the Breaking Barriers to Employment Initiative for the purpose of assisting individuals who have multiple barriers to employment to receive the remedial education and work readiness skills that will help them to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship, or employment opportunities that will lead to self-sufficiency and economic stability. Specifically, this bill: 1) Finds and declares, among other things, the following: a) Although the California economy has demonstrated growth through overall lower unemployment and higher job growth, poverty is still an issue concentrated in many of our cities and among many of our citizens. The California Poverty Measure reported in 2015 that 78% of Californians in poverty live in families with at least one adult working, with 69% of those individuals working full time. b) With low wages and lack of job skills, this target population falls further behind and cannot escape poverty. There is a need for improved access and funding to provide "career pathway" services, particularly for the poor. c) Increased funding for services such as English language improvement training, basic skills and adult education, high school diploma and GED acquisition, skills training, work experience, on-the-job training, mentoring, case management, and more is needed to bridge the gap to gainful employment for these particularly vulnerable populations. d) Special emphasis is needed to make sure that programs reach those among us with the most difficult needs with the goal of preparing those persons for training, educational, apprenticeship or employment opportunities. 2) Establishes the Breaking Barriers Initiative within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency for the purpose assisting individuals who have multiple barriers to employment to receive the remedial education and work readiness skills that will help them to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship, or employment opportunities. 3) Authorizes the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development (Secretary) to assign all or part of the administration of the initiative to one or more entities within the agency's oversight or outside the agency's jurisdiction with the agreement of the state entity to meeting the initiative's requirements. 4) Requires the Secretary to consult with public and private stakeholders, including nonprofit community-based organizations, workforce development boards, local governments, and other entities that serve individuals who face barriers to employment. 5) Provides that initiative funding will be appropriated through the budget act, as specified. 6) Requires the Secretary to develop criteria for the selection of grant recipients that provides for: a) Outreach and technical assistance to prospective applicants, especially in rural and small population areas; b) A competitive award process that addresses the need for a range of targeted populations and geographic locations to receive training opportunities; c) No less than 90% of the funds being used for direct services to the clients who face May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1038 multiple barriers to employment; and d) The lead community-based organization to demonstrate their ability to successfully deliver previous programs to targeted populations they are proposing to serve using the grant funds. 7) Requires each application to have at least one lead workforce investment board and one lead community-based organization. An application that proposes to serve clients across one or more workforce investment areas is required to either: a) Document the existence of a current memorandum of understanding with each workforce board within the proposed service area; or b) Provide a letter of acknowledgment from each workforce board within the proposed service area. 8) Provides that non-lead workforce development boards within the service area are not required to have a role within the scope of the application and that obtaining the letter of acknowledgement is the responsibility of the lead workforce investment board. 9) Requires applicants to apply for funds to serve one or more targeted populations in one or more neighborhoods, local jurisdictions, regions, or statewide. Each application is required to explain how the proposed training program or service is designed to complement the work of, and integrate the individuals being served with, the workforce development boards within the proposed service area. Targeted populations include: a) Youths who are disconnected from the education system or employment; b) Women seeking training or education to move into nontraditional fields of employment; c) Workers displaced by the movement of an employer or those who are long-term unemployed; d) Unskilled or under-skilled, low-earning workers looking to advance into better-paying employment opportunities; e) Persons for whom English is not their primary language; f) Economically disadvantaged persons who face barriers to reaching training or apprenticeship opportunities for sustainable careers; g) CalWORKS participants; h) Persons who are incarcerated and soon to be released or formerly incarcerated; i) Armed services veterans who face barriers due to skills that are not applicable to employment, training, apprenticeship opportunities in the region in which they live, or because of mental health, health, or other barriers that serve as impediments to those opportunities; j) Native Americans or migrant, seasonal farmworkers; and k) People with developmental or other disabilities. 10) Requires each grant proposal to explain the specific purpose of the grant funds and May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1039 define the general methodology and training methods proposed to be used. 11) Specifies that grant funding may be used for, but is not limited to, English language improvement training, basic skills and adult education, high school diploma and GED acquisition, skills training, work experience, on-the-job training, earn-as-you-learn progams, industry certifications, mentoring, and other remedial education and work readiness skills. 12) Requires the grant proposal to identify baseline criteria and metrics by which the overall success of the grant program can be evaluated. The proposal shall also explain the manner in which the progress of the individuals participating in the program will be monitored during the grant period. 13) Establishes the following goals for the initiative: a) Individuals who face multiple barriers to employment take measureable steps to remediate education and workforce readiness skills; b) Partnerships between community-based organizations and workforce development boards, community colleges, and other providers of quality education and training are demonstratively strengthened in ways that benefit their client's ability to continue to access services and establish career pathways; and c) Community-based organizations increase their capacity to achieve and measure results. 14) Requires grant proposals to include a pre-service education and training assessment, which will form the baseline for measuring program performance, consistent with the initiative goals. A prior assessment may be used if, in the determination of the Secretary, its results are accurate and appropriate for the grant proposal. 15) Specifies that measurements of success are to be based on the initiative goals, as relevant to the targeted population and baseline measurements set through the individual client assessment. These measurements may include, but are not limited to: a) The number of participants in the program who have completed a high school diploma or received a GED; b) The number of participants in the program who have completed a remedial education program; c) The number of participants in the program who have completed a work readiness program; d) The number of participants who have completed a certified drug treatment or mental health program; e) The number of participants who have matriculated to a pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship program; and f) The number of participants who passed the Ability to Benefit test and enrolled into an Adult Education-Career Pathway program, as defined in USC section 484(d)(2)of the 1988 Amendment to the Higher Education Act. 16) Requires that key features of the grant be provided in a memorandum of May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1040 understanding between the lead applicants and the agency, including, but not limited to, the purpose of the grant, expected outcomes, the oversight and monitoring process, and reporting requirements. 17) Requires that, as a condition of receiving funds, a grant recipient shall agree to provide information to the Secretary, as necessary to meet all reporting requirements. 18) Requires grant recipients to report, at least on an annual basis, and upon completion of the grant period regarding their use of funds, workforce training outcomes, and any other information required by the secretary. 19) Requires the Secretary to post a report on the agency's Internet Web site by January 1, 2018 that aggregates the information provided by the grant recipients, including, but not limited to, the overall success of the grant programs. 20) Authorizes the Secretary to fund a full-scale project that uses a model that was previously funded as a pilot project through the Workforce Accelerator, the Supervised Population Workforce Training Program, SlingShot, or other existing programs to the extent that the goals, measures, and metrics are sufficiently aligned with the initiative. These core components include: a) Serving the same client base; b) Addressing the needs of individuals who face multiple barriers to employment to receive remedial education and work readiness skills; c) Having an end goal of preparing those individuals for further training that results in apprenticeship or middle-skill employment opportunities; and d) Having applications jointly filed with one or more workforce investment boards and one or more community-based organizations serving as the lead. EXISTING LAW establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (Agency) for the purpose of addressing issues relating to California workers and their employers. The Agency is responsible for labor law enforcement, workforce development, and benefit payment and adjudication. The Agency works to combat the underground economy and help legitimate businesses and workers in California through a combination of enforcement and education activities. Departments and other state entities under the Agency include: 1) Agricultural Labor Relations Board; 2) The California Workforce Board; 3) The Employment Development Department, including the Employment and Employment-related Services Program and the National Dislocated Workers Grant Program; 4) Employment Training Panel; 5) The Department of Industrial Relations, including the Division of Apprenticeship Standards; and 6) Public Employment Relations Board. FEDERAL EXISTING LAW May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1041 1) Authorizes the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 for the purpose of: a) Increasing, for individuals in the US, access to and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support services they need to succeed in the labor market, particularly those individuals with barriers to employment. b) Supporting the alignment of workforce investment, education, and economic development systems in support of a comprehensive, accessible, and high-quality workforce development system in the US. c) Improving the quality and labor market relevance of workforce investment, education, and economic development efforts to provide America's workers with the skills and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with family-sustaining wages and to provide America's employers with the skilled workers the employers need to succeed in a global economy. d) Promoting improvement in the structure of and delivery of services through the US workforce development system to better address the employment and skill needs of workers, jobseekers, and employers. e) Increasing the prosperity of workers and employers in the US, the economic growth of communities, regions, and States, and the global competitiveness of the United States. f) Providing workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce development systems, that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase attainment of recognized postsecondary credentials by participants, and as a result, improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, increase economic self-sufficiency, meet the skill requirements of employers, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation. 2) Defines an eligible career pathway program, pursuant to the federal Higher Education Act, to mean a program that: a) Concurrently enrolls participants in connected adult education and eligible postsecondary programs; b) Provides counseling and supportive services to identify and attain academic and career goals; c) Provides structured course sequences that are articulated and contextualized; and allow students to advance to higher levels of education and employment; d) Provides opportunities for acceleration to attain recognized postsecondary credentials, including degrees, industry relevant certifications, and certificates of completion of apprenticeship programs; e) Is organized to meet the needs of adults; f) Is aligned with the education and skill needs of the regional economy; and g) Has been developed and implemented in collaboration with partners in business, workforce development, and economic development. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1042 POLICY ISSUE FRAME In implementing the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, California has set aggressive new goals and objectives to guide the state's workforce development system. By 2027, California is committed to producing one million "middle-skill" industry valued and recognized postsecondary credentials and to double the number of people enrolled in apprenticeship programs. Achieving this goal is important to California remaining competitive within the global marketplace. One of the key challenges, however, are the current labor shortage for middle-skill jobs and the significant number of workers who are not currently ready to take on middle-skill training. AB 2642 proposes a comprehensive initiative to assist the millions of workers who currently face significant barriers to employment to obtain the remedial education and work readiness skills necessary to help the state meet its goals and to become financially secure and independent. The analysis includes background on the California economy, the state's growing income inequality, and discussion on why it is important to create new opportunities to assist individuals who face barriers to employment into the workforce. Amendments are discussed in Comment #4 to further clarify the purpose and structure of the Breaking Barriers to Employment initiative. COMMENTS: 1) The California Economy in the Future: As California continues to transition from the recession, businesses and workers face an economy comprised of highly integrated industry sectors that are also more geographically dispersed. Advances in technology and processes are occurring more rapidly. This is resulting in competitiveness being increasingly defined in terms of speed, flexibility, specialization, and innovation. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1043 Source: Researched and compiled from various sources by the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy Economists have identified nine key trends (see chart) that will most influence the U.S. and California economies. Several of these trends place new and demanding challenges on California's training and workforce system. Advances in information technology, advanced manufacturing, complex logistical networks, and the need to have more environmentally sustainable products are just a few of the new workforce realities. Even entry-level workers will be expected to have important soft skills, such as the ability to work in teams, actively listen, communicate effectively with co-workers and bosses, and be able to negotiate workplace needs in a positive manner. Unlike hard skills, which are about a person's ability to perform a certain task or activity, soft skills provide the tools necessary to learn and advance in the state's continually evolving workplace environment. The modern economy has also given rise to a growing need for smaller businesses because of their ability to provide innovative technologies and help other businesses access global markets. While vital economic players, small businesses and entrepreneurs face unique challenges in competing in an increasingly global and interconnected marketplace. Programs and services which may have been designed to serve large companies may need to be retooled to better serve the nearly 90% of businesses that have less than 20 employees. These small and adaptable businesses will have an inherent advantage in the post-recession economy, provided they are able to obtain the skillsets necessary to run a successful business and have access to appropriately trained workers. Another key economic trend is the rising importance of regional economies as one of theMay 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1044 primary drivers of economic growth. The economic foundation of many strong regional economies are innovation-based industry clusters which have the ability to support high-paying jobs, lucrative career ladders, and longer term job stability. Economic researchers have shown that industry clusters rise in areas where local universities, research labs, and competing businesses within the same industry provide a critical mass of skilled workers. Though the economic composition of regions may differ in California, each region has strengths and weaknesses. The effective identification and cultivation of these industry strengths will factor heavily on the future economic success of California's regional economies. All these changes are occurring at the same time that California and the U.S. confront the social, cultural, and economic impacts of demographic change. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2043 a majority of the U.S. population will be comprised of people of color. In 2014, people of color were already the majority in California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, with another nine states were close to 50%. The growing diversity within the workforce also represents a significant generational shift of the predominantly white baby boomers rapidly aging-out of workplace. Many of these new market realities are already coming to fruition and, for now, California's workforce is underprepared to meet these demands. Decades of underinvestment in public education, afterschool programs, and continuing education programs that feed into career pathways to the state's dominant and emerging industry sectors directly threaten the state's competitiveness. There are still numerous unemployed and underemployed workers in California, while simultaneously, there are businesses reporting that they are unable to find qualified workers to fill empty positions. Strong early education programs, career technology pathways, accessible higher education, and effective and timely workforce development programs are essential to equipping California workers with the skillsets that are in demand. 2) Income Disparities: California's overall economic growth and increase in jobs has outpaced the U.S. in general, often ranking the state within the top five states in terms of its economic condition. This success, however, has not been consistent throughout the state with many regions and certain population groups still experiencing recession-related poor economic conditions. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's poverty rate is 16.4% as compared to a national rate of 15.6%. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of California's children (22.7%) are living in households with annual incomes below the federal poverty line. Contributing factors to these poverty rates are stagnate wage rates, an increasing concentration of annual income among the highest income earning individuals, and differing job opportunities in the post-recession economy. A review of the most recent unemployment numbers in the chart below illustrates this expanding pattern of economic disparity between regions and population groups in California. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1045 While the state's unemployment rate for February 2016 (not seasonally adjusted) was 5.7%, some areas of the state had lower rates, while others were considerably higher. San Mateo County recorded the lowest at 3.0% and Colusa County experienced the highest unemployment rate at 21.6%. For the first time in more than a year, Imperial County did not have the highest unemployment rate in the state. Inland areas generally reported unemployment rates above the statewide average. As the chart above shows, Tulare County's unemployment rate was 12.1% and Riverside County was recorded as 5.9%. Coastal areas overall had lower rates than the state's, with Orange County at 4.0%, Los Angeles County at 5.5%, and Ventura County at 5.1%. Under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, high unemployment is considered any rate above 6.5%. Looking more specifically at different population groups, the data also shows the great discrepancies between the statewide rate and key subgroups, including unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics being 10.8% and 7.4% respectively. For the youngest members of the workforce obtaining quality jobs remains a significant issue, with unemployment among 16 to 24 years being well above the state average, ranging from 20.5% to 10.9%. According to February's figures, one-in-five of California's next generation of workers is unemployed. Just as the unemployment data shows the growing economic disparities by geography, race/ethnicity, and age, research also confirms that a greater percentage of total aggregate earnings are going to a smaller group of individuals. According to the World Top Income Database, pretax income among those with the highest 1% of income in California comprised 9.82% of total income in 1980 and 25.31% in 2013. These findings could signal a larger issue in that a growing body of economic studies show that large-scale income disparities correlate to shorter periods of economic growth, whereas societies with lower levels of income disparity have larger and longer-term periods of growth. Achieving job growth within globally competitive industries and addressing the state's growing income disparities may require different community and economic development approaches, as well as more coordinated efforts by industry, labor, nonprofits, and government on a range of issues, including education, workforce training, infrastructure May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1046 repair and expansion, entrepreneurship, and finance, among others. 3) Creating On-Ramps to Success: The federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 represents the most significant shift in federal workforce policy in several decades. Among other requirements, the act mandates that the state develop a plan for making workforce investments, set goals, and report on their progress. Future federal funding will be dependent on the state meeting established milestones leading to these goals. California's Unified Strategic Workforce Development Plan (State Plan) outlines a comprehensive four-year strategy for investing federal workforce training and employment service dollars in a manner that aligns and coordinates six core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funded programs. The state goal (2017 through 2027) is to produce one million "middle-skill" industry valued and recognized postsecondary credentials. In meeting this goal, the State Plan anticipates doubling the number of people enrolled in apprenticeship programs. While certainly a laudable goal to guide the state's workforce investment system, achieving those goals will be challenging. Key among those challenges is the significant number of workers who are not currently ready to take on middle-skill training. In 2012, there were 1.9 million unfilled middle skill jobs. This number is expected to grow as one-third of middle skill workers retire over the next ten years. AB 2642 establishes the Breaking Barriers to Employment initiative, administered through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, to provide a framework for one or more competitive grant programs. Moneys awarded through this initiative will help to operationalize an innovative model of collaboration between two important workforce partners for the benefit of populations that routinely face barriers to employment. The program's targeted populations include, but are not limited to, veterans, unskilled and low-skilled workers, out-of-school youth, foster youth, long-term unemployed, individuals with developmental and other disabilities, Native Americans, formerly incarcerated individuals, farmworkers, and other economically disadvantaged individuals. The Breaking Barriers model is designed to leverage the experience of community-based organizations to work with targeted populations to remediate education and workforce readiness skills and to collaborate with workforce boards to transition clients to career pathways and sector strategies developed by local workforce boards. The authors believe that the initiative will create a career on-ramp for groups that have been historically disconnected from traditional programs. AB 2642 builds upon key objectives in the State Plan by assisting individuals to obtain the fundamental skills necessary to prepare for work in high priority industries, leverage multiple services to meet a worker's individual needs, and target people who face systemic barriers to employment. 4) Amendments: Staff understands that the author will offer amendments to: a) Add legislative intent to clarify that there are multiple career pathways that have been developed by the state, federal, and tribal governments, as well as community based organizations; b) Add vocational training, entrepreneurship training, stipends for trainees, and pre-apprenticeship programs to the list of eligible activities for grants; May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1047 c) Clarify that direct services includes staffing to provide those direct services; d) Modify the deadline for documenting notification of non-lead workforce development boards from the time the application is submitted to prior to the signing of the grant agreement; e) Clarify that either or both of the lead community-based organization or the lead workforce development board may submit the application; f) Remove unnecessary descriptors for the targeted populations; g) Change the name of the grant contract from "memorandum of understanding" to "grant agreement"; h) Clarify that in the first year of the initiative, the Secretary will provide a status report on the implementation of the grant; and i) Make other technical and conforming changes. 3) Related Legislation: Below is a list of the related bills. a) AB 80 (Campos) Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys and Men: This bill would have established a 20-member Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys and Men of Color. Issues to be addressed by the Task Force would include, but not be limited to, employment and wealth creation, health and safety, education, and juvenile justice. Status: Vetoed by the Governor, 2015. Governor's Veto Message: How state policy can be tailored to promote the well-being of boys and men of color is profoundly important. These issues, however, are best addressed through concrete actions, not another non-binding commission. The Legislature and the Administration are working on the critical issues raised by this bill, such as the Local Control Funding Formula, healthcare expansion and criminal justice reform. Much more can be done, and I am committed to advancing this work. b) AB 288 (Holden) College and Career Pathways: This bill authorizes the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP) partnership with the governing board of a school district within its immediate service area, as specified, to offer or expand dual enrollment opportunities for students who may not already be college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education. The goal of the agreements is to develop seamless pathways for students from high school to community college for career-technical education or preparation for transfer, improve high school graduation rates, or help high school pupils achieve college and career readiness. The bill includes specific conditions which must be met prior to the adoption of such an agreement. The authority in this measure sunsets on January 1, 2022. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2015. c) AB 931 (Irwin) New Hire Tax Credit: This bill would have expanded the definition of the term "qualified full-time employee" under the new hire tax credit to include a veteran who has separated from service in the U.S. Armed Forces within the 36 months preceding commencement of employment with a qualified taxpayer. Status: Vetoed by the Governor, 2015. Governor's Veto Message: Despite strong revenue performance over the past few years, the state's budget has remained precariously balanced due to unexpected costs and the provision of new services. Now, without the extension of the managed care organization tax that I called for in special session, next year's budget faces the prospect of over $1 billion in cuts. Given these financial uncertainties, I cannot support providing additional tax credits that will make balancing the state's budget even more difficult. Tax May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1048 credits, like new spending on programs, need to be considered comprehensively as part of the budget deliberations. d) AB 1058 (Atkins) Second Chance Program: This bill establishes the Second Chance Program under the administrative direction of the Department of Corrections for the purpose of investing in community-based programs, services, and initiatives for formerly incarcerated individuals in need of mental health and substance use treatment services. The grant program will be funded through the savings resulting from the implementation of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014, and other specified sources. The bill also extends the sunset on the Social Innovation Financing Program until 2022. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2015. e) AB 1093 (E. Garcia) Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program: This bill expedites the allocation of funding under the existing Supervised Population Workforce Training Grant Program, which is administered through the California Workforce Development Board. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 220, Statutes of 2015. In addition, $1.5 million was authorized in the 2015-16 Budget for additional funding rounds. f) AB 1270 (E. Garcia) California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: This bill aligns California statute with the new requirements of the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014. The bill sets the foundation for policy changes in 2016 through SB 45 (Mendoza). Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 94, Statutes of 2015. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support: California Workforce Association (sponsor) Association of Regional Center Agencies California Association of Local Conservation Corps National Association of Social Workers San Bernardino County SIATech California Opposition: None Received Analysis Prepared by: Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090 Attachment A includes the bill text. Attachment B is a letter of support from the California Workforce Association. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: AB 2642 bill text Attachment B: CWA letter of support May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1049 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2016 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 4, 2016 california legislature—2015–16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2642 Introduced by Assembly Members Eduardo Garcia, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Gomez, and Maienschein (Coauthors: Assembly Members Chang and Steinorth) (Coauthor: Senator Wieckowski) February 19, 2016 An act to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 14600) to Division 7 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, Division 1.4 (commencing with Section 180) to the Labor Code, relating to workforce development. legislative counsel’s digest AB 2642, as amended, Eduardo Garcia. Removing Barriers to Employment Act: Breaking Barriers to Employment Initiative. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and provides that the agency consists of, among other entities, the California Workforce Investment Board, the Employment Development Department, and the Employment Training Panel. The California Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act establishes the California Workforce Development Board as the body responsible for assisting the Governor in the development, oversight, and continuous improvement of California’s workforce investment system and the alignment of the education and workforce investment systems to the needs of the 21st century economy and workforce. That act requires the establishment of a local workforce development board in each local 97 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1050 workforce development area of the state to, among other things, carry out analyses of the economic conditions in the local region. This bill would enact the Removing Barriers to Employment Act, which would establish the Breaking Barriers to Employment Initiative within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The bill would require the initiative to be led by the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development and authorizes the secretary to assign all or part of the administration of the initiative to one or more entities within the agency’s oversight. oversight, or to authorize another state agency, under specified conditions, to administer a portion of the initiative. The bill would specify that the purpose of the initiative is to create a grant program to provide funds to workforce investment boards and community-based organizations working in partnership on proposals that assist individuals who have multiple barriers to employment to receive the remedial education and work readiness skills that will help those individuals to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship, or employment opportunities that will lead to self-sufficiency and economic stability. stability, and would set forth the goals of the initiative. The bill would require the secretary to develop criteria for the selection of grant recipients, as specified, and would require the secretary, by January 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, to post a report on the agency’s Internet Web site that aggregates information provided by grant recipients. The bill would authorize the secretary, when implementing the initiative, to fund a project that uses a model that was previously funded as a pilot project under certain programs if specified criteria are met. The bill would make the funding of the initiative subject to an appropriation by the Legislature for that purpose and would make implementation of the initiative contingent on the secretary notifying the Department of Finance that sufficient moneys have been appropriated. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 14600) is line 2 added to Division 7 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, to read: line 3 line 4 Chapter 6. Removing Barriers to Employment Act line 5 97 — 2 —AB 2642 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1051 line 1 SECTION 1. Division 1.4 (commencing with Section 180) is line 2 added to the Labor Code, to read: line 3 line 4 DIVISION 1.4. REMOVING BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT line 5 ACT line 6 line 7 14600. line 8 180. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: line 9 (a)  The economy in California continues to improve as shown line 10 by lower unemployment rates and higher job growth, but poverty line 11 is still an issue in many of our cities and among many of our line 12 citizens. The California Poverty Measure reported in 2015 that 78 line 13 percent of Californians in poverty live in families with at least one line 14 adult working, with 69 percent of those working full time. line 15 Low-income families continue to struggle to pay for the basic cost line 16 of supporting their families. With low wages and lack of job skills, line 17 this target population falls further behind and cannot escape line 18 poverty. line 19 (b)  Lack of formal education, low English literacy, and line 20 lower-level job skills prevent upward mobility in pay and job line 21 stability. There is a need for improved access and funding to line 22 provide “career pathways” services, particularly for the poor. line 23 (c)  Increased funding for English language improvement line 24 training, basic skills and adult education, high school diploma and line 25 GED acquisition, skills training, work experience, on-the-job line 26 training, earn-as-you-learn, industry certifications, mentoring, case line 27 management, and more is needed to bridge the gap to gainful line 28 employment for the more difficult to reach in our population. line 29 (d)  Local community-based organizations, government agencies, line 30 and workforce investment boards throughout California struggle line 31 to provide adequate services to the increasing number of poor line 32 residents who need career pathways services. In particular, funding line 33 is needed for case management, career guidance, and other services line 34 that enhance training/job retention and the ability to meet family line 35 basic expense needs while pursuing a career opportunity. line 36 (e)  Special emphasis is needed to make sure that programs reach line 37 those among us with the most difficult needs with the goal of line 38 preparing those persons for training, educational, apprenticeship line 39 apprenticeship, or employment opportunities. 97 AB 2642— 3 — May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1052 line 1 14600.5. line 2 180.1 As used in this chapter, division, “Breaking Barriers to line 3 Employment Initiative” or “initiative” means the Breaking Barriers line 4 to Employment Initiative established in this chapter. line 5 14601. line 6 180.2 (a)  This chapter division establishes the Breaking line 7 Barriers to Employment Initiative within the agency. The initiative line 8 shall be led by the Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development, line 9 that may assign all or part of the administration of the initiative to line 10 one or more entities within the agency’s oversight. The Secretary line 11 may authorize another state entity that has experience with serving line 12 one or more of the populations identified in subdivision (e) to line 13 administer a portion of the initiative, if the other state entity agrees line 14 to meet all the requirements of this division and to provide the line 15 Secretary with the information necessary to meet the reporting line 16 requirements. line 17 (b)  (1)   The purpose of the initiative is to provide funds to line 18 workforce investment boards and community-based organizations line 19 that submit joint proposals that assist individuals who have multiple line 20 barriers to employment to receive the remedial education and work line 21 readiness skills that will help them to successfully participate in line 22 training, apprenticeship, or employment opportunities that will line 23 lead to self-sufficiency and economic stability. line 24 (2)  The initiative operationalizes an innovative model of effective line 25 collaboration between two important workforce partners for the line 26 benefit of populations that routinely face barriers to employment. line 27 By leveraging the experience of community-based organizations line 28 to meet the unique needs of certain groups with the resources of line 29 the workforce boards, the initiative creates an on-ramp to groups line 30 that have been historically disconnected from traditional programs. line 31 The role of the lead community-based organization is to use its line 32 expertise in working with the targeted populations to remediate line 33 education and workforce readiness skills and to collaborate with line 34 the lead workforce board to transition clients to career pathways line 35 and sector strategies developed by local workforce boards. The line 36 role of the lead workforce investment board, at a minimum, is to line 37 collaborate with and assist the lead community-based organization line 38 in designing a program that supports the transition of participants line 39 who have successfully achieved the goals and objectives of the 97 — 4 —AB 2642 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1053 line 1 grant proposal to career pathways and sector strategies developed line 2 by local workforce boards. line 3 (c)  In developing the initiative, the Secretary of Labor and line 4 Workforce Development or his or her delegate shall consult with line 5 public and private stakeholders, including nonprofit line 6 community-based organizations, workforce development boards, line 7 local governments, and other entities that serve individuals who line 8 face barriers to employment. line 9 (d)  Funding for the initiative shall be subject to appropriation line 10 by the Legislature for that purpose. Implementation of the initiative line 11 is contingent upon the Secretary of Labor and Workforce line 12 Development notifying the Department of Finance that sufficient line 13 moneys have been appropriated and deposited in the Consolidated line 14 Work Program Fund. line 15 (e)  The goals of the initiative shall include all of the following: line 16 (1)  Individuals who face multiple barriers to employment take line 17 measurable steps to remediate education and workforce readiness line 18 skills. line 19 (2)  Partnerships between community-based organizations and line 20 workforce development boards, community colleges, and other line 21 providers of quality education and training are demonstrably line 22 strengthened in ways that benefit their client’s ability to continue line 23 to access services that ultimately lead clients utilizing career line 24 pathways and sector strategies developed by local workforce line 25 boards. line 26 (3)  Community-based organizations increase their capacity to line 27 achieve and measure results. line 28 (e) line 29 (f)  The outcomes of the initiative shall be reported pursuant to line 30 Section 14601.2 180.3. line 31 14601.2. line 32 180.3. The Secretary of Labor and Workforce Development line 33 shall develop criteria for the selection of grant recipients that meet line 34 all of the following: line 35 (a)  Outreach and technical assistance shall be provided to line 36 prospective applicants, especially in rural and small population line 37 areas. line 38 (b)  (1)   Grants shall be awarded on a competitive basis. The line 39 program shall include provisions to ensure a range of targeted line 40 populations and geographic locations receive training opportunities. 97 AB 2642— 5 — May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1054 line 1 (2)  Applications shall be evaluated based on the lead line 2 community-based organization’s demonstrated capacity to line 3 successfully deliver previous programs to the targeted populations line 4 who the applicant is proposing to serve pursuant to subdivisions line 5 (d) and (e). line 6 (3)  Each grant proposal shall further the initiative goals, as line 7 identified in subdivision (e) of Section 180.2. line 8 (4)  Eligible activities for grant funds shall include, but are not line 9 limited to, English language improvement training, basic skills line 10 and adult education, high school diploma and GED acquisition, line 11 skills training, work experience, on-the-job training, line 12 earn-as-you-learn, industry certifications, mentoring, and other line 13 remedial education and work readiness skills. line 14 (5)  Grant proposals funded through the initiative shall use at line 15 least 90 percent of their funds for direct services to the clients who line 16 face multiple barriers to employment. line 17 (c)  Each application shall include at least one lead workforce line 18 investment board and one lead community-based organization. line 19 An application that serves clients across one or more workforce line 20 investment areas shall include a either of the following: line 21 (1)  Documentation of the existence of a current memorandum line 22 of understanding with each workforce board within the proposed line 23 service area. line 24 (2)  A letter of acknowledgment from each workforce board line 25 within the proposed service area, but need not include a specific line 26 role for all of the workforce investment boards in that area. line 27 However, all applications shall have at least one workforce board line 28 and one community-based organization working in partnership. line 29 Obtaining the letter of acknowledgment shall be the responsibility line 30 of the lead workforce investment board. line 31 (d)  Applicants shall apply for funds to serve one or more line 32 targeted populations in one or more neighborhoods, local line 33 jurisdictions, regions, or statewide. Each application shall include line 34 how programs grant proposals are designed to complement the line 35 work of, and integrate the individuals being served with, the line 36 workforce development boards within the proposed service area. line 37 (e)  The grant proposal shall demonstrate how the grant recipient line 38 will address the needs of one or more of the following populations: line 39 (1)  Youths who are disconnected from the education system or line 40 employment. 97 — 6 —AB 2642 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1055 line 1 (2)  Women seeking training or education to move into line 2 nontraditional fields of employment. line 3 (3)  Workers displaced by the movement of an employer or those line 4 who are long-term unemployed. line 5 (4)  Unskilled or under-skilled, low-earning workers looking to line 6 advance into better-paying employment opportunities. line 7 (5)  Persons for whom English is not their primary language. line 8 (6)  Economically disadvantaged persons who face barriers to line 9 reaching training or apprenticeship opportunities for sustainable line 10 careers. line 11 (7)  CalWORKS participants. line 12 (8)  Persons who are incarcerated and soon to be released or line 13 formerly incarcerated. line 14 (9)  Armed services veterans who face barriers due to skills that line 15 are not applicable to employment, training, apprenticeship line 16 opportunities in the region in which they live, or because of mental line 17 health, health, or other barriers that serve as impediments to those line 18 opportunities. line 19 (10)  Native Americans or migrant, seasonal farmworkers. line 20 (11)  People with developmental or other disabilities. line 21 (f)  The grant proposal shall explain the specific purpose of the line 22 grant funds and define the general methodology and training line 23 methods proposed to be used. line 24 (g)  (1)  The proposal shall identify baseline criteria and metrics line 25 by which the overall success of the grant program proposal can line 26 be evaluated. evaluated, consistent with the initiative goals as line 27 identified in subdivision (e) of Section 180.2. The proposal shall line 28 also explain the manner in which the progress of the individuals line 29 participating in the program will be monitored during the grant line 30 period. line 31 (2)  One component of the grant proposal shall provide for a line 32 preservice education and training assessment, which shall form line 33 the baseline for measuring program performance. A prior line 34 assessment may be used if, in the determination of the Secretary line 35 of Labor and Workforce Development, its results are accurate and line 36 appropriate for the proposed program. grant proposal. line 37 (3)  Measurements of success shall be based on the targeted line 38 population and the baseline measurements set through the line 39 individual client assessment. assessment, consistent with the 97 AB 2642— 7 — May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1056 line 1 initiative goals as identified in subdivision (e) of Section 180.2. line 2 These metrics may include, but are not limited to: line 3 (A)  The number of participants in the program who have line 4 completed a high school diploma or received a GED. line 5 (B)  The number of participants in the program who have line 6 completed a remedial education program. line 7 (C)  The number of participants in the program who have line 8 completed a work readiness program. line 9 (D)  The number of participants who have received assistance line 10 to enroll their children in after school programs while the program line 11 participant enrolls in secondary or postsecondary education or line 12 maintains employment. line 13 (E)  The number of participants who have completed a certified line 14 drug treatment or mental health program. line 15 (F)  The number of participants who have matriculated to a line 16 preapprenticeship or apprenticeship program. line 17 (G)  The number of participants who passed the Ability to Benefit line 18 test and enrolled into a career pathway program, as defined in the line 19 federal Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(d)(2)). line 20 (h)  (1)  Key features of the grant shall be provided in a line 21 memorandum of understanding between the applicants and the line 22 agency, including, but not limited to, the purpose of the grant, line 23 expected outcomes, the oversight and monitoring process, and line 24 reporting requirements. line 25 (2)  As a condition of receiving funds, a grant recipient shall line 26 agree to provide information to the Secretary of Labor and line 27 Workforce Development that is determined by the secretary as line 28 necessary to meet all reporting requirements. line 29 (i)  On at least an annual basis and upon completion of the grant line 30 period, grant recipients shall report to the Secretary of Labor and line 31 Workforce Development information regarding their use of funds, line 32 workforce training outcomes, and any other information required line 33 by the secretary. line 34 (j)  By January 1, 2018, and each year thereafter, the Secretary line 35 of Labor and Workforce Development shall post a report on the line 36 agency’s Internet Web site that aggregates the information provided line 37 by the grant recipients, including, but not limited to, the overall line 38 success of the grant programs. 97 — 8 —AB 2642 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1057 line 1 14601.3. line 2 180.4. In implementing the initiative, the Secretary of Labor line 3 and Workforce Development may fund a full-scale project that line 4 uses a model that was previously funded as a pilot project through line 5 the Workforce Accelerator, the Supervised Population Workforce line 6 Training Program, SlingShot, or other existing programs, to the line 7 extent that the goals, measures, and metrics are sufficiently aligned, line 8 so as to: line 9 (a)  Serve the same client base. line 10 (b)  Address the needs of individuals who face multiple barriers line 11 to employment to receive remedial education and work readiness line 12 skills. line 13 (c)  Have an end goal of preparing those individuals for further line 14 training that results in apprenticeship or middle-skill employment line 15 opportunities. Eligible applicants for programs under this section line 16 shall exclusively be joint applications from one or more workforce line 17 investment boards and one or more community-based line 18 organizations. O 97 AB 2642— 9 — May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1058 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1059 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1060 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1061 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21863 to add one (1) Community Health Worker II position (VKVB) at salary level QT5-1043 ($37,515-$45,599) and cancel one vacant Clerk-Senior level (JWXC) position #9075 at salary level 3RX-1033 ($37,049-$47,313) in the Health Services Department. (Both represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in approximate cost savings of $2,519, which includes approximately $608 in pension costs. BACKGROUND: The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program is a federally funded health and nutrition program that helps pregnant and postpartum women, infants and children under 5 years old to eat healthy foods and live a healthy and active life. Under this program, women, infants and children who qualify, are able to take advantage of various services such as breastfeeding support, nutrition and health education classes, checks to buy healthy foods, and referrals for health care and community services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Arlene J. Lozada (925)957-5269 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one full time position and cancel one full-time position in the Health Services Department. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1062 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Clerk-Senior Level position #9075 is currently vacant. The Department determined that adding one full-time Community Health Worker II position will better serve the current needs of the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) Program. This will also help the program’s operational efficiencies and fulfill its obligations under the State Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) contract. The Community Health Worker II works in a variety of public health programs providing basic health care information and services to clients. Incumbents also provide assistance to medical personnel and nursing staff in their examination of patients and in other clinic activities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, program operational needs will not be achieved due to staffing shortage. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21863 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21863 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1063 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21863 DATE 5/10/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 5828 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one (1) Community Health Worker II (VKVB) position and cancel one (1) Clerk-Senior Level (JWXC) position #9075 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 5/25/2016 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 ($2,519.00) Net County Cost ($629.75) Total this FY ($209.92) N.C.C. this FY ($52.48) SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost Savings to State WIC and General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arlene J. Lozada ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 5/18/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 5/18/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1064 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/18/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1065 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1066 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21861 to add six (6) Clerk – Experienced level (JWXB) positions at salary plan and grade level 3RH - 0750 ($2,794 - $3,466) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $357,115, including approximate pension costs of $126,776 included. Costs will be 100% funded by Mental Health Realignment Act funds. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add six permanent full-time Clerk – Experienced Level positions assigned to the Behavioral Health Division for the West County Adult, East County Adult and Central County Adult Mental Health Clinics. The primary responsibility will include billing of Medi-Cal for reimbursement, scheduling of clinician appointments, and checking and signing in of patients upon arrival. These positions will help prevent Medi-Cal reimbursement APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Melissa Carofanello - melissa.carofanello@hsd.cccounty.us - 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADD six (6) Clerk – Experienced Level positions in the Health Services Department May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1067 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) disallowances, timely appointments for patients, and other critical elements of security needed in the Mental Health Clinics. These positions are vital in meeting the State Medi-Cal mandated time frames to process authorization requests and to meet compliance requirements in assisting consumers who are seen at our Adult Mental Health Clinics. These positions provide essential functionality on the clinic level which makes these positions operationally necessary to continue the mandated functions of the Health Services Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Behavioral Health Division’s Adult Mental Health Clinics will not be able to meet the mandated deadlines and would be out of compliance for State Medi-Cal. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21861 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21861 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1068 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21861 DATE 3/17/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5986 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add six (6) Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) positions at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($2,94 - $3,466) in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 5/25/2016 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 $357,114.69 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $89,278.67 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Mental Health Realignment Act 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 5/11/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 5/11/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1069 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/11/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1070 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1071 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21864 to increase the hours of vacant permanent Clerk-Specialist Level (JWXD) position #15953 from 28/40 to 40/40 at salary level 3RX-1156 (3,457-4,453) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in annual costs of approximately $21,723, which includes approximate pension costs of $5,691. The cost for the increase will be funded by the Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: This position is allocated to the Health Information Management Unit in tumor registry and oncology record management. The Oncology management has transitioned into a computer database which requires a Clerk-Specialist fulltime position in the electronic information system and to provide clerical support to oncology physicians. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action not approved, the department will not be able to fill the position and will not have adequate staffing which will negatively impact patient care. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Shelanda Adams, 925-957-5263 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase hours of one permanent part-time position in the Health Services Department May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1072 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21864 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21864 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1073 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21864 DATE 5/12/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES-Health Services Dept Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6372 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of one vacant permanent part-time Clerk-Specialist Level (JWXD) position #15953 from 28/40 hours to 40/40 hours. Proposed Effective Date: 5/25/2016 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 $21,723.78 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $1,810.31 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund l Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Shelanda Adams ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 5/18/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 5/18/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1074 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/18/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1075 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1076 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21859 to increase the hours of Information Systems Assistant II (LTVH) position # 11752, at salary level 3R5-1005 ($3,010 - $3,659), from permanent intermittent (40/40) to permanent full-time (40/40) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $34,795, with approximate pension costs of $15,590 already included. The entire cost is fully offset with third party revenues. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department's Payroll Division is responsible for paying over 4,100 employees. The incumbent performs rapid data entry of employee time sheets into the County's payroll system, KRONOS. In addition to data entry, the incumbent is responsible for responding to employee inquiries by phone or in-person, sorting mail, pulling time sheets out of storage and making copies as needed. The incumbent has been working the additional hours in order to meet payroll deadlines and pay employees accurately and timely. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase position hours in the Health Services Department May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1077 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Health Services Payroll will not be able to meet payroll deadlines, which adversely impact employees' pay. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21859 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21859 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1078 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21859 DATE 4/22/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services/Medical Care Admin Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6554 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Increase the hours of permanent intermittent Information Systems Assistant II (LTVH) position #11752 (represented) from permanent intermittent to permanent full-time 40/40 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 5/25/2016 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 $34,794.54 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $2,899.54 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Third Party Revenues. Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Abigail O'Connor ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 5/10/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 5/10/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1079 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/10/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1080 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1081 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21862 to increase the hours of Network Technician I (LNWA) (represented) position #0060 from part time (20/40) to full time (40/40), effective July 1, 2015, in the Department of Information Technology. FISCAL IMPACT: TOTAL COMPENSATION IMPACT: This action will increase total compensation by approximately $58,530 annually. This amount will be 100% offset from charges to user departments including Animal Services, HR, Auditor, and CAO. PENSION IMPACT: This action will increase pension costs by approximately $10,539 annually. Note that this amount reflects only the County's share of employee retirement costs. BACKGROUND: The Department of Information Technology (DoIT) has experienced a growth in demand for network and desktop support services. This is partly due to the loss of IT staff due to resignations and retirements. Departments are reducing the need to house their own IT staff and are instead opting to have those needs centrally managed through DoIT. This is a cost effective move that allows DoIT to cross-train staff in ways not possible with small departments; also reducing redundant staffing for similar technical activities. This leaves DoIT's Network unit understaffed in relation to the amount of work required. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: James Hicks C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase the Hours of Network Technician I from Part-time to Full-time May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1082 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In response to the need for additional staffing to help with implementing network and desktop support services within several County departments such as the County Administrator, Human Resources, Auditor, Assessor, Risk Management, Animal Services, County Counsel, Agriculture, Veterans, Office of Communications & Media, Employment & Human Services, and Clerk of the Board, DoIT filled a vacant Network Technician I position in July 2015. Due to a discrepancy in the position control records, the position was filled at full time status but classified as only part time (20/40). In order to reconcile the discrepancy, the Board is asked to increase the hours of position #0060 to full time, effective July 1, 2015. The Service Level Agreements that DoIT has with these departments have available funding to cover the costs of the position at full time status. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this action will jeopardize the Department of Information Technology Network Services division's ability to successfully and efficiently meet the required level of service to the County departments it serves. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 21862_Increase Network Tech from PT to FT_DoIT MINUTES ATTACHMENTS P300 #21862 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1083 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21862 DATE 5/11/2016 Department No./ Department Department of Information Technology Budget Unit No. 0147 Org No. 1070 Agency No. A03 Action Requested: Increase hours of Network Technician I (LNWA) (represented Local 21) position #0060 from part-time 20/40 to full-time 40/40. Proposed Effective Date: 7/1/2015 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 $58,530.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $58,530.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Department user fees. Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Ed Woo ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea 5/12/16 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 5/12/2016 Increase the hours of Network Technician I (LNWA) (represented) position #0060 from part time (20/40) to full time (40/40). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 7/1/15(Date) Marta Goc 5/12/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 5/13/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1084 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 5/16/2016 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 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1085 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1086 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount up to $20,000 from Contra Costa Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to purchase two (2) Electronic Child Identification Systems. FISCAL IMPACT: $20,000, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funding. No County match. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff is interested in buying two (2) Electronic Child Identification systems, in its further endeavor to protect and assist the citizens of Bay Point. These Electronic Child ID systems would protect children who become missing or abducted in Bay Point, providing the necessary and pertinent information for Law Enforcement to immediately access the information on a thumb drive or via email. They also will provide a PVC-type child’s identification card and/or print-out on paper the parent can keep in their wallet at all times. Currently, we provide hand-stamped Child Identification booklets, which are without a photograph of the child or digital copy of the fingerprints and other information, so it cannot be accessed quickly and conveniently by the parent of the missing/abducted child, thereby resulting in much more time to retrieve the information from many sources. This delay results in increased crucial time which could be used in the effort to find the missing/abducted child. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-2017 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point Electronic Child Indentificaiton Systems May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1087 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action on this request would mean a delay resulting in increased crucial time which could be used in the effort to find the missing/abducted child. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to provide this service to the residents of Bay Point who have children. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1088 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount up to $253,538 from Contra Costa County Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust fund to fund one Deputy Sheriff position for the Bay Point School Resource Officer Program for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $253,538, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. No County match. BACKGROUND: The Bay Point School Resource Officer Program is to emphasize the prevention and enforcement of criminal matters and to participate in the youth intervention programs. In addition to the general goals the School Resource Officer also assists the Resident Deputies with organizing and planning the yearly Christmas and Holiday Heroes programs and the annual Bike Rodeo and bicycle give-away. The outcomes and impacts of this project will result in reducing the number of incidents within the local schools, increasing public trust, and reducing the seriousness of incidents and/or the amount of harm, as reflected in routinely collected law enforcement data/information related APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2014/2015 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point School Resource Officer May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1089 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to problems (e.g. crime data, arrests, incident reports, calls for service). Since this is an on-going project, the School Resource Officer is flexible in approaching and dealing with the issues affecting the schools, their students and the community. In the off season while school is out of session, the School Resource Officer focuses on the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program to ensure the children have a safe/crime free home environment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to fund a full time Bay Point School Resource Officer. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Bay Point School Resource Officer helps to establish a safe school environment and promote positive development of the Bay Point youth. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1090 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/370 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice grant in an amount not to exceed $398,608 for the purchase of bullet proof vests from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 50% County cost: $199,304.06, budgeted. 50% Federal; $199,304.06. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program grant through the National Institute of Justice requires local jurisdictions to pay 50% of the cost of bulletproof vest replacement. BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice announced the 2016 Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program to assist in the purchase of life-saving bulletproof vests approved by the National Institute of Justice. Bulletproof vests are replaced on a five-year cycle. The vests to be purchased with these grant funds will be used to replace vests that have exceeded their life cycle. The Sheriff's Office is by far the largest purchaser of safety vests among the County agencies. If this grant is awarded, the grant will provide support for the purchase of bulletproof vests for law enforcement personnel in the Sheriff's Office as well as the Department of Probation which is a sub-grantee on the grant application. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1091 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Bulletproof vests will be purchased exclusively with appropriated funds if this application is not accepted. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/370 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Res 2016/370 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1092 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/370 IN THE MATTER OF : Applying for and Accepting the 2016 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice grant. WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the U.S. Department of Justice. 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, an actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1093 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1094 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No, 2016/356 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, DNA Program Backlog Reduction Grant in an initial amount of $164,932 to reduce the number of backlogged DNA tests in the Sheriff's Criminalistics Laboratory for the period January 1, 2017 through the end of the grant period. FISCAL IMPACT: No County costs. Initial revenue: $164,932, 100% Federal revenue, no County match required. (CFDA #16.714) BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff, Forensic Services Division, has received DNA Backlog Reduction Program funds for many years. As a result, the Sheriff's Office has operated an ISO 17025 Accredited Crime Laboratory able to provide County-wide Forensic DNA testing services. Grant funds have been used in the past to purchase scientific equipment allowing for high throughput DNA extraction, quantification and detection. In addition, funding supported DNA analysts who process DNA samples collected at crime scenes to aid in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The 2016 DNA Backlog Reduction Program Grant will be used to support DNA analysts, acquire advanced technology, and provide state-of the art forensic DNA testing to law enforcement agencies in the Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Grant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1095 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A decision not to pursue grant funding will increase the DNA case backlog, increase the turnaround time for DNA sample processing, and contribute to delays in criminal prosecutions. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/356 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Res 2016/356 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1096 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/356 IN THE MATTER OF : Applying for and Accepting the 2016 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, DNA Program Backlog Reduction Grant. WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the U.S. Department of Justice; 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 actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1097 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1098 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/377 authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in an amount not to exceed $804,699 to fund the hiring of two Deputy Sheriff positions for street-level and school resource officer programs to address truancy and violence in middle and high schools in the West Contra Costa County for a three year period with an additional one-year retention period by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $804,699 in Federal revenue. The estimated total cost of adding two (2) Deputy Sheriff positions is $1,859,399 of which $604,164 is attributable to employer pension costs, for the 36 month grant period plus the additional 12 month retainment period (48 months total). This results in a net county cost/in-kind of $1,054,700. U.S. Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Hiring Grant (CFDA #16.710) BACKGROUND: The COPS Office was established as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to assist law enforcement agencies in enhancing public safety through the implementation of community policing strategies in jurisdiction. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Mary Jane Robb, (925) 335-1557 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016 U.S. Department of Justice COPS Grant May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1099 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A decision not to pursue grant funding would result in lost funding for two (2) Deputy Sheriff positions. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: These positions will be utilized in street-level and school resource officer programs to address truancy and violence in middle and high schools in the west end region of Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/377 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Res 2016/377 signed May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1100 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/377 IN THE MATTER OF: Applying for and Accepting the 2016 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant. WHEREAS the County of Contra Costa is seeking funds available through the U.S. Department of Justice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors: Authorized the Sheriff-Coroner, Undersheriff or the Sheriff's Chief of Management Services, to execute for and on behalf of the County of Contra, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining Federal financial assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Contact: Mary Jane Robb, (925) 335-1557 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1101 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1102 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton to pay the county an amount not to exceed $28,000, to provide food services to the childcare program at El Concilio Preschool for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No net County costs. El Concilio Preschool has agreed to reimburse the County, up to the limits of the California Child and Adult Food Program, for all food service expenses related to this contract. The County will provide breakfast and lunch to 20 children at the rates specified below: Breakfast - $3.25 each Lunch - $5.00 each Snack - $3.20 each APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Jagjit Bhambra, Sam Mendoza, Cassandra Youngblood C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-17 Food Services Agreement with the Catholic Council for the Spanish Speaking of the Diocese of Stockton May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1103 BACKGROUND: El Concilio is a Migrant Head Start program operating through San Joaquin County’s program. The preschool provides services to migrant children for only a limited number of months each year. The Community Services Bureau would provide meals that meet the HS performance Standards and USDA meal guidelines. At some point in the future the Community Services Bureau may operate the program in the months the school is closed to ensure continuity of care for those families. The Center, located adjacent to Community Services Bureau's (CSB) Los Nogales Center serves the migrant farm-worker families of Contra Costa County. Both Head Start programs have similar missions and similar client needs. The San Joaquin agency has just taken over the El Concilio program and is unable to provide services to the families due to a lack of facility space to provide nutritious meals to the children. CSB has offered to assist with this unmet need for the following reasons: • The same community is served; • The continuity of services – the migrant program operates a limited amount per year. CSB would like to continue serving those families since they qualify for our program; • Besides our program, El Concilio is the only publicly funded program to provide these services to families. It is a great need. • Assisting with the nutrition program is one way that the two programs can partner. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will be unable to provide food services to its childcare partner. 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 Food Services Agreement May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1104 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1105 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1106 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1107 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1108 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount up to $8,500 from Contra Costa Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund to host a free community Christmas party and toy giveaway for the residents of Bay Point. FISCAL IMPACT: $8,500, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funding. No County match. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff will host a free community Christmas Party and Toy Giveaway for the residents of Bay Point. Last years event provided meals for 806 people. The meal consisted of turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, corn, and dessert. During the meal, local performers provided entertainment. Over 1,300 toys were given to the children of Bay Point. Our goal is to continue to develop positive relationships between the residents of Bay Point and the Office of the Sheriff by demonstrating our good will and sincerity at the event. The verifiable changes come from the increased witness participation in the community; developing trust is a key to our success. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-2017 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point Christmas Dinner & Toy Giveaway May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1109 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to host the annual Christmas party and toy giveaway. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Many families in Bay Point have very limited incomes. The Sheriff’s Christmas Party provides a meal and gifts to children who would otherwise not receive a traditional Christmas dinner or gifts during the holiday season. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1110 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount up to $4,000 from Contra Costa County Keller Mitigation Trust Fund. The funds will be used to provide bicycle helmets, bicycle repair, an instructional class on safety and bicycle raffles. FISCAL IMPACT: $4,000, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. No matching County Funds. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff, in partnership with the Street Smarts Program, Bike Mobile (mobile bike repair program) and County Health Services, will host a free bicycle safety rodeo to teach local youths about bicycle, pedestrian and railroad crossing safety. There is a sit down class of instruction on the above safety items. A practical application course has been set up for the youths to exercise and practice what they have learned. All participates will receive a free bike helmet. The Bike Mobile will repair, at no cost, bicycles brought to the event by local youths that are in need of repairs. Due to the financial economics of local families, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-2017 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point Bicycle Safety Rodeo May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1111 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) many of the local youths do not own a bicycle. With the funding from the Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund, bicycles will be purchased and raffled free at the event. This event will also encourage the local youth to involve themselves in physical activity by riding their bicycles. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to help host the Bay Point Bicycle Rodeo. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This event will encourage the local youth to involve themselves in physical activity by riding their bicycles. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1112 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount up to $20,000 from Contra Costa County Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust fund to purchase an automated license plate reader. FISCAL IMPACT: $20,000, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Funds. No County match. BACKGROUND: It is not uncommon for gang members to steal cars to commit property crimes and/or use them in drive-by shootings. When a shooting call comes in to the Office of the Sheriff the patrol units respond to the location code 3 (lights siren). Obviously the suspect vehicle is fleeing the scene while we’re on the way. The suspect vehicle information is usually not obtained until the responding units arrive and begin to interview witnesses. In the past we have been informed, by confidential informants, that we have passed the suspect vehicle on the way to the call. The goal of this program is to remove/arrest gang members before they commit crimes in the Bay Point community and discourage them from making Bay Point a destination to commit crimes. By having an automatic license plate reader in the Resident Deputy’s patrol car, more arrest of gang members and other individuals will help reduce violent and property crimes in the community. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-2017 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point Gang Prevention May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1113 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to quickly access wants or warrant information associated/attached to license plates. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: By purchasing the automated license plate reader will help to establish a safer environment for the children of Bay Point. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1114 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in an amount up to $253,538 from the Contra Costa County Keller Mitigation Trust Fund to fund one Deputy Sheriff position for the Bay Point Resident Deputy program for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $253,538, 100% Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund. No County match. BACKGROUND: The Bay Point Resident Deputy Program provides focused Community Policing to the residents of Bay Point with an emphasis on crime prevention, enforcement, active participation in the National Crime Free Housing Program, acts as a liaison to local businesses and works with the School Resource Officer to implement and participate in youth crime prevention programs. Due to the level of continual and increasing criminal activity in the Bay Point community, the regular beat deputies are often unable to address many of the quality of life issues affecting residents. The Resident Deputy Program allows the program deputies to concentrate on the prevention of criminal activity, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2016-2017 Keller Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund - Bay Point Resident Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1115 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) build personalized/ one-on-one relationships with businesses and residents alike, allows time to familiarize themselves with specific criminal elements, identify and strengthen vulnerable points of the community and improve the overall atmosphere of the neighborhoods by adding a consistent enforcement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Sheriff would not be able to fund a full time Bay Point Resident Deputy. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Bay Point Resident Deputy works with the School Resources Officer to implement and participate in youth crime prevention programs. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1116 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee (Director of Environmental Health), to execute Grant Agreement #28-759-16 (TEA23), with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), to pay the County up to $139,047 in funding for the Environmental Health Waste Tire Enforcement Program, for the period from June 29, 2016 to September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement will result in up to $139,047 in funding from CalRecycle for the Environmental Health Waste Tire Enforcement Program. No County match required. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Environmental Health/General Programs is the solid waste LEA for the County, except for the City of Pittsburg. On January 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved the submission of grant application to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) for the Environmental Health Waste Tire Enforcement Program through September 30, 2017. Approval of Grant Agreement #28-759-16 will allow Contra Costa Environmental Health to continue the Environmental Health Waste Tire Enforcement Program. This agreement includes agreeing to indemnify and hold the State harmless under the Agreement, through September 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Marilyn Underwood, 925-692-2521 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Grant Agreement #28-759-16 with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1117 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to monitor and reduce illegal waste tire practices, educate and enforce proper waste tire management throughout the County, assist in reducing potential vector problems and prevent tire fires, nor protect public health and safety. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1118 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Standard Agreement #29-611-34 (State #15-6466) with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), to pay County an amount not to exceed $68,820 annually, and not to exceed a total of $260,460 over the term of the contract, for continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program, for the period from June 30, 2016 through August 15, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Agreement will result in a total of $68,820 each year of this three year agreement from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development for the Family Practice Residency Program, through August 15, 2019. No County match required. BACKGROUND: Since 1978, the Board of Supervisors has approved subsequent Agreements with the State to provide funds for the County's Family Practice Residency Program. Approval of Standard Agreement #29-611-34 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D. (370-5122) 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Agreement #29-611-34 with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1119 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) will allow continuation of the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, including training for an additional family practice resident for a three-year cycle beginning fiscal years 2016-2019. This agreement includes agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the State for any and all claims arising out of performance under this agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not receive funding to continue providing family medicine training in the Family Practice Residency Program at Contra Costa Regional Medicine Center. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1120 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or his designee, to submit, on behalf of the County, to submit Grant Application #28-883 to the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services in an amount not to exceed $4,510,000 to support County’s Public Health Accountable Health Community (AHC) Project, for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant application will result in funding of $4,510,000 from the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services for the Accountable Health Community (AHC) Project. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: The Accountable Health Communities (AHC) model addresses a critical gap between clinical care and community services in the current health care delivery system by testing whether systematically identifying and addressing the health-related social needs of beneficiaries’ impacts total health care costs, improves health, and quality of care. In taking this approach, the Accountable Health Communities model supports the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (CMS) “better care, smarter spending, and healthier people” approach to improving health care delivery. The Accountable Health Communities Model is based on emerging evidence that addressing health-related social needs through enhanced clinical-community linkages can improve health outcomes and reduce costs. Unmet health-related social needs, such as food insecurity and inadequate or unstable housing, may increase the risk of developing chronic conditions, reduce an individual’s ability to manage these conditions, increase health care costs, and lead to avoidable health care utilization. This model will promote clinical-community collaboration through: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE submittal of Grant Application #28-883 from the Center of Medicaid and Medicare Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1121 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1122 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Screening of community-dwelling beneficiaries to identify certain unmet health-related social needs; Referral of community-dwelling beneficiaries to increase awareness of community services; Provision of navigation services to assist high-risk community-dwelling beneficiaries with accessing community services; and Encouragement of alignment between clinical and community services to ensure that community services are available and responsive to the needs of community-dwelling beneficiaries. The County's AHC Project will be a collaborative effort between Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Contra Costa Health Plan, and the Contra Costa Pubic Health divisions. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this application is not submitted for approval, the County will not receive funds to identify Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who have unmet health-related social needs which could lead to increased in-patient and out-patient visits and related health care costs. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1123 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa, to execute a contract with the State of California Employment Development Department, including modified indemnification language, to pay County an amount not to exceed $1,669,928 from Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth Formula funds, Subgant K7102026 for WIOA youth services for the period April 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $1,669,928 WIOA Youth Formula funds, Subgrant K7102026. (100% Federal) (No County match) BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Labor, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act grants funding by formula to states for distribution to local Workforce Investment Act boards to fund employment related services including allocation for youth employment and occupational training. The funds received through the California Employment Development Department Subgrant will be used to fund employment activities, occupational training, and supportive services for eligible youth in Contra Costa County. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:California Employment Development Department, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Subgrant Agreement K7102026 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1124 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, employment and occupational training services to youth in Contra Costa County would be severely curtailed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1125 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of Oakley, including mutual indemnification, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $2,100 to provide access to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications system for the period of May 6, 2016 through July 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: No net County cost. Up to $2,100.00 in Revenue. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff will provide California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Access Services (CLETS) to the City of Oakley. Services will be provided until such time the City of Oakley has access to CLETS. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this contract will result in the inability of the Sheriff's Office to provide the City of Oakley with access to CLETS resulting in a safety concern for the community. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Access for the City of Oakley May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1126 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board, to execute a contract amendment with the City of Richmond to increase the amount payable to County by $50,000 to a new payment limit of $150,000, for pre-apprenticeship programs in the construction and energy-efficient fields of employment, and extend the contract term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $150,000 (includes amendment amount of $50,000), !00% State Proposition 39. (No County match) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Workforce Development Board (WDB), will provide pre-apprenticeship curriculum and training components developed in partnership with members of the building trades and provide industry recognized certificates. Job placement assistance and pathways to further education will be provided by the WDB. This amendment will provide additional funding and extension of time for training programs to additional individuals. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without additional funding, current pre-apprenticeship programs would not be expanded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:City of Richmond, Proposition 39 Funding May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1127 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1128 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Food and Agriculture effective July 1, 2015 to increase reimbursement by $16,599 for a new limit of $782,810 to provide pest detection service for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Amendment to 15-0289-1 Exotic Pest Detection Trapping Agreement will increase the department's reimbursement by $16,599 for expenses incurred, up to $782,810 for pest detection work performed on behalf of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in Contra Costa County beginning July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 and for Asian citrus Psyllid (ACP) trapping beginning November 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016. The revenue from this agreement has been anticipated and in the departments FY15/16 budget. There is no county match of funds, nor does this involve grant money. BACKGROUND: The county shall provide services for placing and servicing of traps for the detection of exotic insect pests, which are considered hazardous to agriculture and the economy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Chad Godoy, Director of Agriculture/Weights & Measures Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Exotic Pest Detection Trapping #15-0289-1 Amendment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1129 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of California. The insects may include, but are not limited to the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Mexican Fruit Fly, Oriental Fruit Fly, Melon Fly, Gypsy Moth, Japanese Beetle and Asian citrus psyllid. This list is not inclusive and may contain other invasive exotic pests as identified. This agreement includes delimitation work associated with the detection of one or more life stages of target pests in the county. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action would result in loss of revenue to the Department and possible threat to our local agriculture and residents of Contra Costa County. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1130 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee, to accept Grant Award #29-549-2 in an amount not to exceed $50,00 from John Muir Health for the County’s Behavior Health Services Division/Homeless, to support the Philip Dorn Respite Center, for the period from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of this Grant Award will provide funding to support to the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2016. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The Philip Dorn Respite Center, as a Community Benefit Program located in Concord, is a respite care program for homeless adults who are discharging from local hospitals and require medical stabilization services. Respite care refers to recuperative services for those homeless persons who may not meet medical criteria for hospitalization, but who are too sick or medically vulnerable to reside in an emergency shelter and cannot be returned to the streets. The goal of the program is to get all homeless persons off the street and help them to achieve their highest level APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon (957-5120) 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: J Pigg , M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award #29-549-2 from John Muir Health May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1131 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of self-sufficiency. Approval of Grant Award #29-549-2 will allow the County to continue to receive support for the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not be able to continue to receive support for the Philip Dorn Respite Center. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1132 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, including full indemnification of the State of California, to pay the County an initial allocation of $36,800 for the instruction of accredited Driving Simulator and Force Option Simulator courses for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: No County Costs. Initial amount of $36,800; 100% Revenue, State of California. Budgeted in fiscal year 2016/17. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff - Law Enforcement Training Center provides State Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), approved driving simulator and force option simulator instruction to law enforcement personnel in order to ensure up-to-date training. This contract will enable the Sheriff's Office to recover the costs of this instruction for an initial count of up to 400 students. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The contract with the State of California will not be approved. The Sheriff's Office will not be able to provide or be reimbursed for the services outlined in this contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:POST Driving Simulator and Force Option Contract May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1133 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1134 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, including modified indemnification language, effective July 1, 2015, with Little Angels Country School LLC, to increase the payment limit by $11,687 to a new limit of $213,334, to provide State Preschool and Head Start program services, with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: $37,565 in Federal funds / CFDA #93.600 Administration for Children & Families $175,769 in State funds California Department of Education BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start and Early APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6346 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Ericka Ramirez, Eric Pormento, Cassandra Youngblood C. 95 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015-16 Little Angels Country School LLC childcare contract amendment #1 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1135 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Head Start services to program eligible County residents. Contra Costa also receives funds from California Department of Education (CDE) to provide State Preschool services to program eligible County residents. The State requires an indemnification clause with County subcontractors wherein the subcontractor holds harmless the State and its officers for any losses. In order to provide a wider distribution of services to County residents, the Department subcontracts with a number of community-based organizations. The board approved the contract on January 19, 2016 (C. 52) to provide childcare services for 44 children enrolled in Little Angels Country Day School programs. This board order seeks approval to amend the contract to pass through the increased daily rate provided by the State Department of Education to the County via the State Preschool contracts. The daily rate has been increased from $20.50 to $21.96 per Child Day of Enrollment for State Preschool (part-day); from $30.88 to $32.96 for State Preschool (full-day); and from $30.88 to $32.75 for State General Childcare and Development. The number of slots per program remain unchanged. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. 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. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1136 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, effective July 1, 2015, with Richmond Elementary School, Inc. including modified indemnification language, to increase the payment limit by $14,016 to a new limit of $210,816 to provide State Preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% State funds California Department of Education BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from California Department of Education to provide State Preschool services to program eligible County residents. In order to provide a wider distribution of services to County residents, the Department contracts with a number of community-based organizations. The Board approved the contract on July 28, 2015 (C.51) to provide childcare services for 48 children enrolled in Richmond College Prep preschool programs. This board order APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6346 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Ericka Ramirez, Eric Pormento, Cassandra Youngblood C. 94 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015-16 Richmond Elementary School, Inc. childcare services contract, amendment #1 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1137 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) seeks approval to amend the contract to pass through the increased daily rate provided by the State Department of Education to the County via the State Preschool contracts. The daily rate has been increased from $20.50 to $21.96 per Child Day of Enrollment for State Preschool (part-day); from $30.88 to $32.96 for State Preschool (full-day); and from $30.88 to $32.75 for State General Childcare and Development. The number of slots per program remain unchanged. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. 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. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1138 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment, including modified indemnification language, with We Care Services for Children, effective July 1, 2015, to increase the payment limit by $14,717 to a new limit of $221,357, to provide State Preschool services with no change to the term July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% State funds from the California Department of Education No County match BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds California Department of Education (CDE) to provide State Preschool and Pre-kindergarten Family Literacy services to program eligible County residents. The State requires an indemnification clause with County subcontractors wherein the subcontractor holds harmless the State and its officers for any losses. In order to provide a wider distribution of services to County residents, the Department contracts with a number APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6346 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Ericka Ramirez, Eric Pormento, Cassandra Youngblood C. 96 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:2015-16 We Care Services for Children State Preschool services contract amendment #1 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1139 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of community-based organizations. The board approved a contract with We Care Services for Children on July 28, 2015 (C.50) for the provision of State Preschool services to 56 program-eligible children and families in the Central Contra Costa County area. This board order seeks approval to amend the contract to pass through the increased daily rate provided by the State Department of Education to the County via the State Preschool contracts. The daily rate has been increased from $20.50 to $21.96 per Child Day of Enrollment for State Preschool (part-day); from $30.88 to $32.96 for State Preschool (full-day); and from $30.88 to $32.75 for State General Childcare and Development. The number of slots per program remain unchanged. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to more widely distribute childcare availability through partnership with community based agencies. 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. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1140 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute an Online Service Agreement with AccuFund, Inc., including modified indemnification language, in an amount not to exceed $25,600 for a hosted information services budget solution for the period of March 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. (10% County; 45% State; 45% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $25,600: 100% Administrative Overhead (10% County; 45% State; 45% Federal) BACKGROUND: The AccuFund Online Accounting System, hosted by AccuFund, Inc., is an online accounting system software package that will help the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) automate their technology related budget process. By implementing the online accounting system, EHSD will be more efficient with creating, tracking, and closing-out budgets. Additionally, the online accounting system will provide the tracking and monitoring of funding from different sources to budgets as well as enable EHSD to have a tool for reporting to management. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.112 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AccuFund Online Software and Services Agreement May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1141 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Agreement obligates the County to defend and indemnify AccuFund for costs arising from any third party subpoena or legal process served on AccuFund that seeks County Data hosted by AccuFund. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will continue to manage their technology budget manually, requiring significantly greater effort with less reporting capabilities. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1142 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute Agreement #23-567-1 with the ImageTrend, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $147,750, to provide hosted software and services to County’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The Agreement is funded 100% by Measure H Funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Agency (“EMS Agency”) is vested with the responsibility of issuing emergency medical technician certificates to qualified individuals and accrediting licensed paramedics to practice in Contra Costa County pursuant to the authority of Health and Safety Code § 1797.200 et seq., and Title 22, Division 9, of the California Code of Regulations. The EMS Agency is also responsible for the issuance of ambulance permits and the inspection and regulation of emergency ambulances operating in Contra Costa County pursuant to Division 48 (Ambulances of the County) Ordinance. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 335-8000 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm C. 90 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #23-567-1 with ImageTrend, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1143 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In June 2015, the County Administrator approved, and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #23-567, with ImageTrend, Inc. to provide software services to include annual license, hosting and support to County’s EMS Agency, tracking licensing for ambulances and EMS technicians, though May 31, 2016. Approval of Agreement #23-567-1 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide services, through May 31, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not be able to receive software and services to adequately monitor licensing for ambulances and EMS technicians, by this Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1144 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Violence Solutions effective April 1, 2016 to extend the term from June 14, 2016 to September 30, 2016 with no change in the payment limit of $179,639 to provide additional shelter services to victims of human trafficking. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $179,639: 100% Federal - Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime grant, CFDA #16.320 BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDV) applied for and received funds from the US Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Services for Victims of Human Trafficking Program (“Project”). The ZTDV is engaging the Contractor to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the funding application. The primary purpose of the Services for Victims of Human Trafficking Program (“Project”) is to enhance the social service field’s response to victims of human trafficking as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 (22 U.S.C. § 7101 et. seq.) as amended. The goals and objectives of the Project are: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Community Violence Solutions May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1145 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 1. To provide timely and high-quality comprehensive services for all victims of human trafficking 2. To enhance interagency coordination in the provision of services to trafficking victims 3. To provide training to service providers and allied professionals within the target community to improve community collaboration and increase awareness of the needs and rights of trafficking victims and survivors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Important services to the community will not be provided. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1146 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-378-7 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., a corporation, effective July 1, 2015, to amend Contract #26-378-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-378-6), to modify the Fee/Rate Schedule to include wheelchair van transportation fees with no change in the contract payment limit $575,000 and no change in the original term of August 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 2, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-378-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-378-6) with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc., for the provision of transportation services for patients unable to transport themselves to receive medical services due to disabilities or other medical conditions for the period from August 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. In the original contract, the rate schedule included a “wheelchair” rate for $3.00 per APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-378-7 with Concord Yellow Cab, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1147 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) trip for folding a wheelchair into a cab. Through inadvertence, the rate schedule did not include a “wheelchair van” rate of $70.00 per trip, which covers transporting patients that must be transported by a specially equipped wheelchair transport van. The Contractor agreed to waive reimbursement for the wheelchair van charges from August 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 if the Division will pay charges from July 1, 2015 forward, totaling $11,700, and amend the contract to include this wheelchair van rate through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-378-7 will allow County to amend the rate schedule to include wheelchair van transportation services and to pay Contractor for wheelchair van transportation services invoiced and not reimbursed for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be paid for wheelchair van transportation services provided to County in good faith and Contractor will not provide these services in the future. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1148 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #26-473-22 with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care), a corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Contract #26-473-21, to modify the Contract to include two additional categories and increase the payment limit by $2,391,657 from $2,362,392 to a new payment limit of $4,754,049 and no change in the original term of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. This amendment reflects two new levels and rates for a Per Diem Marriage and Family Therapist Intern and Per Diem Medical Social Worker Intern. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-473-21 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 and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) and the Main Detention Facility for the period APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-473-22 with SHC Services, Inc. (dba Supplemental Health Care) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1149 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2017. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-473-22 will allow the Contractor to provide two additional levels of temporary help services to include Per Diem Marriage and Family Therapist Intern and Per Diem Medical Social Worker Intern, to assist in covering for temporary absences and vacant positions at CCRMC and the Main Detention Facility, through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring temporary therapy services will not have access to Contractor’s additional services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1150 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment Agreement #72-039-4 with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels, a non-profit corporation, effective April 1, 2016, to amend Novation Contract #72-039-3, to increase the payment limit by $14,040, from $37,788 to a new payment limit of $51,828, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, and to increase the automatic extension amount by $4,580, from $9,447 to a new payment limit of $14,027, through September 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% Title III-C 2 of the Older Americans Act of funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-039-3 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 83 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #72-039-4 with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1151 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) with West Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels for the provision of home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which include a three month automation extension period through September 30, 2016 for the provision of home-delivered meals for the Senior Nutrition Program, which included modifications to County's Standard indemnification clause and General Conditions. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #72-039-4 will allow the Contactor to deliver additional meals to homebound elders in West County through June 30, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, West County’s homebound senior citizens and HIV/AIDS patients will not receive additional meals which provide at least one third of their daily nutrition. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1152 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #26-790-1 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco, including mutual indemnification, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, for the provision of endocrinology services for patients at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period from February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Due to lengthy negotiations, the Contract was not renewed in a timely manner but the Contractor agreed to continue providing services to CCRMC in good faith. The County is requesting a start date of February 1, 2016 to avoid any disruption in services. Under this Agreement #26-790-1, UCSF will provide, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shar, M.D., 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C.109 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Agreement #26-790-1 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1153 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) twenty-four hour a day, seven days a week, phone consultation and in-person consultation during clinic hours for the Endocrinology Unit at CCRMC, including mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this Contract, though January 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Endocrinology Unit at CCRMC would not be able to provide these services to its patients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1154 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Blanket Purchase Order with BioRad Laboratories, Inc. in the amount of $300,000 to purchase reagents and supplies for the Clinical Laboratory at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: The CCRMC Clinical Laboratory uses BioRad Laboratories, Inc. reagents, various controls, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) media, supplies for chemistry, urinalysis and microbiology testing, as well as reagents and supplies for the Variant II Turbo Systems. These are used to perform tests on patients for various conditions and to check for infections. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this purchase order is not approved, the CCRMC Clinical Laboratory will not be able to perform patient testing, thus impacting patient safety and health. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C.118 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a Blanket Purchase Order with BioRad Laboratories, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1155 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1156 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to provide moving and furniture installation services, for the period June 1, 2016 thru May 31, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This cost is to be funded through Facilities Services maintenance budgets. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for moving County offices and facilities, paid storage and office landscape partitional furniture (OLP) repair, replacement and adjustment. As bid on Bidsync # 1604-175, Metro was the lowest responsible and responsive vendor, and has been awarded this commodity. We are requesting a three year contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Burton (925) 313-7077 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 99 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a contract with Metropolitan Van & Storage, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1157 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract amendment is not approved, moving, storage and office furniture adjustment, repair and installation will not be performed. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1158 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with St. Francis Electric, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, to provide traffic signal inductive loop repair and maintenance service, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This cost is to be funded through Road Maintenance and Facilities Services maintenance budget. (50% Road & 50% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities maintains hundreds of traffic intersections owned by both the County and several contract cities. Each of these intersections is equipped with inductive magnetic loops installed under the pavement. These loops provide information to the signal controller, alerting it when the magnetic field of a vehicle is detected above it. Replacement and repair of these systems requires several specialized tasks including environmental concerns, traffic control and controller function. As bid on Bid sync # 1208-003, St. Francis Electric, Inc. was the lowest responsible responsive vendor. We are requesting this contract be approved for a period covering the next three years. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Burton, (925) 313-7077 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a contract with St. Francis Electric, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1159 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, inductive loop repair and maintenance will be discontinued. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1160 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Director of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order to Applied Computer Solutions in the amount of $589,002.64 for the purchase of software licenses and support for the period April 3, 2016 through April 2, 2019, and execute a Support and Subscription Services Agreement with VMware, Inc. for support services for the term April 3, 2016 through April 2, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Enterprise I Fund budget. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department (HSD) Information Technology Unit (IT), extensively uses VMware for the IT datacenter. This purchase will provide the HSD IT unit with support and maintenance of software on our servers that host the Epic Electronic Health Records (EHR) and other healthcare related software for the entire Health Services Department. The VMware software will also provide additional licenses in order to expand our infrastructure. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 313-6228 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C.124 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a Purchase Order with Applied Computer Solutions (ACS) and Service Agreement with VMware, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1161 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved the Health Services Department will not have software licenses, support or the ability to add more virtual systems. Without the support, the systems that contain Epic EHR data could result in the inability to upgrade and in loss of patient information for the entire health services department, causing Patient care issues and related emergencies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1162 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with Cresco Equipment Rentals in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for rental of equipment for Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance activities, for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 75% Local Road and Flood Control Funds, and 25% General Fund BACKGROUND: Public Works Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance use equipment such as loaders, backhoes, grinders and man lifts to complete various work Countywide. The divisions do not own all equipment necessary to support the various jobs and programs. This purchase order will be used to rent equipment in support of these jobs throughout the year as needed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Burton (925) 313-7077 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 93 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a Purchase Order with Cresco Equipment Rentals May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1163 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Various jobs will be delayed or not completed. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1164 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the Public Works Director, a purchase order with Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation in an amount not to exceed $300,000, for rental of equipment for Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance activities, for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 75% Local Road and Flood Control Funds, and 25% General Fund BACKGROUND: Public Works Road, Flood Control and Facilities Maintenance use equipment such as loaders, backhoes, grinders and man lifts to complete various work Countywide. The divisions do not own all equipment necessary to support the various jobs and programs. This purchase order will be used to rent equipment in support of these jobs throughout the year as needed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stan Burton (925) 313-7077 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 98 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE a Purchase Order with Hertz Equipment Rentals Corporation May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1165 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Various jobs will be delayed or not completed. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1166 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Bryan Ristow, M.D., effective April 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $206,000 to a new payment limit of $1,711,000 to provide additional hours of cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, 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 June 3, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-769 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-769-1) with Bryan Ristow, M.D. for the provision of cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the agreement was higher than originally anticipated. County APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C.119 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Amendment #26-769-2 with Bryan Ristow, M.D. for the provision of cardiology services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1167 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) requested and Contractor agreed to provide additional hours of cardiology services due to staff reduction in the Cardiology Unit. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-769-2 will allow the Contractor to provide additional hours of cardiology services at CCRMC through May 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, patients requiring cardiology services will not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1168 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Loving Campos Associates, Architects, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $455,913, to provide architectural services for the New Fire Station No. 16, 4007 Los Arabis Road, Lafayette project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding is provided by the Fire Protection Fund. BACKGROUND: In late 2011 the Fire District initiated the process for the design of a replacement facility for Fire Station 16 (FS 16) in Lafayette at the present location on Los Arabis Road. At that time, the station was comprised of a small residential style fire station built in the 1950's that was abandoned shortly after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Subsequent to the closure, a double-wide mobile home was used for the crew living quarters. Approximately $3 million was appropriated for the replacement of FS 16. In 2012, due to budget shortfalls and the eventual closure of FS 16, the project was placed on an indefinite hold. The funds were then designated to be used to fund the Fire District’s contribution towards the building APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: PW Accounting, PW CPM Division Manager, PW CPM Project Manager, PW CPM Clerical, Auditor's Office, County Counsel's Office, County Administrator's Office, County Administrator's Office C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Execution of a Consulting Services Agreement with LCA Architects for Architectural Services for a New Fire Station 16, Lafayette May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1169 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Fire Station 46 (FS 46), a joint project with the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District. When the FS 46 project was dissolved, the Fire District determined the most appropriate solution for the community of West Lafayette and for the overall service of the Fire District was to rebuild FS 16. New site plans have been developed, engineers and contractors have surveyed the site and the existing fire station structure, and multiple analyses have been performed to determine the feasibility of reconstruction, remodel of the existing structure, or tear down and rebuild from the ground up. While it is possible to re-use the existing fire station structure, it was determined that the value of that structure is very low to the overall project and the cost to provide the required code upgrades and seismic retrofits would outweigh the utility of rehabilitating the old structure. The new station would be built to include modern seismic standards as well as being able to meet ADA requirements. The station would be built to provide protection for the community over the next fifty years and would allow for the facility to provide personnel with the components, systems, and features found in a modern fire station. On behalf of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the Public Works Department requested Statements of Qualifications ("SOQs") for architectural services for Contra Costa County Fire Protection District fire station design projects, including the rebuilding of Fire Station 16. The Public Works Department received 18 SOQ's from interested firms and 5 firms were shortlisted. A selection committee comprised of County and Fire District staff conducted interviews and ranked the short-listed firms. Loving Campos Associates Architects, Inc. (LCA) was one of the top ranking firms. It is recommended that LCA be awarded the agreement for the subject project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the agreement is not approved, a new fire station would not be constructed. Response into the areas of West Lafayette would continue to be provided by Fire Station 15 in eastern Lafayette with automatic aid provided by Fire Station 43 of the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District which is located in Orinda. Delays in construction, if FS 16 is to be rebuilt in the near future, could increase construction costs significantly based on the recent, and expected, trends in overall costs of constructing essential use facilities. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1170 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Robin Asher, MD, effective November 1, 2016, to increase the payment limit by $66,560 to a new payment limit of $199,680, to provide an additional day per week of psychiatric coverage at Children’s Mental Health Clinic in Central County, with no change in the original term of April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation and 50% Mental Health Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-514 with Robin Asher, MD, for the provision of outpatient psychiatric care services in Central County for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M WILHELM C.123 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract Amendment Agreement #74-514-1 with Robin Asher, MD May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1171 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) County requested and the Contractor agreed to provide additional services to include a work schedule change from two days per week to three days per week. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #74-514-1 will allow the Contractor to provide an additional day per week to the work schedule to continue providing psychiatric coverage at Children’s Mental Health Clinic in Central County through March 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, children and adolescents in Central County will not receive services from this Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1172 RECOMMENDATION(S): 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 care services to adolescent and transitional age adult patients at First Hope located in Concord for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 24% Mental Health Services Act, 38% State Mental Health Realignment, 38% Federal Financial Participation. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-628-15 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D. for the provision of outpatient psychiatric care 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, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #24-628-16 will allow Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric care services through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C.115 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #24-628-16 with Nancy E. Ebbert, M.D. for outpatient psychiatric services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1173 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric care services in Concord. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1174 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Susan Martinez (dba God’s Grace Homes) in an amount not to exceed $238,800, to provide augmented board and care services, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of the County's population by providing augmentation of room and board, and twenty-four hour emergency residential care and supervision, to eligible mentally disordered clients, who are specifically referred by the Mental Health Program staff and who are served by County Mental Health Services. On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-681-2(29) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C.116 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #24-681-2(31) with Susan Martinez (dba God’s Grace Homes) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1175 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (as amended by contract amendment #24-681-2 (30)) with Susan Martinez (dba God’s Grace Homes), for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for the provision of augmented board and care services for County-referred mentally disordered clients. Approval of Contract #24-681-2(31) will allow the Contractor to continue providing augmented board and care services, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, augmented board and care services will not be provided to County-referred mentally disordered clients by this Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1176 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #26-664-3 with Paul S. Chard, M.D., Ph.D., in an amount not to exceed $132,000 to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On August 6, 2013, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-664-2 with Paul S. Chard, M.D., Ph.D., to provide gastroenterology services including consultation, clinic coverage, training, on-call services, and medical and/or surgical procedures for patients at CCRMC for the period from June 1, 2013 through May 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-664-3 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide gastroenterology services through May 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C.121 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #26-664-3 with Paul S. Chard, M.D., Ph.D. for Gastroenterology Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1177 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to Contractor’s services, which may result in a reduction in the overall level of services provided to the affected community. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1178 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-282-14 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $266,240 to provide child psychiatric care at Juvenile Hall and at the East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic, for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. 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 June 16, 2015 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-282-13 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D., for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for the provision of child psychiatric care services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment at Juvenile Hall and at the East County Children’s Mental Health Clinic. Approval of Contract #74-282-14 will allow the Contractor to continue providing child psychiatry care through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E SUISALA, M Wilhelm C.122 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #74-282-14 with Ronel L. Lewis, M.D. to provide child psychiatric services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1179 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s outpatient psychiatric care. 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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1180 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-472-2 with Alice Del Rosario, MD, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $116,480 to provide outpatient psychiatric care services in East County for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation; 50% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-472-1 with Alice L. Del Rosario, MD for the provision of outpatient psychiatric care services, including diagnosing, counseling, evaluating, and providing medical and therapeutic treatment to children and adolescents in East County, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #74-472-2 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E SUISALA, M WILHELM C.120 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #74-472-2 with Alice Del Rosario, MD for outpatient psychiatric care services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1181 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to Contractor’s psychiatric care 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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1182 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Child Therapy Institute of Marin, in an amount not to exceed $325,000, to provide mental health services to seriously emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in East and West county, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, with a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $162,500. 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 children and 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 #74-517, the Contractor will provide mental health services to Seriously Emotionally Disturbed children and adolescents in East and West county through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C.117 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #74-517 with Child Therapy Institute of Marin for mental health services to the Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1183 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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1184 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #74-426-5 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, including mutual indemnification, in an amount not to exceed $4,875 to provide specialized training for the County Behavioral Health Services Division/Mental Health for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Workforce Education and Training. (No rate change) BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Interagency Agreement #74-426-4 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. This Agreement includes modification to the General Conditions, Paragraph 15. (Conflict of Interest), Paragraph 19. (Insurance), Paragraph 25. (Copyrights and Rights in Data) and Paragraph 18. (Indemnification) to mutually indemnify both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this Contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C.107 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Interagency Agreement #74-426-5 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1185 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #74-426-5, will allow Contractor to continue to provide training for the Behavioral Health Services Division/Mental Health staff with regard to Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) for adolescents, including theoretical underpinnings of DBT, the Biosocial Theory of Borderline Personality Disorder, strategies for working with clients in different stages of treatment, as well as exposure and rehearsal of the core skills used in DBT, through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County’s Behavioral Health Services Division/Mental Health Staff will not receive the specialized training needed to have the core skills required to provide DBT treatment to adolescents. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1186 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and Authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Blanket Purchase Order with the California Department of Public Health, Genetic Disease Branch, in the amount of $275,000 for newborn genetic screening tests at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Public Health requires that the CCRMC performs genetic screening tests on all newborn babies born at the CCRMC. The State supplies the guidelines, forms, and supplies for this testing. This testing ensures that high-risk newborns are diagnosed as soon as possible so that they may be treated. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the CCRMC Clinical Laboratory will not be able to perform patient testing required by the State of California. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C.114 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Blanket Purchase Order with State of California Department of Public Health, Genetic Disease Branch May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1187 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: If this Purchase Order is not approved newborn babies at risk for genetic maladies would not receive necessary diagnosis and treatment. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1188 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Up To Date, Inc. in the amount of $125,752 for access by physicians at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers to an online database from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Up To Date, Inc. has provided an electronic online database for a number of years. It allows the physicians to look up information very quickly. This database assists in decision making to provide safe, effective, and efficient patient care. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, patient care could be impacted because physicians will be deprived of a crucial tool used in the treating of patients. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C.100 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Blanket Purchase Order with Up to Date, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1189 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with CDW Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $460,000 for the purchase of scanners, printers, mobile devices, laptops, and minor computer hardware for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Routine replacement and new equipment will be used in multiple divisions, including the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers, Contra Costa Health Plan, Public Health, Mental Health, and Health Services Administration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to replace scanners, printers, mobile devices, and minor hardware will increase the risk of an unexpected failure. This could impact productivity at some locations including patient care at the hospital, health clinic locations, and key departments. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, David Runt C.101 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:CDW Corporation Purchase Order May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1190 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order amendment for Diablo Valley Signs, to add $101,000 for a new total of $200,000, for signs for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers with no change to the original term October 1, 2015 through September 20, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprises Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Diablo Valley Signs has been creating custom signs for the CCRMC and the Contra Costa Health Centers for some years. Additional funds are required because new signage is needed for the recently opened Antioch Health Center and for expansion at other clinic locations. Signs are important for the safety and convenience of patients and staff. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the CCRMC and the Contra Costa Health Centers will be unable to procure necessary signage. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C.106 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Change Order to Blanket Purchase Order with Diablo Valley Signs May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1191 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Treasurer-Tax Collector, or designee, to execute a contract extension with KUBRA America West, Incorporated, effective July 1, 2016, to extend the term from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 with no increase to the payment limit for the processing of the County’s customers’ credit/debit card and electronic check payments. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of extending this contract. The 2.50% fee associated with credit card transactions and $3.50 fee for debit card transactions are paid by the taxpayer at the time of the transaction. BACKGROUND: This payment service agreement allows County customers to continue paying taxes and assessments, goods and/or services by credit card, debit card and electronic check. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Brice Bins, (925) 957-2848 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement with KUBRA America West, Incorporated May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1192 ATTACHMENTS KUBRA Amendment/Extension May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1193 Form L-9 (Page 1 of 1) Contra Costa County CONTRACT AMENDMENT/ Number 56230-00 Standard Form L-9 EXTENSION AGREEMENT Fund/Org# Revised 2008 (Purchase of Services - Long Form) Account # Other # 1. Identification of Contract to be Amended. Number: 56230-00 Effective Date: July 1, 2016 Department: Treasurer-Tax Collector Subject: Electronic Payment Management and Processing 2. Parties. The County of Contra Costa, California (County), for its Department named above, and the following named Contractor mutually agree and promise as follows: Contractor: KUBRA America West, Incorporated Capacity: Corporation Address: 3. Amendment Date. The effective date of this Amendment/Extension Agreement is July 1, 2016. 4. Amendment Specifications. The Contract identified above is hereby amended as set forth in the "Amendment Specifications" attached hereto which are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Extension of Term. The termination date of the above described Contract is hereby extended from June 30, 2016 to a new termination date of June 30, 2018, unless sooner terminated as provided in said contract. 6. Payment Limit Increase. The payment limit of the above described Contract is hereby increased by $0.00, from $100,000.00 to a new total Contract Payment Limit of $100,000.00. 7. Signatures . These signatures attest the parties' agreement hereto: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS By Chairman/Designee ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By Deputy CONTRACTOR Name of business entity: By (Signature of individual or officer) (Print name and title A, if applicable) Name of business entity: By (Signature of individual or officer) (Print name and title B, if applicable) Note to Contractor: For Corporations (profit or nonprofit), the contract must be signed by two officers. Signature A must be that of the president or vice-president and Signature B must be that of the secretary or assistant secretary (Civil Code Section 1190 and Corporations Code Section 313). All signatures must be acknowledged as set forth on Form L-2. 5050 Tomken Road, Mississauga ON Canada L4W 5B1 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1194 Initials: _______ ________ Contractor County Dept. Amendment Specifications Contract No. 56230-00 KUBRA America West, Incorporated Subsection A. i. of Section III (Pricing) of the Service Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following paragraph: i. For credit card payments, a fee of 2.50% of the Transaction amount charged to the Customer. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1195 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Catholic Charities of the East Bay in an amount not to exceed $269,333 for Child Welfare Redesign differential Response Program services in Contra Costa County for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State) FISCAL IMPACT: $269,833: 100% State - Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement Project (Realignment funds) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau is continuing development and implementation of Child Welfare Redesign to enhance current services delivery and improve outcomes for children and families. The redesign plan includes providing early intervention services, developing community partnerships, and increasing the number of resource families. This contract will allow for the provision of case management services to families at risk of becoming involved in the Child Welfare System. (19-905-2) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to offer valuable services to children and families at risk of entering the Child Welfare System. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Catholic Charities of the East Bay May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1196 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (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 intervention services for families at risk of entering the Child Welfare System. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1197 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Interim County Probation Officer, to execute a purchase order with Cellebrite Inc. in the amount of $45,000 for the purchase of mobile forensic hardware, software, training, and support for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase of hardware, software, and support as well as the training will be funded through Venture Capital Funds awarded to the Probation Department as part of the FY 15/16 budget submission. BACKGROUND: Established in 2007, Cellebrite Mobile Forensics produces software and hardware for mobile forensics purposes used by federal, state, and local law enforcement; intelligence agencies; military branches; corporate security and investigations; law firms; and private digital forensic examiners in more than 60 countries. As society becomes more and more digitally based, it has become necessary to search cell phones and other electronic devices to ensure Probation clients are in compliance with their Probation terms. Whenever APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Todd Billeci, Interim County Probation Officer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Cellebrite Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1198 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Probation needs to extract data from these devices, we must rely on local jurisdictions (Sheriff, Concord PD) to complete this task for us which is inconvenient to Probation and the Probation clients. The Cellebrite hardware and software will allow the Probation Department to search cell phones and other electronic devices to ensure Probation clients are in compliance with their Probation terms. The Cellebrite terms and conditions accompanying the hardware and software require County to indemnify and hold Cellebrite harmless from any claim arising from any use of the software in a manner that violates any third party’s rights. A purchase order is being used for this transaction instead of a contract since Cellebrite will only permit the purchase of its software and services if its terms and conditions govern the purchase in connection with the issuance of a purchase order. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Probation Department will continue to rely on other local jurisdictions to extract data from electronic devices. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1199 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with FBC Community Outreach, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $232,662 for Child Welfare Redesign Differential Response Program services in East and Central Contra Costa County for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State) FISCAL IMPACT: $232,662: 100% State - Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement Project (Realignment Funds) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau is continuing development and implementation of Child Welfare Redesign to enhance current services delivery and improve outcomes for children and families. The redesign plan includes providing early intervention services, developing community partnerships, and increasing the number of resource families. This contract will allow for the provision of case management services to families at risk of becoming involved in the Child Welfare System. (19-906-2) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to offer valuable services to children and families at risk of entering the Child Welfare System APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with FBC Community Outreach, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1200 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (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 intervention services for families at risk of entering the Child Welfare System. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1201 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Lao Family Community Development Inc. in the amount of $365,000 for job skills and placement services for limited English speaking and non-English speaking California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $365,000: 70% State & 30% Federal; California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) single allocation and CalWORKs Expanded Subsidized Employment Allocation. BACKGROUND: Lao Family Community Development Inc. provides pre-and post-employment services and translation and interpretation services in Vietnamese and various Laotian dialects to limited English proficient CalWORKs refugees residing in West Contra Costa County. Services include assisted job search, job placement, subsidized employment, employment disputes resolution for job retention, and other job-related servces. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Lao Family Community Development Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1202 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Lao Family Community Development Inc. will no longer provide services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract directly supports three of the five community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 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." May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1203 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Monument Impact Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $296,549 for job services and job placement to limited English proficient CalWORKs clients for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $296,549: 39% Federal, 61% State; California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Single Allocation & CalWORKs Subsidized Employment Allocation BACKGROUND: California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Welfare-to-Work (WTW) recipients face multiple barriers to employment. As a result, recipients may participate in a variety of activities leading to employment. Among the primary activities for the recipients referred to Contractor for services, are job readiness, job search and job placement, and English as a second Language (ESL) classes in the local adult schools, community colleges, or other appropriate educational institutions. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Monument Impact, Job Services for Limited English Proficient CalWORKs Clients May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1204 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Valuable job training services to limited English speaking CalWORKs clients would terminate. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The contract supports two of the five community outcomes established in the Children's Outcome Report, (3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient" and (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing" by providing job training to encourage family self-sufficiency. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1205 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $317,125 to provide domestic violence support services to California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $317,125: 100% Federal BACKGROUND: STAND! For Families Free of Violence provides a wide array of domestic violence services tailored to meet the specific needs of the Workforce Services Bureau. Services include California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) domestic violence liaisons at Employment and Human Services Department offices, technical assistance, consultation, and domestic violence identification and skills training, on-site capacity building, and linkages for domestic violence victims to community resources. Contractor was selected through the competitive bid process. (19-900-2) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1206 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: CalWORKs clients will be unable to receive domestic violence services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (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 information and services to assist those who are victims or at risk of domestic violence. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1207 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The English Center in an amount not to exceed $114,000, for job skills and placement services for limited English speaking and non-English speaking California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) participants for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $114,000: 100% State; California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) single allocation. BACKGROUND: The English Center provides pre-and post-employment services and translation and interpretation services in various languages and dialects to limited English proficient CalWORKs refugees residing in East Contra Costa County. Services include assisted job search, job placement, employment disputes resolution for job retention, and other job related information. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with The English Center May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1208 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The English Center will no longer provide services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract directly supports three of the five community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 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." May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1209 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 $509,494 to continue to provide family preservation support services to families referred from existing child welfare cases and/or the County Probation Department, who are at risk of having their children placed in out-of-home care for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (30% County, 70% State) FISCAL IMPACT: $509,494: 30% County, 70% State - Family Preservation Funds BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau is continuing family preservation support services providing ongoing case management services that engage and establish a positive rapport with families who have been referred from existing child welfare cases and/or County Probation Department who are experiencing multiple stressors impacting their ability to parent effectively and consequently at risk of having their children placed in out-of-home care. (19-909-2) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Uplift Family Services for Family Preservation Support Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1210 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Employment and Human Services Department will not be able to provide valuable services to families at risk of having their children placed in out-of-home care. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (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 intensive family preservation support services for families at risk of having their children placed in out-of-home care. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1211 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Uplift Family Services in the amount not to exceed $225,000 to provide Child Welfare Redesign Differential Response Program services in East and Central Contra Costa County for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% State) FISCAL IMPACT: $225,000: 100% State - Child Welfare Services Outcomes Improvement Project (Realignment Funds) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Family Services Bureau is continuing development and implementation of Child Welfare Redesign to enhance current services delivery and improve outcomes for children and families. The redesign plan includes providing early intervention services, developing community partnerships, and increasing the number of resource families. This contract will allow for the provision of case management services to families at risk of becoming involved in the Child Welfare System. (19-904-2) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweth 3-1648 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Uplift Family Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1212 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to offer valuable services to children and families at risk of becoming involved in the Child Welfare System.. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (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 intervention services for families at risk of becoming involved in the Child Welfare System.. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1213 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-742-5 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $285,684, to provide residential board and care services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) patients in the Patch Program, for the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% County Patch Program Funds. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: The County’s Patch Program provides residential board and care for post medical, surgical and/or custodial care patients who have been discharged from CCRMC and would otherwise not have appropriate follow up care. On April 14, 2015 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-742-3 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-742-4) with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. for the provision of residential board and care services for CCRMC patients in the Patch Program for the period from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-742-5 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide residential board and care services through March 31, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-742-5 with God’s Grace Caring Home, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1214 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, these post-surgery patients would not have access to Contractor’s services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1215 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-797-1 with Mission Recruiting, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide physician recruitment services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 9, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved #26-797, with Mission Recruiting, LLC for the provision of recruiting family practice physicians for CCRMC to fill on-going vacancies. Services include, but are not limited to, advertising, screening, and providing reference materials for potential candidates, for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-797-1 will allow the Contractor to continue providing recruitment services through April 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers may result in a shortage of Family Practice Physicians. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5475 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 87 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-797-1 with Mission Recruiting, LLC May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1216 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1217 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-800-2 with John Roark, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $291,800, to provide gastroenterology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: In June 2015 the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #26-800 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #26-800-1) with John Roark, M.D., for the provision of gastroenterology services including but not limited to: clinic coverage, consultation, on-call coverage, training and medical procedures at CCRMC for the period from May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-800-2 will allow Contractor to continue providing gastroenterology services through April 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring gastroenterology services at CCRMC will not have access to Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-800-2 with John Roark, M.D. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1218 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1219 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-204-8 with Comprehensive Psychiatric Services, A Medical Group, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $220,000, to provide psychiatry services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-204-7 with Comprehensive Psychiatric Services, A Medical Group for the provision of psychiatry services, for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-204-8 will allow Contractor to continue providing psychiatry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, through May 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilheln C. 86 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-204-8 with Comprehensive Psychiatric Services, A Medical Group May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1220 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1221 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-304-8 with Daniel L. Zimmerman, M.D., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $975,000, to provide OB/GYN services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 6, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-304-7, with Daniel L. Zimmerman, M.D., for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016 for the provision of OB/GYN services. Approval of Contract #27-304-8 will allow Contractor to continue providing OB/GYN services to CCHP members, through May 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 89 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-304-8 with Daniel L. Zimmerman, M.D. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1222 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1223 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-599-13 with Paladin Managed Care Services, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $400,000, to provide claims processing and negotiation services for the Contra Costa Health Plan for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a contingency fee contract. Contractor receives a percentage of the savings received from their actions. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 8, 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-599-12 with Paladin Managed Care Services, for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016 for the provision of claims processing services and negotiation services for the Contra Costa Health Plan including: acting as billing agent to negotiate discounted rates, reviewing the documentation of medical claims, and electronically transmitting claims from out-of-network medical providers. Approval of Contract #27-599-13 will allow Contractor to continue providing services through May 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 84 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-599-13 with Paladin Managed Care Services, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1224 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan will not have access to Contractor’s negotiation, claims processing and price factoring services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1225 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-872-3 with Appian Imaging, LLC (dba Northbay MRI Center), a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $500,000, to provide diagnostic imaging services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% by Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 8, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-872-2 with Appian Imaging, LLC (dba Northbay MRI Center) for the provision of diagnostic imaging services, for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-872-3 will allow Contractor to continue providing diagnostic imaging services, to Contra Costa Health Plan members, through May 31, 2018. 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 85 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-872-3 with Appian Imaging, LLC (dba Northbay MRI Center) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1226 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NOT APPLICABLE May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1227 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-876-2 with S. Ming Chang, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $225,000, to provide pediatric primary care services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In July 2014, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Manager executed Contract #27-876-1 with S. Ming Chang, M.D., for the provision of pediatric primary care services, for the period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-876-2 will allow Contractor to continue providing pediatric primary care services to CCHP members, through May 31, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 88 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-876-2 with S. Ming Chang, M.D. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1228 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1229 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with E-3 Systems, to extend the term expiration from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2017 and increase the payment limit by $1,500,000 to a new payment limit of $3,250,000 to continue to provide, on an as-needed basis, installation and maintenance of telecommunications cabling. FISCAL IMPACT: $1,500,000 increase. The costs incurred by the Department of Information Technology for services rendered by this contractor are reimbursed by departments or agencies receiving the services. BACKGROUND: This contractor provides installation and maintenance of telecommunications cabling on an as-needed basis. These services are outside the scope of the normal duties of the Department of Information Technology requiring the retention of a specialized services contractor. E-3 Systems was selected in DoIT's 2012 RFP bid #1208-003. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request is not approved, Information Technology may be unable to maintain the countywide telecommunications network should an issue emerge requiring maintenance or installation of telecommunication cabling. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.105 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:E3 Systems Professional Services Contract Amendment/Extension May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1230 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with First Carbon Solutions, to increase the payment limit by $24,200 to a new payment limit of $333,039 for services required to complete the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tassajara Parks Project in the Tassajara Valley, San Ramon area, with no change to the original term of September 10, 2014 through September 9, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the additional services. BACKGROUND: The Department of Conservation and Development contracted with First Carbon Solutions in September of 2014 to prepare an EIR for the Tassajara Parks project. The project involves 125 homes and substantial dedication of park land in the Tassajara Valley / San Ramon area. The project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Plan applications. First Carbon Solutions has been working on the EIR and has identified additional analysis necessary to complete the EIR. The additional scope of work includes new analysis of a potential recycled water pipeline and changes to the traffic section that are needed to complete the EIR. There is no change to the term of the contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not approve the contract amendment the Consultant will not be able to complete the additional analysis and the Draft and Final EIR. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Oborne, (925) 674-7793 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:EIR Contract Amendment for Tassajara Parks / Contract C49471 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1231 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1232 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa ARC (dba Commercial Support Services), a California nonprofit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $350,000 to provide packet fulfillment services for Print and Mail Services, for the period June 1, 2016 through May 31, 2018, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Department user fees. BACKGROUND: Commercial Support Services (CSS) provides employment opportunities to developmentally disabled adults. For serveral years the Print and Mail Services Division has contracted with CSS to fill the low-skill need of assembling informational packets (i.e. packet fulfillment services) for use by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) as well as other County departments. Due to their involvement with and support of Covered California, the volume of work generated APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Michelle Parella 925-313-2249 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 97 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Execute a contract with Contra Costa ARC to provide packet fulfullment services. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1233 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) by EHSD has remained high. The number of crew members required to meet the need varies from seven to ten crew members with two supervisors. Approval of this Contract will allow CSS to continue to provide packet fulfillment services through May 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Contract is not approved, sublet packet fulfillment services will not be performed. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1234 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and Authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order amendment with Food Service Partners, Inc. to add $300,000 for a new total of $574,003 to purchase meals for patients and staff at the Contra Cost Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) while the cafeteria and kitchen are being renovated. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprises Fund I Budget for the meals provided to patients and the costs for meals for staff will be paid by staff out of pocket. BACKGROUND: Due to the closure of the kitchen for renovations, the CCRMC does not have the ability to prepare meals for patients, staff, and patrons. During this closure the CCRMC has partnered with Food Service Partners, Inc., to provide this essential service. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order amendment is not approved, the CCRMC will not be able to meet the nutritional needs of our patients and staff. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Margaret Harris C.110 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Food Service Partners, Inc. Purchase Order Amendment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1235 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #74-402-5 with Aspiranet, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $176,130, to provide Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $88,065. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 50% Federal Financial Participation (FFP) and 50% County Realignment. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On November 3, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-402-4 with Aspiranet to provide therapeutic behavioral services (TBS) to County referred clients that have been placed in group homes in Stanislaus County and to Clients residing in Contra Costa County at facilities throughout the County, for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-402-5 with Aspiranet May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1236 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #74-402-5 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows the Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, clients requiring TBS services will not have access to Contractor’s services, which may result in a reduction in the levels or service to the community. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1237 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Contract #74-452-4 with La Clinica de la Raza, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $412,000, to provide mental health services for Seriously Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Contract includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $206,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 50% Mental Health Realignment and 50% Federal Financial Participation. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing community-based mental health services focusing on minority, SED, children which will result in greater home, community and school success. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 91 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-452-4 with La Clinica de la Raza, Inc. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1238 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On October 20, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-452-3 with La Clinica de la Raza, Inc., for the period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016, for the provision of community-based mental health services including case management and crisis intervention services focused on minority, SED, children in East Contra Costa County. Approval of Contract #74-452-4 replaces the automatic extension in the prior Contract and allows Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer mental health services available for minority SED children in East Contra Costa County as the County solicits and engages an alternative contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This EPSDT 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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1239 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Novation Interagency Agreement #74–191–12 with West Contra Costa Unified School District, a government agency, in an amount not to exceed $578,710, to provide wraparound services to Severely Emotionally Disturbed (SED) children for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. This Interagency Agreement includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2017, in an amount not to exceed $286,855. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement is funded 49% Federal Financial Participation, 50% Mental Health Realignment and 1% West Contra Costa Unified School District. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia Belon, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C. 92 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Interagency Agreement #74–191–12 with West Contra Costa Unified School District May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1240 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This Agreement meets the social needs of County’s population by providing child-family team facilitators and other wraparound services to families of children with serious emotional and behavioral disturbances; facilitates multi-agency collaborative service delivery; and minimizes the need for crisis services and involvement with the Juvenile Justice System. On November 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-191-11 with West Contra Costa Unified School District for the provision of wraparound services to SED children at for the period from September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2016. Approval of Novation Interagency Agreement #74-191-12 replaces the automatic extension in the prior Agreement and allows Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Agreement is not approved, there will be fewer wraparound services available to families of children with serious emotional and behavioral disturbances in West Contra Costa County, which may result in the need for crisis services and involvement with the juvenile justice system. 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). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1241 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Workforce Development Board to execute a contract with the Oakland Private Industry Council, including modified indemnification language, in the amount not to exceed $704,494, for training vendor contracting and pay agent services, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $704,494: 100% Federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act funds (CFDA #17.258, #17.259, #17.260). BACKGROUND: In May 2013, the EASTBAY Works Consortium, of which the Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa (WDB) is a member, selected Oakland Private Industry Council (OPIC), a member organization, as a result of an Alameda County Request for Proposal (RFP) to serve as procurement and pay agent for training vendors on behalf of all EASTBAY Works partner agencies. In this capacity, OPIC is responsible for contracting with and paying training vendors who provide Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) related jobs and skills training to clients served by WDB. A APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Oakland Private Industry Council May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1242 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) core component of these services is the availability of occupational training which allows the WDB, its One-Stop Career Centers, and its youth providers to continue regular WIOA training services to job seeking clients. OPIC has historically met or exceeded its contracted goals. Their past performance was evaluated as part of their response to the RFP that led to awarding this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Dislocated workers and job seekers in Contra Costa county will have less opportunities to receive on-the-job-training. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Outcome Report: 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 assisting with training and employment services. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1243 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with Olympus America Inc. in the amount of $700,000 for the purchase of a service agreement to cover the cost of repairs, parts and maintenance on all gastrointestinal scopes at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and the Contra Costa Health Centers (CCHC) for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: The CCRMC and the CCHC have gastrointestinal scopes that need to be repaired, maintained and serviced to avoid the cost of replacing the scopes. Without this service, the County would be responsible for replacing the scopes as they break. Using Olympus America, Inc. has and will cut the cost of having to replace these scopes, and ensure the ones we have are running at a safe and accurate capacity. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, the CCRMC and the CCHC will be unable to provide the safest, most reliable care to patients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Crystal Grayson C.113 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Olympus America, Inc. Blanket Purchase Order May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1244 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Children are increasingly becoming a larger percentage of the patient population served by the Contra Costa Health Clinics. These scopes are necessary to provide medical care. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1245 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract extension with Buck Consultants, LLC, effective July 1, 2016, to extend the contract term from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2018 with no change in the contract payment limit of $200,000, to provide pension planning consulting. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this contract will be paid out of the cost center for employee pensions and benefits. BACKGROUND: In 2009, the County contracted with Buck for pension plan consulting in an effort to mitigate increasing retirement costs. Buck was tasked with analyzing the current pension plan structure and developing alternative benefit formulas that might provide the County long-term savings. Additionally, they were asked to develop recommendations to assist the County in managing and mitigating its short-term and long-term retirement costs. Buck is an expert in Pension Liability Management, and this contract extension will allow the County to continue working with Buck to address rising pension costs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have the actuarial expertise to develop alternative benefit formulas. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Ann Elliott, Employee Benefits Manager C.103 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Pension Plan Consulting Contract Extension May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1246 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, 2016 through May 31, 2017. 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: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C.108 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Hammons Supply Company May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1247 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order with Spike's Produce in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide fresh produce and related items as needed in the three County adult detention facilities for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $500,000 maximum. 100% County General Fund; Budgeted FY 16/17. BACKGROUND: Spike's Produce is a locally owned and operated small business that provides low-cost produce to all three adult detention facilities. These deliveries occur in the early morning, making it essential to have a low-cost, local solution. Other vendors could not meet the daily delivery service requirements necessary while maintaining low prices and high quality of fresh produce. This blanket purchase order will ensure timely delivery of essential food products for meals served at adult detention facilities. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Sheriff's Office will not have an active purchase order to acquire food products necessary for meals at the County's adult detention facilities. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C.111 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Spike's Produce May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1248 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1249 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to (1) execute a purchase order in an amount not to exceed $342,747 to Carousel Industries of North America, Inc. for the purchase of Avaya switching system support for the period August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018, and (2) execute a Channel Service Agreement with Avaya, Inc., including modified indemnification language, for switching system support for the period August 1, 2015 through July 31, 2018. (10% County; 45% State; $45% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $342,747: 100% Administrative Overhead (10% County; 45% State; $45% Federal) BACKGROUND: Avaya, Inc. will provide maintenance of the Ayaya switching telephone system used by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). Carousel Industries of North America, Inc. is the authorized third party reseller of the Avaya support services. Avaya will support all the EHSD call centers, including but not limited to the Medi-Cal Service Center, Health Care Access APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.104 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order and Channel Service Agreement for Switching System Maintenance May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1250 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Center, and Medi-Cal Mail-In Unit. It also serves as the main hub for all phone traffic into EHSD and will insure staff are meeting customer service goals. This system ties into the Call Management System that manages call queues and interfaces to the CalWIN Consortia. Given the complexity of the overall voice system, EHSD has identified the need to have one central contract for support. Prior to 2015, the Avaya switching system processed calls for multiple departments within the County. This created limitations on EHSD as well as reliability issues on the switch system. At the end of 2015, Health Services retired their Avaya switch system, and EHSD was able to obtain its equipment so that EHSD could operate separately from other departments within the County. When maintenance came due in August 2015, invoice payment and remittance became delayed as a result of the switching system responsibility being transferred through departments. As a result of a negotiated solution with Avaya, EHSD avolds incurring termination charges and reinstatement fees in excess of one year's annual maintenance. In exchange, EHSD will enter into a three-year maintenance agreement with a right to terminate services on each July 31 anniversary date by providing 30 days advance notice. The County is obligated to indemnify Avaya for losses arising out of Avaya accessing personal data on the EHSD system at County's request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to maintain a telephone system. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1251 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent or designee, to execute, on behalf of Chief Information Officer, a purchase order with AT&T Datacomm in an amount not to exceed $115,000 for the acquisition of Cisco equipment, in support of a hosted communication system for Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector's Office, located at 625 Court Street in Martinez. FISCAL IMPACT: $115,000; The cost is budgeted under capital project work authorization #WH265T BACKGROUND: The Department of Information Technology's Telecommunication Division is in the process of moving to a Cloud Hosted Internet Protocol Communication system, allowing for greater flexibility, disaster recovery, and enhanced use of unified communications. This will provide for a more reliable office telephone service. 625 Court St. in Martinez is undergoing a complete building renovation and restructure of existing data cabling and network equipment. Before the renovation project, all equipment was located in the attic with access via the men’s restroom. As the attic area offers no environmental control, no means of securing equipment, and poses a safety risk to DoIT’s technical staff, the renovation project included the construction of a new data room. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 82 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with AT&T for Cisco Equipment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1252 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No 611.0, County Departments are required to obtain Board approval for single item purchases over $100,000. The County Administrator’s Office has reviewed this request and recommends approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current County telephone system is 100% installed locally within the County buildings, which does not allow for recovery in case of a local building disaster incident. Callers would receive an error tone because the telephone system will be offline during such incident. With a cloud hosted telephone service, we will be able to maintain in- and out-bound calling during local and regional disasters. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1253 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Purchase Order with R-Computer, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $1,440,000 for the purchase of Hewlett Packard personal computer systems, mobile devices, printers, and computer hardware accessories for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: This funding provides for replacement of aging desktop and laptop computer systems and the purchase of computer peripherals including printers, scanners, and mobile devices. This computer equipment is an essential part of providing computer technology for all Health Services Departments including the hospital, clinics, Mental Health, ER Registration, CCHP Authorization Unit, Public Health, Environmental Health, Medical Records, HS Information Technology, and Finance and Administration buildings. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: David Runt, 313-6228 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm, David Runt C.102 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:R-Computer, LLC Purchase Order May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1254 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, Health Services will have many computers that are outdated and no longer supported by Microsoft, posing network security vulnerability. In addition, outdated systems won’t get the necessary upgrades to run the ccLink Electronic Health Record (EHR). CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1255 RECOMMENDATION(S): Accept the Canvass of Votes for the May 3, 2016 Special Election, showing that the measure for Police Services in County Service Area P6, Zone 1515, Supervisorial Districts 2 & 4 unincorporated area of Walnut Creek. Total Landowners Votes YES NO 1 10 10 0 FISCAL IMPACT: The special tax on said property located in Zone 1515 of said County Service Area is to maintain the present level of police protection service and provide additional funding for increased police protection services. BACKGROUND: The attached Certificate of the County Clerk provides the results of the May 3, 2016 Special Election for County Service Area P6 Zone 1515, Subdivision 9167, where in each landowner of the affected area was allowed one vote for each acre or portion thereof on Resolution 2016/95 so as to authorize a special tax on said property located in Zone 1515 of said County Service Area, to maintain the present level of police protection service and provide additional funding for increased police protection services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rosa Mena, 925.335.7806 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Jennifer Cruz C.129 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT CANVASS OF VOTES FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA P6, ZONE 1515 WALNUT CREEK AREA May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1256 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not accept the Canvass of Votes, Zone 1515 will not be formed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Election Certificate May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1257 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1258 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1259 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, to seek reimbursement from California Department of Education, in an amount not to exceed $2,000, to maintain Child Days of Enrollment during a one day emergency closure at a childcare partner site on February 10, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this board order will allow the County to maintain Child Days of Enrollment for the 2015-16 fiscal year. This will preserve revenue of $2,000 for fiscal year 2015-16 from California Department of Education. BACKGROUND: During fiscal year 2015-16, one of the Department's childcare partner (Contractor) agencies had an emergency closure due to a broken water pipe. The one-day emergency closure occurred at We Care Services for Children and was due to circumstances beyond their control. On February 10, 206, a water pipe break occurred which required the water to be shut off for repairs; APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: Jagjit Bhambra, Ressie Dayco, Cassandra Youngblood C.133 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Acknowledgement of emergency closure of childcare sites during 2015-16 fiscal year May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1260 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the center was closed for health and safety provisions. The average impacted attendance for this date, for the 4 classrooms, is 56 children, based on the week attendance average for February 1-5, 2016. In order to prevent a loss of funds during this period, the County has the option to submit a board order to the State in order to maintain childcare fund reimbursement for the impacted days of closure. This is allowable as per California Department of Education, Child Development Management Bulletin 10-09 "Reduced Days of Operation or Attendance Due to Emergency Conditions". CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will lose $2,500 in potential revenue. 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 Management Bulletin May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1261 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1262 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1263 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute contract amendments with the Town of Danville and the cities of Lafayette and Orinda requiring each city to maintain and insure patrol vehicles owned by that city, effective May 1, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Zero net County Costs. BACKGROUND: The Town of Danville and City of Lafayette began law enforcement service contracts with the County on July 1, 1983 and effective July 1, 1986 so did the City of Orinda. These contracts have original language in which the County was to provide fully equipped vehicles, insurance, fuel, maintenance and safety equipment required for services rendered under the contracts. The Town of Danville and Cities of Lafayette and Orinda have elected to purchase and maintain their own vehicles. The County no longer provides any of these purchases or services. However, County will still continue to provide liability insurance for Deputies. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County is at risk of being liable for the vehicles unless the language is removed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.132 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendments to Law Enforcement Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1264 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1265 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Contract #22-610-7 for Unpaid Student Training with Sonoma State University, to provide supervised field instruction to nursing students in the County’s Public Health Division for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: None, this is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide Sonoma State University nursing students 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. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C.137 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Contract #22-610-7 for Unpaid Student Training with Sonoma State University May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1266 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 11, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #22-610-6 with Sonoma State University for the provision of supervised fieldwork instruction experience with Health Services, for the period from March 1, 2014 through June 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #22-610-7 for Unpaid Student Training will allow Sonoma State University students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience in the County’s Public Health Division through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience in the County’s Public Health Division. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1267 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner or designee, to expend $2,160 for costs associated with employee Kristi Butterfield's attendance at the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy from July 11, 2016 through September 16, 2016. This expense is to be differentiated from an advance on funds or reimbursement. Summary of Expenses: Academy Uniforms - $550.00 Student Assessment - $250.00 Miscellaneous Expenses ($20/day x 68 days) - $1,360.00 FISCAL IMPACT: 100% County General Fund, Budgeted. The total cost to the County for this continuing education program will be borne by the Sheriff's Office operational budget. BACKGROUND: The Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy is a prestigious continuing education program recognized internationally for law enforcement personnel. The training program is a comprehensive and balanced 10-week program of advanced professional instruction. Throughout this training, particular emphasis is placed on leadership development. Personnel from the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner attend the National Academy at the personal invitation of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. All major costs, including transportation, are funded by the Bureau. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.135 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve costs associated with attendance at the FBI Academy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1268 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action could suppress the ability of our county to continue preparing our local law enforcement officials for the unique leadership challenges which we are certain to face in the future. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1269 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director on April 29, 2016, and by the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) has requested evidence of Board of Supervisors approval for each CCHP provider be contained within the provider’s credentials file. The recommendations were made by CCHP’s Medical Director. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s Providers would not be appropriately credentialed and out of compliance with the NCQA. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Ronda Arends C.138 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Network May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1270 ATTACHMENTS Provider list May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1271 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director April 29, 2016 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS APRIL 2016 Name Specialty Barnes, Katie, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Briseno, Daisy, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Carter, Brazell, M.D. Primary Care Internal Medicine Drabinsky, Allan, M.D. Urgent Care Hanson, Robbie, BCBA Behavior Analysis Jaber, Aileen, M.D. Urgent Care Jacobson, Kendra, PA Urgent Care Kellogg, Laura, BCBA Behavior Analysis Loeffler, Karen, MA Behavior Analysis Merchant, Kanwal, M.D. Primary Care Pediatrician Meza, Angelica, PA Primary Care Internal Medicine Moon, Natasha, BCBA Behavior Analysis Navolanic, Peter, M.D. Primary Care Family Medicine Ogawa, Mimi, M.D. Primary Care Family Medicine Panza-Clark, Alicia, BCBA Behavior Analysis Raumer, Sheila, M.D. Primary Care Family Medicine Rohrig, Scott, BCBA Behavior Analysis Rossow, Gina, MS Behavior Analysis Rutsch, Victoria, MFT Mental Health Services Sagli, Stacy, MS Behavior Analysis Schuman, Emily, BCBA Behavior Analysis Shikora, Stuart, M.D. Urgent Care Snowden, Lysa, BCBA Behavior Analysis Tanner, Catherine, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Tran, Nina, OD Optometry Veale, Megan, PA Primary Care Internal Medicine Zeitlin, Carol, MFT Mental Health Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1272 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director April 29, 2016 Page 2 of 3 CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER APRIL 2016 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location AccentCare Home Health of California, Inc. Home Health San Ramon RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS APRIL 2016 Name Specialty Chew, Phillip, PA Primary Care Internal Medicine Colladay, Jonathan, MFT Mental Health Services Daniels, Stewart, M.D. Ophthalmology Elliott, Robert, M.D. Primary Care Pediatrician Forster, Hollis, NP Mid-Level Family Planning Graham, Karen, M.D. Ophthalmology Grosserode, Robert, M.D. Ophthalmology Harrison, Steven, M.D. Ophthalmology Johnson, Matthew, D.O. Pain Management Kindy, Nadine, M.D. Ophthalmology Mikesell, Beth, MFT Mental Health Services Moulton-Barrett, Rex, M.D. Surgery – Plastic and Reconstructive Otolaryngology Nachtwey, Frederick, M.D. Pulmonary Disease Nadoolman, Wolffe, M.D. Primary Care Pediatrician Peymani, Parissa, DC Chiropractic Medicine Rixen, Daniel, DC Chiropractic Medicine Wong, Jason, DC Chiropractic Medicine Zheng, Wei, M.D. Urology May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1273 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director April 29, 2016 Page 3 of 3 RECREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDER APRIL 2016 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Willow Pass Health Care Center, Inc dba Willow Pass Health Care Center Skilled Nursing Facility Concord Bopl-April 29, 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1274 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Animal Services Department, or designee, to conduct an biennial License Amnesty event to allow residents without valid dog licenses to comply with state law without facing any back penalties or late fees. (Undetermined fiscal impact) FISCAL IMPACT: Undetermined - The Department may potentially lose revenue by forgiving late fees and penalties; however there may be additional expense in trying to collect these monies. Forgiving the late fee and penalties may encourage dog owners to license their pet, and pay the fee. The net fiscal impact is undetermined. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Department of Animal Services requires all dogs over four months of age to be licensed. A rabies vaccination is also required before a pet can be licensed (Ordinance #80-97, Section 416-6.002). A license is not valid until a current rabies certificate is submitted. A current dog license indicates that a dog has been properly vaccinated against rabies. Rabies is a serious public APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kathy O'Connell 335-8370 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.141 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Animal Services Dept Dog License Amnesty Event May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1275 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) health issue and licensing helps Contra Costa County monitor compliance with rabies vaccination laws. A current license allows an Animal Services Officer to know that a pet has an owner and expedites their return home. The license informs an Officer on who to contact when an animal is lost. Dogs with current license tags that are impounded at the Contra Costa County Animal Shelters are held for five days. Additionally, unaltered dogs will be altered by the Animal Services Department. Revenue from licensing pays for emergency medical care of animals hit by cars, investigation of animal abuse and cruelty and the rabies control program. During the License Amnesty events, Contra Costa County Animal Services staff will be educating pet owners on the importance of licensing their dogs. Animal Services staff will be continuously educating dog owners on why they must comply with our County ordinance (Ordinance #80-97, Section 416-6.002) and avoid costly back-licensing fees, and late fees, when their license is expired. When the amnesty period ends, Contra Costa Animal Services Officers will continue enforcing state, county and city requirements of animal ownership. The state requires all dogs to be licensed and vaccinated for rabies. Animal Services Officers will also be reminding pet owners of the benefit to also microchip their dogs when engaging with members of the public. Microchips provide another resource for Officers to identify where a pet lives and their owners contact information. Taking advantage of the amnesty period can save pet owners a fair amount of money and also allow us to better serve our community and return lost pets to their homes. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Many dogs in Contra Costa County may remain unlicensed and at risk of contracting and transmitting rabies. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1276 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. AUTHORIZE a General Plan Amendment (GPA) study to consider amending Land Use Element Policy 3-98 concerning the three-acre area designated "Business Park" within the vacant County-owned property located between Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive (within Buchanan Field Airport), Assessor Parcel No.125-010-023, to increase the development limit from 18,500 square feet to 52,300 square feet. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that granting the authorization does not imply any sort of endorsement for the request to amend the General Plan, but only that the matter is appropriate for study. FISCAL IMPACT: If authorization is granted, the Public Works Department will expend Airport Enterprise Funds to reimburse the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) for staff time and materials costs associated with processing the GPA study. BACKGROUND: DCD is in receipt of a memo from Beth Lee, Assistant Director of Airports, requesting a GPA study involving the vacant County-owned property located at the south intersection of Marsh Drive and Sally Ride Drive at Buchanan Field Airport (see Attachment A). The subject parcel is designated Business Park (BP) and Public and Semi-Public (PS) on the Land Use Element Map, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020), and zoned Unrestricted (U) District. Attached for the Board's consideration under Attachment B are a map and aerial photos of the site and its surroundings, showing the land use designations. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Will Nelson, (925) 674-7791 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.127 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Buchanan Field Airport General Plan Amendment Study Request May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1277 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > Ms. Lee's memo explains that when Policy 3-98 was adopted in 2008, several large development projects were planned at Buchanan Field. A development limit of 18,500 square feet was imposed upon the BP-designated parcel in order to address concerns regarding cumulative peak-hour trip generation. However, as a result of the recession, none of the planned projects were implemented. The County has now been approached by an applicant seeking to develop up to 52,300 square feet of industrial/business park uses on the BP parcel, thus necessitating an increase in the allowable square footage. Staff supports the request for a GPA study. The 18,500-square-foot limit for the subject parcel is an artificial limitation designed to address cumulative trip generation from projects that never materialized. This limitation yields an allowable floor area ratio (FAR) [See Note 1] of approximately 14 percent, where the normal FAR for land designated BP is 150 percent. The proposed project has an FAR of 40 percent, which is still well within the normal limitation for the BP designation. The project would be subject to all of the normal regulations relating to development at Buchanan Field. [Note 1:] Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of developed or developable square footage relative to the size of the parcel. For example, an FAR of 50 percent or 0.5 percent means that the property can have a developed square footage equal to half the size of the property. Thus, a 10,000-square-foot property with an FAR of 0.5 could be developed with up to 5,000 square feet. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board does not authorize the GPA study, then the development limit for the subject property will remain at 18,500 square feet and the proposed commercial/light industrial development cannot move forward. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - General Plan Amendment Study Attachment B - General Plan Land Use Map and Aerial Photo May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1278 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1279 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1280 PS MO PS LI BP Marsh DrSahara Dr Mobile Dr Faran DrCar o b W a y A r i a Dr Algiers CirSinai Dr Khartoum StTanbor WayKaimu St Cairo DrDamascus DrAlgiers Way Kuwait W a y Medi n a D r S u d a n L o o p Selima Wa y T unis Pl Mecca DrHieber DrElminya Dr Safari Way Dakar Dr Amate Wa y D a m a s c u s LoopBiskra WayBarika CtH i e b e r D r Map Created 5/12/2016by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0300600150Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment 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. SITE Legend Project Site Parcels General Plan Land Use Designation MO (Mobile Home) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) PS (Public/Semi-Public) Buchanan Field Airport, Concord AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP16-0002) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1281 Marsh DrSahara Dr Mobile Dr Faran DrCar o b W a y A r i a DrSinai Dr Algiers CirKhartoum StTanbor WayKaimu St Cairo DrDamascus DrAlgiers Way Kuwait W a y Medi n a D r S u d a n L o o p Selima Wa y T unis Pl Mecca DrHieber DrElminya Dr Safari Way Dakar Dr Amate Wa y D a m a s c u s LoopBiskra WayBarika CtH i e b e r D r Map Created 5/12/2016by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI0300600150Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment 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. Buchanan Field Airport, Concord AreaGeneral Plan Amendment Study (GP16-0002) SITE May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1282 RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the attached County Subvention Program Certificates of Compliance for the County Subvention and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance Programs as administered by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA). FISCAL IMPACT: The submission of these documents to CDVA allows the County to receive Subvention and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance revenue for the 2016-2017 fiscal year, decreasing dependence on the County General Fund. It is anticipated that approximately $192,434 will be received, which is estimated to be $187,096 for Subvention and $5,338 for Medi-Cal. BACKGROUND: CDVA administers the above two revenue programs per California Code of Regulations, Title 12, Subchapter 4. CDVA conducts annual audits of these program operations to determine whether the workload and staffing needs are consistent with the reported workload activity. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.134 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Certificate of Compliance and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance Program Agreement May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1283 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) For FY 2013/2014, the County received $87,539 in Subvention and $7,378 in Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance and in 2014/2015, $94,070 and $5,338 was received, respectively, per the Military and Veterans Code of California, sections 972, 972.1 and 972.5. It is anticipated that FY 2015/2016 revenue will be consistent with revenue received in prior years (excluding the "one Time Special Subvention" of $85,793, which effective November of 2015 was authorized as ongoing funding). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not be able to receive Subvention and Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance revenue. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Certificate of Compliance Medi-Cal 16-17 Certificate of Compliance Subvention 16-17 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS signed: Medi-Cal Cert of Compl - signed signed: Subvention Cert of Compl May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1284 Rev 5/11/2016 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDI-CAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MEDI-CAL COST AVOIDANCE PROGRAM I certify that Contra Costa County has appointed a County Veterans Service Officer (CVSO) in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 12, Subchapter 4. Please consider this as our application to participate in the Medi-Cal Cost Avoidance Program authorized by Military and Veterans Code Section 972.5. I understand and will comply with the following: 1. All activities of the CVSO for which payment is made by the CDVA under this agreement will reasonably benefit the Department of Health Services (DHS) or realize cost avoidance to the Medi-Cal program. All County Eligibility Workers who generate a Form CW-5 (Veterans Benefits Referral) will be instructed to indicate the applicant’s Welfare Aid Code on the face of the form. 2. All monies received under this agreement will be allocated to and spent on the salaries and expenses of the CVSO. 3. This agreement is binding only if federal funds are available to the CDVA from the DHS. 4. The CVSO is responsible for administering this program according to the California Code of Regulations, Title 12, Subchapter 4. ____________________________ ____________________ Chair, County Board of Supervisors Date (or other County Official authorized by the Board to act on their behalf) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1285 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1286 Rev 5/11/2016 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SUBVENTION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNTY SUBVENTION PROGRAM Charge: Contribution to counties toward compensation and expenses of their County Veterans Service Office according to Military and Veterans Code Sections 972, and 972.1, a State General Funds Expenditure, and 972.2, a Special Fund Expenditure. County Certification: I certify that Contra Costa County has appointed a veteran to serve as the County Veterans Service Officer according to California Code of Regulations Title 12, Subchapter 4. This County Veterans Service Officer will administer the aid provided for in Military and Veterans Code Division 4, Chapter 5. I further certify that the County Veteran Service Officer will assist every veteran of the United States, as well as their dependents and survivors, in presenting and pursuing such claim as they may have against the United States. The County Veterans Service Officer and all accredited staff will also assist in establishing veterans, dependents and survivors’ rights to any privilege, preference, care or compensation provided for by the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, or any local jurisdiction. I also agree that this county, through the County Veterans Service Office, will maintain annual records for audit. These records will be maintained until the final allocation of funds for the subject fiscal year is issued by the CDVA. We will also submit reports in accordance with the procedures and timelines established by CDVA. The County Veterans Service Officer will permit CDVA representatives to inspect all facilities and records. I further authorize the County Veterans Service Officer to actively participate in the promotion of the California Veterans License Plate program. ____________________________ ____________________ Chair, County Board of Supervisors Date (or other County Official authorized by the Board to act on their behalf) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1287 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1288 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1605, entitled "Caring for the Victims: Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Contra Costa County" (attached), and FORWARD to the County Administrator for response. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On May 10, 2016 the 2015/16 Civil Grand Jury filed the above referenced attached report. Per standard procedures, this action alerts the Board of Supervisors that the report has been received and directs appropriate staff to review the report, provide the Board of Supervisors with an appropriate response, and forward that response to the Superior Court no later than August 4, 2016 (90 days). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: No immediate consequence. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C.142 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1605, "Caring for the Victims: Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Contra Costa County" May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1289 ATTACHMENTS Grand Jury Report No. 1605, "Caring for the Victims: Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Contra Costa County" May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1290 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1291 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1292 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1293 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1294 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1295 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1296 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1297 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1298 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1299 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1300 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1301 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1302 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1303 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1304 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999 regarding the issue of homelessness in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 8630 required that, for a body that meets weekly, the need to continue the emergency declaration be reviewed at least every 14 days until the local emergency is terminated. In no event is the review to take place more than 21 days after the previous review. On November 16, 1999, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 8630 on homelessness in Contra Costa County. With the continuing high number of homeless individuals and insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, it is appropriate for APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.126 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1305 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1306 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of board action which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 2015, (C.38) with Pittsburg Unified School District, a government agency, to reflect the intent of the parties in which to change the term from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2020 to read September 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020, to provide Teenage Pregnancy Project services to students with no change in the payment limit of $125,000. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement is funded 100% United States Department of Health and Human Services Teenage Pregnancy Project (TPP) Grant. (No rate increase) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: D Morgan, M Wilhelm C.128 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct November 10, 2015 Board Order Item #C.38 with Pittsburg Unified School District May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1307 BACKGROUND: On November 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-020-3 with Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD), to allow the Agency to implement TPP within the PUSD for the period from September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2015. The purpose of this Board Order is to correct the term to align the Teenage Pregnancy Project grant and the Pittsburg Unified School District Contract 72-020-3, to reflect the intent of the Department, to provide services through June 30, 2020. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, students will not receive services from this Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This TPP program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: “Children Ready For and Succeeding in School”; “Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Healthy Adulthood”; and “Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families”. Expected program outcomes include a decrease in the number of teenage pregnancies in East Contra Costa County. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1308 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: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Daniel Lesnick (925) 313-2376 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.130 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Disposal of Surplus Property May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1309 ATTACHMENTS Surplus Vehicles and Equipment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1310 ATTACHMENT TO BOARD ORDER MAY 24, 2016 Department Description/Unit/Make/Model Serial No. Condition A. Obsolete B. Worn Out C. Beyond economical repair D. Damaged beyond repair PROBATION 1999 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #0553 (88127 MILES) 1FAFP52U7XG148687 B. WORN OUT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 2011 TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID #1235 (108419 MILES) 4T1BB3EK8BU140285 B. WORN OUT PROBATION 1998 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #0522 (84058 MILES) 1FAFP52U1WG154550 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 1999 FORD TAURUS SEDAN. #0575 (80923 MILES) 1FAFP52U6XG253737 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2008 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #1008 (122111 MILES) 1FAHP24WX8G166348 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1947 (13147 MILES) 2FAFP71W37X132589 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1951 (12899 MILES) 2FAFP71WX7X132590 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1950 (11235 MILES) 2FAFP71W37X132592 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2011 FORD CROWN VIC. #2052 (116735 MILES) 2FABP7BV6BX152364 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1946 (11676 MILES) 2FAFP71W17X132591 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2007 FORD CROWN VIC. #1948 (12339 MILES) 2FAFP71W97X132595 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 2006 FORD EXPLORER SUV #3681 (79477 MILES) 1FMEU72E36UB54730 B. WORN OUT SHERIFF 1999 FORD TAURUS SEDAN #0592 (77887 MILES) 1FAFP52U3XG253744 B. WORN OUT PUBLIC WORKS 1999 MODULAR STRUCTURE # XCE9940 S99-2758 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR PUBLIC WORKS 2000 MODULAR STRUCTURE # XCF2077 S12-712 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR PUBLIC WORKS 2000 MODULAR STRUCTURE # XCF2076 S12-711 D. DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1311 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the April 2016 update of the operations of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department submits a monthly report to the Contra Costa 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. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.131 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Operations Update of the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1312 ATTACHMENTS CSB Apr 2016 CAO Report CSB Apr 2016 HS Fiscal CSB Apr 2016 EHS Fiscal CSB Apr 2016 CC Partnership Fiscal Report CSB Apr 2016 Credit Card Report CSB Apr 2016 LIHEAP CSB Apr 2016 Menu May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1313 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: April 2016 I. Good News Update/Accomplishments: As CSB prepares for the Comprehensive Services School Readiness (CSSR) Review beginning May 2nd, we have had the pleasure to meet with about 15 Head Start parents who will be interviewed during the review. These parents represent all areas of the County and have children in both Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Their stories of how our program has supported them and their children are compelling and expressive. To hear about the significant impact and positive difference our program has made in the lives of our families in such detail and with such passion reaffirms our appreciation of our dedicated staff who are committed to the meaningful work we do. CSB Managers, Christina Reich and Ericka Ramirez, were asked to present best practices in a videotaped interview regarding the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership conference in San Francisco. CSB was one of only two grantees in Region IX selected to do so and the recording will be used as a learning tool and posted on the national ECKLC (Early Childhood Knowledge and Learning Center) website . CSB completed its triennial Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) administrative review for the 2015-2016 program year March 22, 2016. During the review week, the reviewers toured the central kitchen for cleanliness and organization and visited two centers to observe family style meals. The reviewer was enlightened by what she saw, and complimented the Nutrition staff for offering freshly cooked foods, and using a variety of colors, textures and tastes that meet all USDA meal requirements. The final report and outcome are pending as the reviewer is working on finalizing her report. CSB partnered with the National Charity League volunteers to help fill kindergarten readiness bags with school supplies for Head Start children transitioning to kindergarten. A total of eight volunteers donated their time to fill over 600 kindergarten readiness bags. Supplies included pencils, crayons, rulers, and scissors. Special Guests Linda Kroll, Dean of Mills College Early Education, and Daniel Meier, Professor of Elementary Education at San Francisco State visited George Miller III (GMIII) in Richmond to learn about our teaching and learning approach. Linda and Daniel are writing a book on Inquiry Based Learning in Early Care and Education programs. They are highlighting GMIII as an inspirational program in promoting inquiry based learning. Linda and Daniel attended a staff meeting to analyze the lesson planning and reflection process, and they showed keen interest in the documentation panels commonly used throughout CSB. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1314 2 This year’s Week of the Young Child festivities were celebrated county-wide by local community leaders, CSB managers and Head Start/Early Head Start staff and families. Participants had the opportunity to engage in crazy hair day, pajama day, cultural awareness day, read books to the children, and paint children’s faces. At Balboa center, to conclude the week-long events, children visited residents at the Eskaton Hazel Shirley Manor Independent Living facility where they engaged in various activities and held a musical parade: singing and dancing with the residents in their multipurpose room. Parents shared their excitement about the events that transpired at their centers during April’s Policy Council meeting. Director Camilla Rand and CSB staff joined other ECE leaders in a presentation to the Board of Supervisors CSB Head Start centers continue to collaborate with California State University of the East Bay Nursing Students. They have provided health lessons in our preschool classrooms for the children. The nursing students will offer asthma trainings to selected sites, and do some direct training with the teachers around health issues for children. During March and April, Head Start centers held Family Workdays. These workdays are imperative to our centers because they give families and staff an opportunity to volunteer their time to enhance the centers environments. Among many activities, families provided support with rearranging furniture, building planter boxes, and disinfecting indoor and outdoor equipment. Some centers provided lunch for their families and utilized the remaining time to discuss important topics with their parents, such as Child Abuse Prevention. II. Status Updates: a. Caseloads, workload (all programs) Head Start enrollment: 98.71 % Early Head Start enrollment: 102.57% Early Head Start Child Care Partnership enrollment: 101.39% Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 83.6% Early Head Start Average Daily Attendance: 84% Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Attendance: 97.1% Stage 2: 345 families and 544 children CAPP: 75 families and 109 children In total: 420 families and 653 children Incoming transfers from Stage 1: 74 families and 87 children LIHEAP: 372 households have been assisted Weatherization: 15 units b. Staffing: o CSB continued its efforts to hire permanent and temporary staff to meet the personnel needs for different programs. During the month of April, two Intermediate Level Clerk-Project and one Comprehensive Services May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1315 3 Assistant Manager - Project were hired. Additionally, the Bureau hired temporary clerical and management support in preparation for the upcoming Federal Review. c. Union Issues: o A Step 3 Grievance was held; however, no decision has been reached at this time. o Meet and Confer with PEU Local 1, Lone staff, was held to discuss the temporary summer layoff of the Part-Day/ Part-Year Center Based and Home Based programs, as well as to discuss the mandated vaccination for childcare workers effective September 1, 2016. Full agreement was reached on all presented issues. III. Emerging Issues and Hot Topics: The Economic Opportunity Council (EOC) is very concerned with inadequate funding for services to the homeless, given the loss of First 5 Contra Costa funding and the high cost of doing business. On April 18 they held an emergency meeting to develop a letter to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) asking for them to help. EOC Chair, Ajit Kaushal, presented this letter during the budget discussion at the April 19, 2016 BOS meeting. cc: Policy Council Chair Family & Human Services Committee Maureen Burns-Vermette, ACF May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1316 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 973,811$ 3,874,284$ 2,900,473$ 25% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 589,566 2,680,138 2,090,572 22% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 58,332 294,639 236,307 20% f. CONTRACTUAL 287,554 6,466,986 6,179,432 4% g. CONSTRUCTION - - - 0% h. OTHER 258,238 1,571,708 1,313,470 16% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 2,167,501$ 14,887,755$ 12,720,254$ 15% j. INDIRECT COSTS 154,260 801,975 647,715 19% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 2,321,761$ 15,689,730$ 13,367,969$ 15% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)180,831$ 3,922,433$ 3,741,602$ 5% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1317 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-15 Mar-15 Actual Budget Budget YTD a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 234,558 286,997 289,611 811,166 3,318,309 2,507,143 24% Temporary 1013 52,472 53,378 56,795 162,645 555,975 393,330 29% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)287,030 340,375 346,406 973,811 3,874,284 2,900,473 25% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - - - - Fringe Benefits 168,620 204,702 216,245 589,566 2,680,138 2,090,572 589,566 b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)168,620 204,702 216,245 589,566 2,680,138 2,090,572 589,566 e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- - - 1. Office Supplies 1,374 2,307 2,101 5,782 70,620 64,838 8% 2. Child and Family Services Supplies (Includesclassroom Supplies)782 2,170 3,986 6,938 15,000 8,062 46% Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Computer Replacement - 24,884 - 24,884 170,370 145,486 15% Health/Safety Supplies 355 400 - 755 4,237 3,482 18% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - 2,128 2,128 0% Miscellaneous Supplies - 13,526 1,391 14,917 23,955 9,038 62% Emergency Supplies - 727 2,471 3,199 6,000 2,801 53% Household Supplies - 1,694 163 1,858 2,329 472 80% TOTAL SUPPLIES (6e)2,511 45,709 10,112 58,332 294,639 236,307 20% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)- - 1. Adm Svcs (e.g., Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- 6,705 2,642 9,348 62,182 52,834 15% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - - Estimated Medical Revenue from Medi-Cal (Org 1432 - credit)- - - - (254,816) (254,816) 0% Health Consultant 3,674 1,837 5,740 11,250 44,800 33,550 25% 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 - Interaction - - - - 1,500 1,500 0% Diane Godard ($50,000/2)- - - - 5,700 5,700 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 645 1,650 2,295 9,700 7,405 24% 7. Delegate Agency Costs - First Baptist Church Head Start PA22 - - 172,432 172,432 2,044,356 1,871,924 8% First Baptist Church Head Start PA20 - - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts - FB-Fairgrounds Partnership (Wrap)- 6,093 6,093 12,185 74,823 62,638 16% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 15,300 15,300 30,600 183,600 153,000 17% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - 4,500 4,500 9,000 54,000 45,000 17% Martinez ECC (18 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo)- 9,000 9,000 18,000 108,000 90,000 17% Little Angels Country School - 2,199 2,550 4,749 37,565 32,816 13% YMCA of the East Bay (20 HS slots x $225/mo x 12/mo) - 4,500 4,500 9,000 54,000 45,000 17% Child Outcome Planning and Administration (COPA/Nulinx)- 2,403 - 2,403 19,625 17,222 12% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Program - 2,408 3,883 6,291 4,013,951 4,007,660 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)3,674 55,590 228,290 287,554 6,466,986 6,179,432 4% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 2,855 20,785 31,592 55,233 312,000 256,767 18% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone 8,750 31,589 21,227 61,566 226,670 165,104 27% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - 3,155 - 3,155 3,300 146 96% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 1,263 2,034 254 3,550 65,000 61,450 5% 7. Incidental Alterations/Renovations - - - - - - 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile effective 1/1/2012)88 3,519 736 4,343 43,410 39,067 10% 9. Nutrition Services - Child Nutrition Costs - 40,281 44,685 84,966 493,500 408,534 17% (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- (28,676) - (28,676) (281,660) (252,984) 10% 13. Parent Services - Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - 4,400 4,400 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - 3,100 3,100 0% PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 72 1,556 64 1,692 7,000 5,308 24% Policy Council Activities - 497 - 497 2,900 2,403 17% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - - - 7,100 7,100 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 2,702 2,702 11,500 8,798 23% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - - - - - - Audit - - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - - Auditor Controllers 1,256 - - 1,256 3,600 2,344 35% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 1,690 1,688 3,378 29,500 26,122 11% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - - - - - - Outreach/Printing - - - - 600 600 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)962 - 1,036 1,998 1,100 (898) 182% 16. Training or Staff Development - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC, etc.)175 750 300 1,225 13,500 12,275 9% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 231 2,180 2,411 9,700 7,289 25% 17. Other - - - - 11,098 11,098 0% Site Security Guards - 4,437 697 5,133 44,900 39,767 11% Dental/Medical Services - - - - 500 500 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - 5,101 22,720 27,821 137,000 109,179 20% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 3,125 6,323 128 9,576 57,000 47,424 17% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)839 - 2,518 3,357 10,200 6,843 33% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 5,935 7,120 13,055 354,790 341,735 4% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)19,386 99,206 139,647 258,238 1,571,708 1,313,470 16% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)481,221 745,581 940,700 2,167,501 14,887,755 12,720,254 15% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 55,828 98,432 154,260 801,975 647,715 19% k. TOTALS (ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES)481,221 801,409 1,039,132 2,321,761 15,689,730 13,367,969 15% Donación de mercancías y servicios (In- Kind)62,000 48,831 70,000 180,831 3,922,433 3,741,602 5% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 HEAD START PROGRAM March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1318 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 114,072$ 551,705$ 437,633$ 21% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 67,224 377,472 310,248 18% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - - - 0% e. SUPPLIES 6,697 25,000 18,303 27% f. CONTRACTUAL 446,234 2,280,836 1,834,602 20% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 6,562 94,618 88,056 7% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 640,789$ 3,329,631$ 2,688,842$ 19% j. INDIRECT COSTS 22,297 114,203 91,906 20% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 663,087$ 3,443,834$ 2,780,747$ 19% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)36,000$ 860,958$ 824,958$ 4% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 38,459 29,784 30,695 98,938 466,356 367,418 21% Temporary 1013 5,677 4,493 4,965 15,135 85,349 70,214 18% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)44,136 34,277 35,660 114,072 551,705 437,633 21% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b)- - Fringe Benefits 25,117 20,743 21,364 67,224 377,472 310,248 18% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)25,117 20,743 21,364 67,224 377,472 310,248 18% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies - 16 193 209 2,600 2,392 8% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - 1 - 1 5,700 5,699 0% 4. Other Supplies - - - - - Transition Supplies - - - - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt - 4,198 - 4,198 9,700 5,502 43% Health/Safety Supplies - 2,226 - 2,226 5,100 2,874 44% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - - Miscellaneous Supplies - - - - 1,700 1,700 0% Emergency Supplies - - - - - - Employee Morale - - - - - - Household Supplies - 34 28 62 200 138 31% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)- 6,476 220 6,697 25,000 18,303 27% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs ( Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - - 10,100 10,100 0% 2. Health/Disabilities Services - - - - - Health Consultant 1,574 787 2,460 4,822 19,200 14,378 25% Other Health/Dental Services Costs - - - - - - 5. Training & Technical Assistance - PA11 Interaction - - - - 1,500 1,500 0% Josephine Lee ($35,000/2)- 645 1,650 2,295 8,300 6,005 28% Susan Cooke ($60,000/2)- - - - 8,000 8,000 0% 8. Other Contracts FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 4,900 4,900 9,800 58,800 49,000 17% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership - 5,600 5,600 11,200 67,200 56,000 17% Apiranet - - 46,800 46,800 283,200 236,400 Brighter Beginnings - - 8,000 8,000 96,000 88,000 8% Cameron School - - 8,400 8,400 58,800 50,400 14% Crossroads - - - - 77,000 77,000 0% Martinez ECC - 5,600 5,600 11,200 67,200 56,000 17% Child Outcome Planning & Admini. (COPA/Nulinx)- 405 - 405 3,000 2,595 14% Enhancement/wrap-around HS slots with State CD Prog.- 167,255 176,057 343,312 1,522,536 1,179,224 23% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)1,574 185,192 259,467 446,234 2,280,836 1,834,602 20% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h)- - - - 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases - 243 250 493 3,800 3,307 13% (Rents & Leases/Other Income)- - - - - - 4. Utilities, Telephone - 343 170 512 2,300 1,788 22% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - - - - 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy - 17 8 25 1,700 1,675 1% 8. Local Travel (55.5 cents per mile)- 351 279 630 7,000 6,370 9% 9. Nutrition Services - - (CCFP & USDA Reimbursements)- - - - - - 13. Parent Services Parent Conference Registration - PA11 - - - - 600 600 0% Parent Resources (Parenting Books, Videos, etc.) - PA11 - - - - - - PC Orientation, Trainings, Materials & Translation - PA11 - 386 - 386 5,238 4,852 7% Policy Council Activities - - - - 3,000 3,000 0% Parent Activities (Sites, PC, BOS luncheon) & Appreciation - - - - 3,200 3,200 0% Child Care/Mileage Reimbursement - - 334 334 1,900 1,566 18% 14. Accounting & Legal Services Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies - 285 285 570 2,900 2,330 20% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - 100 100 0% 16. Training or Staff Development Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)- - 1,442 1,442 9,000 7,558 16% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 3 163 165 31,106 30,941 1% 17. Other Site Security Guards - - - - 2,000 2,000 0% Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - 1,202 - 1,202 9,600 8,398 13% Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental - 30 8 38 2,800 2,762 1% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - - Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)- 460 305 765 8,374 7,609 9% Other Departmental Expenses - - - - - - h. OTHER (6h)- 3,319 3,243 6,562 94,618 88,056 7% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)70,827 250,007 319,955 640,789 3,329,631 2,688,842 19% j. INDIRECT COSTS - 11,052 11,245 22,297 114,203 91,906 20% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 70,827 261,060 331,200 663,087 3,443,834 2,780,747 19% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1320 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU 2016 EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM March 2016 Expenditures Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)6,000 12,000 18,000 36,000 860,958 824,958 4% May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1321 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTION Total Remaining % YTD Actual Budget Budget YTD a. PERSONNEL 487,015$ 668,966$ 181,951$ 73% b. FRINGE BENEFITS 296,653 432,828 136,175 69% c. TRAVEL - - - 0% d. EQUIPMENT - 40,000 40,000 0% e. SUPPLIES 15,190 16,200 1,010 94% f. CONTRACTUAL 357,345 455,697 98,352 78% g. CONSTRUCTION - 0% h. OTHER 43,763 81,383 37,620 54% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 1,199,967$ 1,695,074$ 495,107$ 71% j. INDIRECT COSTS 113,941 136,270 22,329 84% k. TOTAL-ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 1,313,907$ 1,831,344$ 517,437$ 72% In-Kind (Non-Federal Share)79,000$ 457,836$ 378,836$ 17% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1322 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Actual Actual Actual Total YTD Total Remaining % Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Actual Budget Budget YTD Expenditures a. Salaries & Wages (Object Class 6a) Permanent 1011 62,038 67,243 62,921 452,271 632,766 180,495 71% Temporary 1013 3,175 2,017 5,982 34,744 36,200 1,456 96% a. PERSONNEL (Object class 6a)65,212 69,260 68,902 487,015 668,966 181,951 73% b. FRINGE BENEFITS (Object Class 6b) Fringe Benefits 41,779 44,855 43,118 296,653 432,828 136,175 69% b. FRINGE (Object Class 6b)41,779 44,855 43,118 296,653 432,828 136,175 69% d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d) 3. Vehicle Purchase - - - - 40,000 40,000 0% d. EQUIPMENT (Object Class 6d)- - - - 40,000 40,000 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e) 1. Office Supplies 14 12 5,163 6,032 1,800 (4,232) 335% 2. Child and Family Serv. Supplies/classroom Supplies - 1 1,632 1,633 3,600 1,967 45% 3. Food Services/Nutrition Supplies - - - - - - 4. Other Supplies - - - Computer Supplies, Software Upgrades, Comp Replacemnt - 1,931 1,896 4,743 9,600 4,857 49% Health/Safety Supplies - 1,008 - 1,781 - (1,781) 0% Mental helath/Diasabilities Supplies - - - - - - 0% Miscellaneous Supplies 3 8 4 887 1,200 313 74% Household Supplies 13 16 12 115 - (115) 0% e. SUPPLIES (Object Class 6e)30 2,975 8,707 15,190 16,200 1,010 94% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f) 1. Adm Svcs ( Legal, Accounting, Temporary Contracts)- - - 425 3,000 2,575 14% Health Consultant - - - - 500 500 0% 8. Other Contracts - 0% FB-Fairgrounds Partnership - 57,359 65,758 292,334 356,697 64,363 82% FB-E. Leland/Mercy Housing Partnership 9,000 9,000 13,534 64,034 95,500 31,466 67% Brighter Beginnings - 184 - 551 - (551) 0% f. CONTRACTUAL (Object Class 6f)9,000 66,542 79,293 357,345 455,697 98,352 78% h. OTHER (Object Class 6h) 2. Bldg Occupancy Costs/Rents & Leases 149 165 141 877 1,000 123 0% 4. Utilities, Telephone 114 222 - 1,299 2,852 1,553 46% 5. Building and Child Liability Insurance - - - 222 - (222) 0% 6. Bldg. Maintenance/Repair and Other Occupancy 15 21 150 185 - (185) 0% 8. Local Travel (54 cents per mile)21 - 13 810 1,200 390 67% 13. Parent Services - Policy Council Activities - - - - 1,000 1,000 0% 14. Accounting & Legal Services - Audit - - - - - - Legal (County Counsel)- - - - - - Auditor Controllers - - - - - - 0% Data Processing/Other Services & Supplies 129 129 129 905 1,300 395 70% 15. Publications/Advertising/Printing - Outreach/Printing - - - - - - 0% Recruitment Advertising (Newspaper, Brochures)- - - - - - 0% 16. Training or Staff Development - Agency Memberships (WIPFLI, Meeting Fees, NHSA, NAEYC)- - - - - - 0% Staff Trainings/Dev. Conf. Registrations/Memberships - PA11 - 15,346 29,707 52,586 57,831 5,245 91% 17. Other - Start-Up Expenses-Child Care Council(org.# 2479)- - (29,217) (29,217) - 29,217 Start-Up Expenses-First Baptist (org.# 2479)- - - - - - Vehicle Operating/Maintenance & Repair - - - - - - Equipment Maintenance Repair & Rental 302 328 3,496 5,062 3,000 (2,062) 169% Dept. of Health and Human Services-data Base (CORD)- - - - - - 0% Other Operating Expenses (Facs Admin/Other admin)520 583 639 8,417 10,200 1,783 83% County Indirect Cost (A-87)0 0 (0) 2,618 3,000 382 0% h. OTHER (6h)1,250 16,793 5,058 43,763 81,383 37,620 54% I. TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES (6a-6h)117,272 200,425 205,078 1,199,967 1,695,074 495,107 71% j. INDIRECT COSTS 14,503 13,994 23,569 113,941 136,270 22,329 84% k. TOTALS - ALL BUDGET CATEGORIES 131,775 214,419 228,647 1,313,907 1,831,344 517,437 72% Non-Federal Match (In-Kind)4,000 15,000 25,000 79,000 457,836 378,836 17% CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU Jan 2015 - June 2016 EARLY HEAD START- CC PARTNERSHIP March 2016 Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1323 A - 4Authorized Users C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx8798 Month: March 2016 K. Mason, Div Mgr xxxx2364 C. Reich, Div Mgr xxxx4959 Credit Card: Visa/U.S. Bank C. Johnson, AD xxxx0220 J. Rowley, AD xxxx2391 P. Arrington, AD xxxx3838 R. Radeva, PSA III xxxx1899 S. Kim, Interim Div Mgr xxxx1907 C. Rand, Bureau Dir xxxx5045 I. Renggenathen xxxx2423 Acct. code Stat. Date Card Account # Amount Program Purpose/Description 2100 03/22/16 xxxx1907 43.56 Child Dev Misc Grants Office Exp 2100 03/22/16 xxxx1907 36.02 Child Care Svs Program Office Exp 2100 03/22/16 xxxx1907 248.38 Indirect Admin Costs Office Exp 2100 03/22/16 xxxx1907 278.61 HS Basic Grant Office Exp 606.57 2102 03/22/16 xxxx8798 38.91 HS Basic Grant Books, Periodicals 2102 03/22/16 xxxx8798 38.92 EHS Basis Grant Books, Periodicals 2102 03/22/16 xxxx1899 54.93 Child Dev Misc Grants Books, Periodicals 132.76 2132 03/22/16 xxxx1907 2,944.91 Child Dev Misc Grants Minor Computer Equipment 2,944.91 2200 03/22/16 xxxx2364 150.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Memberships 150.00 2260 03/22/16 xxxx1907 279.00 Child Care Svs Program Rents & Leases - Property 279.00 2303 03/22/16 xxxx4959 472.47 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 2303 03/22/16 xxxx1907 472.47 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 2303 03/22/16 xxxx2364 3,372.06 Child Dev Misc Grants Other Travel Employees 2303 03/22/16 xxxx8798 314.98 Child Care Svs Program Other Travel Employees 2303 03/22/16 xxxx1899 1,675.00 EHS-CC Partnership Other Travel Employees 2303 03/22/16 xxxx1899 725.00 Indirect Admin Costs Other Travel Employees 7,031.98 2467 03/22/16 xxxx4959 299.00 EHS T&TA Training & Registration 2467 03/22/16 xxxx1907 379.00 Child Dev Admin Training & Registration 2467 03/22/16 xxxx1899 600.00 Child Dev Misc Grants Training & Registration 2467 03/22/16 xxxx0220 360.00 HS Basic Grant Training & Registration 1,638.00 2477 03/22/16 xxxx4959 152.38 EHS Basis Grant Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx4959 143.25 EHS-CC Partnership Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx4959 143.25 HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx4959 (143.25) EHS-CC Partnership Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx4959 (143.25) HS Basic Grant Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx0220 348.79 Lavonia Allen Site Costs Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx0220 72.27 Child Dev Misc Grants Educational Supplies 2477 03/22/16 xxxx2391 2,522.70 Child Dev Misc Grants Educational Supplies 3,096.14 2490 03/22/16 xxxx1907 72.47 Las Deltas Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx1907 675.00 EHS-CC Partnership Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx1899 150.00 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx0220 10.90 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx0220 550.00 Marsh Creek Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx0220 550.00 Los Arboles Site Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2490 03/22/16 xxxx5045 118.86 Indirect Admin Costs Misc Services/Supplies 2,127.23 Total 18,006.59 Agency: Community Services Bureau COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU SUMMARY CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURE C:\DOCUME~1\DESTIN~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@78155370\@BCL@78155370.xlsxMay 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1324 CAO Monthly Report CSBG and Weatherization Programs Year-to-Date Expenditures As of March 31, 2016 1. 2015 LIHEAP WX Contract # 15B-3005 Term: Jan. 1, 2015 - Sept. 30, 2016 Amount: WX $ 1,204,143 Total Contract 1,204,143$ Expenditures (991,608) Balance 212,535$ Expended 82% 2. 2015 LIHEAP ECIP/EHA 16 Contract # 15B-3005 Term: Jan. 1, 2015 - Sept. 30, 2016 Amount: EHA 16 $ 1,018,161 Total Contract 1,018,161$ Expenditures (1,003,806) Balance 14,355$ Expended 99% 3. 2015 LIWP (LOW INCOME WX) Contract # 15K-6003 Term: Jan 1, 2015 - Jan 31, 2017 Amount: $ 537,538 Total Contract 537,538$ Expenditures (169,290) Balance 368,248$ Expended 31% 4. 2016 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) Contract # 16F-5007 Term: Jan. 1, 2016 - December 31, 2016 Amount: $ 797,709 Total Contract 797,709$ Expenditures (65,439) Balance 732,270$ Expended 8% fldr/fn:CAO Monthly Reports/WX YTD Exp-CAO Mo Rprt 3-2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1325 April 2016 – COMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU PRESCHOOL MENU MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ALL BREAKFAST & LUNCH SERVED WITH 1% LOW-FAT MILK *Indicates vegetable included in main dish WATER IS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DAY 1 BREAKFAST CHEERIOS FRESH BANANA LUNCH *HAWAIIAN CHICKEN WRAP (diced chicken, broccoli, carrots, pineapple, & spinach) FRESH KIWI WHOLE GRAIN TORTILLA PM SNACK HOMEMADE BLUEBERRY BREAD SQUARE 1% LOW-FAT MILK 4 BREAKFAST CORN CHEX CEREAL FRESH RED APPLE LUNCH MACARONI & CHEESE WITH WHOLE WHEAT ELBOW NOODLES GREEN BEANS FRESH ORANGE PM SNACK WHOLE GRAIN DINO GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 5 BREAKFAST CORNFLAKE CEREAL FRESH KIWI LUNCH *JAMMIN JAMBALAYA (diced chicken, brown rice, tomatoes, bell peppers, celery, & onions) FRESH STRAWBERRIES PM SNACK PINEAPPLE TIDBITS COTTAGE CHEESE 6 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SUNBUTTER ON WHOLE WHEAT TOAST FRESH BANANA LUNCH BLACKEYE PEAS SPINACH SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH ORANGE HOMEMADE WHOLE GRAIN CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CARROT STICKS & CUCUMBER SLICES VEGETABLE DRESSING WHEAT THINS 7 BREAKFAST HOMEMADE WHOLE GRAIN OVEN BAKED PANCAKE UNSWEETEND APPLESAUCE LUNCH TURKEY ENCHILADA CASSEROLE WITH CORN TORTILLAS CHOPPED ROMAINE SALAD WITH VINAIGRETTE MANGO CHUNKS PM SNACK COWBOY QUINOA SALAD (“KEEN-WAH”) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 8 BREAKFAST RICE CHEX CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH TUNA SALAD BROCCOLI FLORETS LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK CHEDDAR CHEESE STICK FRESH APPLE 11 WEEK BREAKFAST KIX CEREAL FRESH ORANGE LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HAPPY FACE SANDWICH (sunbutter, sliced cheese, raisins, & shredded carrots) SPINACH SALAD WITH CRANBERRIES RASPBERRY DRESSING FRESH APPLE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK LEMON GRAHAM CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 12 OF BREAKFAST RICE KRISPY CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH LUNCH TACO TUESDAY TURKEY TACOS & SHREDDED CHEESE SHREDDED LETTUCE & DICED TOMATOES FRESH KIWI SOFT MINI TACOS PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HOMEMADE NUT FREE GRANOLA MIXED FRUIT LOW-FAT PLAIN YOGURT 13 THE BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT CHEESE TOAST FRESH APPLE LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BIG BIRDS EGGHEAD SALAD (hardboiled egg, lettuce, carrots, corn kernel, olives, & red bell pepper strip) ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH STRAWBERRIES WHEAT CRACKERS PM SNACK FRIENDS TRAIL MIX (kix, cheerios, corn chex, raisins, pretzels, & dried apricots) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 14 YOUNG BREAKFAST - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE WHOLE WHEAT ENGLISH MUFFIN HALF SUNBUTTER FRESH BANANA LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE * PIZZA BURGER BUILD A BUTTERFLY SALAD (lettuce, pineapple ring, celery sticks, plain yogurt) WHOLE WHEAT HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK MARNINATED FRESH ZUCCHINI & TOMATOES WHOLE GRAIN SALTINE CRACKERS 15 CHILD BREAKFAST - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE BREAKFAST BURRITO (scrambled eggs & salsa) SPROUTED WHEAT TORTILLA FRESH KIWI LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE SLICED TURKEY & CHEDDAR CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSNG FRESH BROCCOLI FLORETS LOW-FAT RANCH DRESSING FRESH CANTALOUPE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK HOMEMADE BANANA BREAD SQUARE 1% LOW-FAT MILK 18 BREAKFAST RICE CHEX CEREAL FRESH APPLE LUNCH CHILI SANS CARNE (pinto beans, tomatoes, bell pepper, soy sauce, & onion) SPINACH WITH SHREDDED CARROTS ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH ORANGE WHOLE GRAIN SALTINE CRACKERS PM SNACK ANIMAL CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 19 BREAKFAST CHEERIOS FRESH BANANA LUNCH CHICKEN CHILAQUILES WITH CORN TORTILLAS CHOPPED ROMAINE SALAD BLENDS BALSAMIC VINAIGRETTE MANGO CHUNKS PM SNACK LETS GO FISHING TRAIL MIX (crispix, pretzels, fish crackers, & cheese crackers) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 20 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE WHOLE WHEAT BAGEL HALF SUNBUTTER FRESH KIWI LUNCH LIMA BEANS WITH CARROTS MUSTARD GREENS FRESH STRAWBERRIES HOMEMADE CORNBREAD SQUARE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HUMMUS & WHEAT CRACKERS 1% LOW-FAT MILK 21 BREAKFAST WHOLE WHEAT CINNAMON TOAST PINEAPPLE CUBES LUNCH CHICKEN RAGU WITH GRATED PARMESIAN CHEESE & WHOLE WHEAT SPAGHETTI RAINBOW COLESLAW (no cheese) FRESH APPLE PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE PEAR BUNNY SALAD (pear half, lettuce, raisins, carrots, & cottage cheese) 1% LOW-FAT MILK 22 BREAKFAST BRAN CEREAL FRESH ORANGE LUNCH – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE TURKEY HAM & SWISS CHEESE MAYO & MUSTARD DRESSING GREEN LEAF LETTUCE & TOMATO SLICE FRESH CANTALOUPE WHOLE WHEAT BREAD PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HARDBOILED EGG 1% LOW-FAT MIK 25 BREAKFAST CORN CHEX CEREAL FRESH APPLE SLICES LUNCH *VEGETABLE CHILI (yogurt, kidney beans, tomatoes, bulgur wheat & cheddar cheese) FRESH KIWI SLICES WHEAT CRACKERS PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE GRAHAM CRACKERS SUNBUTTER 26 BREAKFAST BRAN CEREAL FRESH ORANGE LUNCH CHICKEN BBQ SANDWICH (diced chicken, tomato sauce & fresh celery) TOSS GREEN SALAD WITH ITALIAN DRESSING FRESH CANTALOUPE WHOLE WHEAT HAMBURGER BUN PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE CELERY & CARROT STICKS HERBED COTTAGE CHEESE 27 BREAKFAST – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE FRESH BANANA SUNBUTTER WHOLE WHEAT TORTILLA LUNCH *CHILI RICE (ground beef, rice, tomatoes, corn, green chilies, & shredded cheddar cheese) FRESH APPLE PM SNACK DICED PEACHES LOW-FAT YOGURT 28 BREAKFAST HOMEMADE OVEN BAKED BLUEBERRY PANCAKE UNSWEETEND APPLESAUCE LUNCH LIME MARINATED CHICKEN BREAST SPRING SALAD MIX WITH VINAIGRETTE DRESSING FRESH ORANGE SLICES DINNER ROLL PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE HONEY WHOLE WHEAT BREAD STICK PIZZA SAUCE 1% LOW-FAT MILK 29 BREAKFAST CRISPIX CEREAL FRESH BANANA LUNCH - NUTRITION EXPERIENCE KANGARO POCKET TURKEY & CHEESE ROMAINE LEAF LETTUCE & DICED TOMATOES REDUCED FAT RANCH DRESSING FRESH APPLE SLICES PITA POCKET BREAD PM SNACK – NUTRITION EXPERIENCE ANTS ON THE LOG (celery, sunbutter & raisins) 1% LOW-FAT MILK May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1326 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.136 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reaffirm the Contra Costa Arts and Culture Commission as the Authorized State-Local Partner May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1327 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/378 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/378 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1328 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/378 AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE AS THE AUTHORIZED PARTNER IN THE STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL FOR THE 2016-2017 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors established the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County in 1994; and WHEREAS, the Commission is the official agency that represents arts organizations throughout the County and develops programs which support and promote the arts; and WHEREAS, the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County has, since its inception, derived financial assistance from the California Arts Council through its State Local Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County relies heavily on such assistance on a continuing basis to carry out its mission; and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes the necessity for continued financial assistance to ensure the viability of the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby reaffirm the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County as the authorized partner of the State-Local Partnership Program of the California Arts Council for the 2016-2017 fiscal year. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA MARY N. PIEPHO District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER District IV Supervisor District V 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1329 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1330 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1602, entitled "Protecting Our Groundwater Resources" and refer to the County Administrator and Assessor for response. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Penal Code section 933 provides for final grand jury reports at any time during the grand jury’s term and requires the governing body of any agency whose operations are the subject of a report to comment on the grand jury's findings and recommendations to the presiding judge of the superior court within 90 days from the date the governing body receives the report. Elected department heads are required to provide comments to grand jury findings and recommendations 60 days from the date it receives a final report by the grand jury. Report No. 1602 was received on May 11, 2016 and requires a response by the Board no later than August 9, 2016. It is recommended that the Board refer the report to the County Administrator and Assessor for preparation of a draft response to be returned to the Board for adoption. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C.145 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RECEIVE CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1602, ENTITLED "PROTECTING OUR GROUNDWATER RESOURCES" May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1331 ATTACHMENTS Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1602 "Protecting Our Groundwater Resources" May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1332 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1333 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1334 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1335 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1336 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1337 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1338 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1339 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1340 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1341 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1342 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1343 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1344 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1345 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1346 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1347 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1348 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1349 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1350 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1351 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1352 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1353 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1354 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1355 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1356 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT a report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the CalFresh Program. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact; the report is for informational purposes. BACKGROUND: The CalFresh program, formerly known as Food Stamps and federally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was designed to help provide assistance to hungry people, regardless of their age, gender, marital or family status. The program issues monthly electronic benefits that can be used to buy most foods at many markets and food stores. The CalFresh Program helps to improve the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs. At the federal level, the program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). In California, the CalFresh Program APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.140 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the CalFresh Program May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1357 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) is supervised at the state level by the California Department of Social Services and is administered at the local level by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). On May 9, 2016 the Family and Human Services Committee received a report on the CalFresh program and approved forwarding the attached report to the full Board for review. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There is no consequence of a negative action. The Employment and Human Services Department provides the annual CalFresh Report to the Board of Supervisors in a public meeting to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the report. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS CalFresh Report May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1358 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 • (925) 313-1500 • Fax (925) 313-1575 • www.ehsd.org To: Family and Human Services Committee Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Date: May 9, 2016 From: Rebecca Darnell, Interim Workforce Services Director Kathi Kelly, CalFresh Policy Manager Subject: CALFRESH PROGRAM UPDATE I. Overview The CalFresh program, formerly known as Food Stamps and federally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was designed to help provide assistance to hungry people, regardless of their age, gender, marital or family status. The program issues monthly electronic benefits that can be used to buy most foods at many markets and food stores. The CalFresh Program helps to improve the health and well-being of qualified households and individuals by providing them a means to meet their nutritional needs. At the federal level, the program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). In California, the CalFresh Program is supervised at the state level by the California Department of Social Services and is administered at the local level by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). Since the Great Recession, we have experienced an unprecedented increase in the number of individuals applying for CalFresh benefits. In 2006, we had approximately 12,554 families applying for aid as compared to 32,851 in 2015. This represents a 162% increase in the number of CalFresh applications received during this period M E M O R A N D U M Kathy Gallagher, Director May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1359 Over the last ten years, the CalFresh only cases have increased a total of 423% going from roughly 5,846 average cases a month in 2006 to 30,560 average monthly cases in 2015. Beyond the CalFresh only average caseload of 30,560 in 2015, we also had an additional average of 5,034 Public Assistance cases which represent those households that receive both cash aid (CalWORKs) and CalFresh. This represents a total average of 35,594 CalFresh cases in 2015. In Contra Costa County, CalFresh puts more than $10 million in State and Federal Funding into the local economy each month. As indicated by the USDA, research shows that every $1 provided in CalFresh benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity. Using the multiplier effect, CalFresh generated $17.9 million into the local economy in the past year. The return on investment benefits local businesses, landlords, and many service 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Applications Applications increased by 162% between 2006-2015 CalFresh Only Applications 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Cases Cases have increased 423% between 2006-2015 CalFresh Only Cases May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1360 providers. CalFresh benefits help families stretch their food dollars to buy more healthy foods for the whole family. The average monthly CalFresh benefit issued in 2006 was $3,285,939.58 compared to 2015 issuance of $10,548,167.33. This accounts for an increase of 221% for our households and the local economy. II. Eligibility for CalFresh Households that include single individuals, couples, or families are eligible for CalFresh benefits if they meet certain income criteria and legally reside in California. For some CalFresh beneficiaries, eligibility is not asset-based or resource-based which means that their property, such as vehicles, cash on hand, or money contained in bank accounts, is not counted. The amount of benefits a person receives depends on the number of people in the household who purchase and prepare food together and how much monthly income is left after certain expenses are deducted. Income consists of earned and unearned income. Expenses like rent, utilities, dependent care and certain medical expenses are allowable deductions. For example, a household of one (1) with no income would be eligible to receive $194.00 a month in benefits and a household of 10 with no income would receive $1,461.00 a month. III. Program Accessibility Over the last several years, in order to make CalFresh benefits more readily accessible to County residents and families, the Department has increased its efforts in working with the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano County as well as other community agencies dedicated to the CalFresh-eligible population. As listed below, these efforts have contributed to the success of our expanding benefits to those in need of food security. • The application process has been made easier by eliminating the requirement to apply through a face-to-face interview process. A telephone interview is now acceptable at both intake and recertification. A customer may still request a face-to-face interview if they are more comfortable meeting directly with an eligibility worker. • Use of telephonic signature has begun at locations that have Automated Call Distributions capability such as the Medi-Cal CalFresh Service Center (MCSC). The MCSC will begin with the CalFresh recertification and we hope to expand to the Hercules office for new applications. As we obtain the necessary technology, the use of telephonic signature will be used department wide. • Applicants can now apply for CalFresh benefits online through My Benefits CalWIN Org portal. Many of our community-based partners have received orientations/trainings on assisting individuals through this online application process. In addition, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) can register their organizations May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1361 as vendors in CalWIN. This will allow the CBOs to track the number of applications they register and the number processed each month by the Department. • A customer can also access benefits through the use of a multi-program single paper application. For example, a customer who applies for, and is found ineligible for, CalWORKs benefits can use this same application (the SAWS 2 Plus) to automatically apply for CalFresh benefits without completing another application. • In February 2014, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) initiated the Express Lane Eligibility waiver program in which certain CalFresh beneficiaries were given MediCal benefits without having to complete and file an application. The waiver was expanded with no known sunset date. • The statewide Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement (WINS) Program was implemented in Contra Costa County on July 1, 2014. Under the WINS program, CalFresh households who are not in receipt of CalWORKs, but who meet the work participation hours of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and have a child in the household under 18, will receive an additional $10.00 food benefit each month. From July 2014 through March 2016 there is a monthly average of 2,766 households in receipt of this additional benefit. • Other efforts to increase CalFresh enrollments are outlined in the Outreach section of this report. IV. Current CalFresh Service Levels and Program Performance A. Service Levels: During Program Year 2014- 2015 the monthly average of individuals (families and single) who were in receipt of CalFresh benefits was 73,468. This is a 46% increase from the previous program year. B. Program Performance: 1. Timeliness Processing Standards FNS requires states and counties to maintain certain performance measures for the timely processing of CalFresh applications. These measures require that 90% of all applications received be processed within 30 days and requires a three (3) day processing period for those CalFresh applicants determined to require Expedited Services (ES). We continue to meet the 30 day CalFresh application processing standard of 90%. For PY 2014- 2015, 94.6% of applications received were processed within the 30 day processing requirement. During this same period we reached the 90% processing requirement within three (3) days for those CalFresh ES applications with a 91.72%. The department continues to show improvement in this area as there has been consistency with meeting the 90% standard. For the first three quarters for PY 2015 – 2016 our compliance rate is at 97.32%. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1362 2. Management Evaluation (ME) As mandated by FNS, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) is required to conduct a Management Evaluation (ME) review of Contra Costa County’s administration of the CalFresh Program. The federal priority areas for the ME for FFY 2014 were Program Access, Customer Service, Timeliness of Application Processing, Payment Accuracy, Quality Control and Training. While the ME review was to have been held in April 2015, the review was moved up to November 2014 by CDSS to coincide with the federal Local Program Access Review (LPAR) of SNAP scheduled by the federal Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) of the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). CDSS has requested corrective action in the areas of case reviews, second party reviews, training, program access, and Expedited Services (ES) timeliness which are or have been addressed in the current Program Improvement Response. Program access is being addressed by providing greater signage in district office lobbies with regard to how to apply for benefits as well as staff promoting the use of the “online” application. There is also an increased focus on ES evaluation and eligibility determination. Policy on application processing timelines is being rereinforced to staff through the use of Monthly Bulletins and CalFresh “Topic of the Month” distributions. There will also be more accountability and monitoring attached to these methods ensuring the training takes place during unit meeting discussions. The Program Integrity Unit (PIU) which is responsible for gathering and reviewing data concerning CalFresh program standards to ensure service delivery is appropriate will include greater monitoring and coordinating of case record reviews, assessments and error trends. The PIU will be of great assistance in addressing and maintaining performance areas and in their monthly case reviews in which error trends are readily determined and addressed. The next ME review is anticipated to take place at the beginning of FFY 2016. 3. Local Program Access Review The Local Program Access Review (LPAR) was conducted by USDA FNS staff during the week of November 17 through November 21, 2014. The last LPAR completed in Contra Costa County was in November 2004. The focus of the review was on Program Access, Quality Control (QC) and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). The purpose is to identify barriers to the CalFresh Program and to monitor QC operations. This review was occurring at the same time CDSS was conducting the ME noted above. Most of the findings and observations in the LPAR are similar to the issues identified in the ME which will allow for more streamlined implementation of our Program Improvement Response. Areas to be addressed included application May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1363 processing with focus on interviews, the ES evaluation and determination process, and wait times in the district offices. FNS staff were impressed with the cooperation and collaboration of staff and management and noted that the case review findings were not indicative of the quality of work provided in the office. 4. CalFresh Error Rate Every month for every county, FNS selects a random sampling of CalFresh cases that are to be reviewed for case errors involving miscalculations of income or household composition which result in benefit issuance errors. Our Quality Control Unit reviews those cases that are selected and determines our CalFresh error rate. Based on the number of cases reviewed and the number of errors cited an error rate percentage is then derived. While the results have not yet been finalized, Contra Costa County’s CalFresh error rate is for FFY 2015 is lower than the state and federal tolerance. Preliminary results reflect Contra Costa County ending the FFY with a 2.19% error rate, California is at 3.07% and the Federal rate is at 3.09%. 5. Outside Consultants In our attempt to improve customer service and performance levels we have hired outside consultants to assess our current business practices. It is anticipated that there will be recommendations that will improve program access and customer service. In addition, a quality control consultant has been hired to review existing practices to improve the Department’s Payment Accuracy and Case and Procedural Error Rate. • The Quality Control (QC) consultant has worked with our IT staff in developing a Case Review Management System tool. This tool will allow the reviewer to go online to complete the case review as well as produce real time data reports. This has been instrumental in allowing the unit supervisors and the Program Integrity Unit to quickly identify error trends so that corrective action can be taken. In addition, the consultant has assisted with our ability to fine tune the QC and QA process with focus placed on the root cause of errors. This has allowed us to mitigate QC errors as well as identify error trends and develop corrective action strategies. • The Business Process consultant has evaluated our current CalFresh business processes and analyzed data to identify areas for improvement. It was determined that missed appointments are a large barrier for many applicants. EHSD is evaluating options to reduce missed appointments, including providing same day appointments, text appointment reminders, and expanding alternatives to face-to-face interviews such as phone and video conferencing. EHSD is also planning to conduct a pilot in the Antioch office, testing whether extra “hands on” help in the initial stages of the process increases the success rate among new clients. In addition, EHSD is also working to identify May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1364 and reduce “churn,” which is when clients cycle on and off the program in a short amount of time; specifically, applicants who reapply within three months of their semi-annual report or recertification being due. If those clients were able to maintain continuous enrollment, it would greatly reduce the workload of EHSD staff without an interruption in service for clients. EHSD has begun work in this area, with a first step being the implementation of text reminders to clients when their reports are due. 6. Staffing The Department is continually evaluating its staffing needs and hiring new staff is an ongoing priority, although the ability to readily fill new and approved vacant positions continues to be a systemic problem within the County in terms of having readily available candidates from which to interview and hire. The County Human Resources Department recently increased staff dedicated to EHSD which we expect will improve our ability to fill positions more quickly. V. Outreach and Community Partnership EHSD is proud of our efforts to increase CalFresh participation thereby ensuring that more children, families, and individuals are able to put nutritious food on their tables each day. The Department has convened a CalFresh Partner Group with a goal of increasing enrollment in the County so that 75% of eligible residents are enrolled by May 2016. The partners include the Food Bank of Contra Costa County and Solano, Crisis Center, the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition, First 5, and Meals on Wheels. This group’s strategies are to increase CalFresh enrollment and reach populations with historically lower enrollment. Data is not yet available to test whether the goal has been met. However, it is important to note that CalFresh enrollment has not declined despite an improving economy. What is already clearly a success is forging a path to partner with community organizations on a shared goal; the ability to evaluate and modify processes and procedures, and a mindset that working together is always better. Successful efforts and key achievements of the group are illustrated as follows: • CalFresh Enrollment Process Improvements: we are developing new and strengthening existing business processes for helping people enroll in CalFresh. EHSD currently works with the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano to train nonprofit staff in CalFresh so they have a better understanding of the program and enrollment process. This enhanced training and knowledge, as well as a more specifically identified EHSD liaison for the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, will not only enhance the quality of training and knowledge in the community, but will strengthen our community partnerships. • Outreach: o The partnership between the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition, EHSD and the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano is working to cultivate community volunteers May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1365 who can help people with the CalFresh enrollment process. The Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition has a roster of 60 volunteers who received CalFresh training from the Food Bank. They are now ready to be deployed to nonprofit agencies, places of worship, food distribution sites and shelters to encourage and assist people to sign up for CalFresh benefits. o The John Muir/Mt. Diablo Community Health Fund awarded a grant to the Food Bank for CalFresh Outreach. Partnering with EHSD, the Food Bank mailed postcards to households currently receiving MediCal but not CalFresh. The Food Bank also partnered with local school districts to mail to families with children on free/reduced lunch. To date, 939 families have filled out CalFresh applications based on these mailings. Funds were also used to print posters advertising the CalFresh program that are posted in health clinics, food pantries, and other locations where low-income families are likely to visit. o We are working with the Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD) to implement AB 402, which would allow information sharing between EHSD and the District so we can reach out to students’ families receiving free/reduced lunch and encourage them to apply for CalFresh. Families who opt-in are sent applications to apply for CalFresh, shortening the application process by allowing families to apply without coming in to the office. PUSD has been working with EHSD and the Food Bank by adding a question to their school meal application in order to easily identify families that desire to also apply for CalFresh. The families’ information is then sent to EHSD to begin the CalFresh application process. We anticipate working with other school districts within the county in the same manner. o We are working with Building Blocks for Kids in Richmond to reach out to all of the eligible families in the Iron Triangle neighborhood to assist them in enrolling in CalFresh. o Mayoral Outreach EHSD, Multi-Faith ACTION volunteers, and Ensuring Opportunity conducted an outreach campaign with local Mayors to raise awareness of the CalFresh program and to highlight the program’s economic benefit. During May 2015, local Mayors issued CalFresh Awareness Proclamations, posted links to the CalFresh application on their city websites, and advertised the health benefits of the CalFresh program. To engage the Mayors, the CalFresh Partner Group members highlighted the economic benefit the program brings to the local economy. o We are planning a series of “CalFresh Express” events that will provide an opportunity to process applications and issue same day benefits while in the community. After presenting at the April 2015 Mayor’s conference, there is increased interest from cities in partnering with the County on outreach of this type. The first CalFresh Express took place on June 26, 2015, at the Davis Park Community Center in San Pablo. The event was a true collaboration with the May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1366 Food Bank and other community organizations. The date was selected as this was the same day that the Food Bank’s Community Produce Program truck was at this location. Families in the community were provided with fresh fruits and vegetables on the spot. The UC Cooperative Extension gave out tastings from this produce and promoted healthy eating through various games and activities. Volunteers from the MultiFaith ACTION Coalition reviewed the program’s rights and responsibilities with applicants with oversight from EHSD personnel. West Contra Costa Unified School District passed out lunches to children playing in the park. Overall, 74 new applications were taken and 48 (65%) families were approved for benefits. The next event is planned for April 29, 2016 at the Ambrose Community Center in Bay Point. We anticipate approximately 200 applications to be processed including the availability of issuing same day benefits. We are excited about the same partners participating making this event even more successful for the Bay Point community. • Technology partnership o EHSD is working with Code for America to utilize a mobile application equipped with electronic signature. This will allow the streamlining of preliminary applications through an electronic portal via assistors in our partnering agencies. The Food Bank and EHSD piloted a new application called CLEAN, which is a simplified version of the online CalFresh application that can be used on a tablet, smartphone or laptop. It was designed by Code for America for use by community based organizations. The application takes only about 5-10 minutes to complete and is much simpler for outreach workers in the field. Clients’ documents can also be uploaded for submission with the application. The Food Bank continues to use CLEAN (now called ‘Get CalFresh’). It has greatly streamlined the application process and makes filling out an online application while in line at a food distribution event more feasible. o Read Only Access To further support Food Bank efforts to assist clients more directly, EHSD is exploring CalWIN read only access for the Food Bank. Once the technology is available, Food Bank staff will be able to look up a clients’ case status in real time, remind clients of their appointments, let them know what paperwork they are missing, etc. This should improve timely processing while also saving EHSD staff time. Currently the Food Bank has to contact EHSD staff to get case updates, so this will significantly streamline access to data. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1367 • Marketing o Volunteers from the Leadership Contra Costa alumni group have expressed interest in helping advertise and market CalFresh to communities with many eligible people. Developing a marketing plan for CalFresh will require studying the issue and applying smart advertising techniques to the challenge of CalFresh enrollment. Leadership Contra Costa has marketing professionals who can help with this work. o The month of May has been designated “CalFresh Awareness Month” by several other California counties. Working with our community partners, the County Board of Supervisors provided an official resolution and declared May as CalFresh Awareness month in Contra Costa County. o We are also working with the City of Richmond to have a similar resolution adopted at the next Richmond City Council meeting. We are also working with the cities of Antioch, Pittsburg, Concord, Martinez, and San Pablo on the adoption of this same resolution. • Community Training on CalFresh o The EHSD CalFresh Program Analyst conducts “Facts and Myths” training with the Food Bank which takes place three to four times per year with 25 to 30 participants from community organizations in each session. Provided in the training is a CalFresh overview, hands-on outreach application exercise as well as an introduction to Benefits CalWIN. This training has been a foundation in developing new partners since 2006 and training has been attended by aides of the Board of Supervisors, staff from Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) and regular attendees from WIC, the Monument Crisis Center, La Clinica, Rubicon, Public Health, Head Start and the One Stop Centers. o EHSD also participates in the Food Nutrition Policy Consortium which is chaired by the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano. The group meets to discuss nutrition related events and activities within the county including CalFresh outreach opportunities. o Over the last four (4) years, EHSD has attended an annual Food Bank Summit which is held on a rotational basis between Contra Costa and Solano Counties. The purpose of the Summit is to educate, inform and update those in attendance on topics such as Nutrition Education, Food Safety, what the Food Bank does, and provide instruction and mandates of USDA on the CalFresh Program. This is a day-long event and is attended by various county department representatives, agencies, and CBOs who work closely with the Food Bank. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1368 o Advocacy As the CalFresh Partner Group worked at increasing access to increase participation, it was clear that changes at the local, state, and national level would be helpful, or sometimes even necessary, to improve access to CalFresh. Current CalFresh policies limit accessibility, including an application process that can be arduous for residents with young children, those who work traditional hours, those who are disabled, and the elderly. Policy changes that allow residents to apply over the phone, through the mail, or online are recent additions, but work is still needed to make CalFresh as accessible as possible. In 2016, the CalFresh Partner Group is looking to CalFresh advocacy to increase participation. Several partner organizations have legislative platforms that include CalFresh concerns addressing college student food insecurity, providing supplemental benefits in the summer to families with school-age children, and simplifying the application process by using electronic employment databases to verify income. VI. Policy Items of Interest The following changes will have an impact to our CalFresh participation, and/or increase the workload of our staff. • Effective June 1, 2016, our clients who have “change reporting” requirements (homeless, elderly and or disabled) will change to Semi Annual Reporting. This will allow clients to report only once a year and at recertification. With fewer opportunities to report come fewer opportunities for our clients to be in non- compliance and potentially lose benefits. Notices were sent in December 2015, March 2016 and May 2016 informing these households of this change. In addition, posters have been made for our lobbies advising of this change. Good Cause will be provided for the first year to help those households who are not familiar with the Semi Annual Reporting responsibilities. • Use of a Single Signature application became effective March 1, 2016. This allows the application process to begin with the initial application submitted. The advantage is that it is no longer necessary to return the Statement of Facts in order to obtain the client signature. This process initiates the start of the 30 day processing timeline with less information upfront than previously received, but it will reduce the need for the client to return to the district office in order for application processing to begin. • Telephonic Signature The telephonic signature is a type of electronic signature that uses an individual’s recorded spoken signature or verbal assent in place of an actual written signature. The use of the telephonic signature, as part of the application or recertification process, will eliminate the need to mail documents in order to gather a client’s ink signature. In addition, by utilizing this process it will also reduce the amount of cases being discontinued for failure to complete the recertification process which will assist with reducing churn. EHSD does not yet have the technology in place to roll out department wide, so we are utilizing existing technologies at locations that operate an May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1369 Automated Call Distribution center such as the Health Care Access Center. The MediCal CalFresh Service center will begin to use this process with the recertifications effective May 2016. • SNAP to Skills Contra Costa County is currently participating in the SNAP to Skills led by Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI). The Federal and State CalFresh agencies have contracted with SJI to help selected California counties develop Employment and Training programs. VII. Important Next Steps The Department remains committed to providing timely and ready access to CalFresh benefits for those with food insecurity, and in continuing to serve our CalFresh customers in a timely and accurate manner. To this end, we have a continual improvement objective in the areas of outreach, access, enrollment, and services delivery. Part of this objective is to continue our community outreach efforts and to work even more closely with our community partners to expand access to CalFresh benefits. Expanding access includes our continued rollout of electronic and other alternative means for applying for benefits. We will also continue our efforts to further streamline our CalFresh application and benefits renewal process, and will also continue to work on increasing knowledge and awareness of the CalFresh program throughout and to targeted areas within the County. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1370 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT reports from the Health Services Department on the Continuum of Care Plan for the Homeless and the Health Care for the Homeless. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: In November 2014, the Board approved “Forging Ahead Towards Preventing and Ending Homelessness: An Update to Contra Costa’s 2004 Strategic Plan”, that renewed our 2004 plan with the latest data, best practices, and community feedback and reaffirmed our commitment to the Housing First approach. As such, “Forging Ahead” establishes this guiding principle: “Homelessness is first a housing issue, and necessary supports and services are critical to help people remain housed. Our system must be nimble and flexible enough to respond throught shared responsibility, accountability, and transparency of the community.” The Strategic Plan Update identifies two goals: 1) Decrease the length of time people experience homelessness by focusing on providing Permanent Housing and Services APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C.139 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reports from the Health Services Department on the Continuum of Care Plan for the Homeless and the Health Care for the Homeless May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1371 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and; 2) Decrease the percentage of people who become homeless by providing Prevention activities. To achieve these goals, three strategies emerged: 1) Implement a coordinated entry/assessment system to streamline access to housing and services while addressing barriers, getting the right resources to the right people at the right time; 2) Use best, promising , and most effective practices to give the consumer the best possible experience through the strategic use of resources; and 3) Develop the most effective platforms to provide access, support advocacy, and connect to the community about homelessness and available resources. The Homeless Program partners with the Homeless Advisory Board and Continuum of Care to develop and carryout an annual action plan that identifies the objectives and benchmarks related to each of the goals and strategies of Forging Ahead. Further, the Homeless Program incorporates the strategic plan goals into its own delivery system of comprehensive services, interim housing and permanent supportive housing as well as contracting with community agencies to provide additional homeless services and housing with the goal of ending homelessness in our community. On May 9, 2016, the Family and Human Services Committee received the attached reports and approved forwarding them to the full board for informational purposes. Since 1990, the Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Program has provided health care services to the homeless population in Contra Costa County through mobile clinics, stationary health centers and the Concord Medical Respite facility. Health care services provided by the HCH team include routine physical assessments, basic treatment of primary health problems such as minor wounds and skin conditions, respiratory problems, TB screening, acute communicable disease screening, coordination and referrals for follow up treatment of identified health care needs, dental services, health education, behavioral health services and outreach and enrollment services. On May 9, 2016, the Family and Human Services Committee received and approved the attached reports from the Health Services Department and approved for them to be forwarded to the full Board for review. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: There is no consequence of a negative action. The Health Services Department provides the annual Continuum of Care Plan for the Homeless and the Health Care for the Homeless Report to the Board of Supervisors in a public meeting to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on the report. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Homeless COC Report Homeless CoC Presentation Health Care for the Homeless Report Health Care for the Homeless Presentation May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1372 WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR CYNTHIA BELON, LCSW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIRECTOR CONTRA COSTA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOMELESS PROGRAM 1350 Arnold Drive, Ste. 202 Martinez, California 94553-4675 PH 925 313-6124 FAX 925 313-6761 TO: Family and Human Services Committee, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Lavonna Martin, MPH, MPA, Chief, Homeless Services RE: Annual Report on the Homeless Continuum of Care DATE: May 9, 2016 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept this report from the Health Services Department; and 2. Forward this report to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance; and, 3. Direct Staff to continue to report on an annual basis to the FHS Committee regarding progress of the effort to end homelessness and the activities of Contra Costa Inter-Jurisdictional Council on Homelessness (Homeless Advisory Board). BACKGROUND In November 2014, the Board approved “Forging Ahead Towards Preventing and Ending Homelessness: An Update to Contra Costa’s 2004 Strategic Plan”, that renewed our 2004 plan with the latest data, best practices, and community feedback and reaffirmed our commitment to the Housing First approach. As such, “Forging Ahead” establishes this guiding principle: “Homelessness is first a housing issue, and necessary supports and services are critical to help people remain housed. Our system must be nimble and flexible enough to respond throught shared responsibility, accountability, and transparency of the community.” The Strategic Plan Update identifies two goals: 1) Decrease the length of time people experience homelessness by focusing on providing Permanent Housing and Services and; 2) Decrease the percentage of people who become homeless by providing Prevention activities. To achieve these goals, three strategies emerged: 1) Implement a coordinated entry/assessment system to streamline access to housing and services while addressing barriers, getting the right resources to the right people at the right time; 2) Use best, promising , and most effective practices to give the consumer the best possible experience through the strategic use of resources; and 3) Develop the most effective platforms to provide access, support advocacy, and connect to the community about homelessness and available resources. The Homeless Program partners with the Homeless Advisory Board and Continuum of Care to develop and carryout an annual action plan that identifies the objectives and benchmarks related to each of the goals and strategies of Forging Ahead. Further, the Homeless Program incorporates the strategic plan goals into its own delivery system of comprehensive services, interim housing and permanent supportive housing as well as contracting with community agencies to provide additional homeless services and housing with the goal of ending homelessness in our community. Attached is a summary of Key Activities and Accomplishments of the Homeless Continuum of Care for fiscal year 13- 14/14-15, as well as the Contra Costa Homeless Continuum of Care Annual Report that provides a summary of program services, outcomes, and consumer demograhics for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1373 HOMELESS PROGRAMS KEY ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FY 14-15/15-16 The Homeless Program, partnered/s with the Council on Homelessness, service providers, and other community stakeholders, to implement the following key activities and achieve the following outcomes. 1. Housing and Services • Thirty-two additional rental assistance vouchers were added to the Continuum of Care. • Work continues towards the development of permanent supportive housing units for homeless individuals and families on the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Homeless Program, in concert with the Council on Homelessness, continues to work with the City of Concord to develop a timeline to bring the units on-line. 2. System Governance, Design and Delivery • Work is in progress to develop a coordinated assessment system to streamline and coordinate program participant intake, assessment and prioritization for housing. The Contra Costa Homeless Continuum of Care has selected the Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) as the comprehensive and standardized assement tool and began administering the tool February 2015. Training for all Homeless Service providers was completed 1/15/16. • The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County has worked with the Council on Homelessness to develop a homeless preference to support “graduates” of permanent supportive housing. • Work with the Council on Homelessness to draft a governance charter and revise the by-laws for the Contra Costa Council on Homelessness was completed and approved by the Board of Supervisors on 1/19/16. The new Council has 17 voting member seats that reflect a variety of stakeholders needed to address homelessness in Contra Costa. 3. Outreach/Engagement/Community Awareness • Project Homeless Connect was held in Richmond August 6, 2014. Over 750 participants had access to free services including health care, vision screenings, homeless court, benefits enrollment, and pet vaccinations and also received summer hygiene kits and free transportation to-and-from the event. The next PHC will be held October 13, 2016 at the Contra Costa County Fairgrounds in Antioch. • The point-in-time count of homeless individuals living on the streets and in shelters was conducted over a three day period in January 2016. Three thousand, five hundred (3,500) individuals were identified as homeless the night of January 27, 2016 in Contra Costa. This is a 6% decrease in the number of individuals counted last year. 4. Funding and Special Initiatives • Successfully competed for HUD Continuum of Care Program Homeless Assistance funds which brought more than $11M to Contra Costa homeless service providers. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1374 • Contra Costa was selected to join Zero: 2016, a national campaign coordinated by Community Solutions, to end homelessness for 237 veterans by the end of 2015, and 763 chronically homeless individuals by 2016. To date, 229 veterans have been housed and 250 chronically homeless individuals have secured housing. • In June 2014, the County Homeless Program completed an analysis of the Cost of Homelessness on the Healthcare System. Using 2013-2014 Fiscal Year data, 6,601 unique individuals were identified as homeless in the Continuum’s system of care. Just under half of those individuals (3,170) also utilized mental health, primary health, or alcohol and drug treatment offered through the Contra Costa Health Services Department for a total of $45,412,145. While many consumers incurred few and nominal healthcare expenses, a small minority, twelve percent (12%), of the homeless population that accessed the county health services amassed almost three-quarters of the total county healthcare costs (>$32M). May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1375 CONTRA COSTA HOMELESS CONTINUUM OF CARE 2014-2015 Fiscal Year Annual Report This report provides a summary of activities, service data, and outcomes for the Contra Costa Homeless Continuum of Care for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The Continuum of Care is a local planning body - comprised of health and human service providers, members of the faith community, businesses, funders, education systems, and law enforcement - all working in partnership with consumers to develop, organize, and implement a housing and support services delivery system for homeless individuals across the County. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1376 Contra Costa Homeless Continuum of Care TABLE OF CONTENTS Annual Report Summary…………………………………………………………..Page 2 Contra Costa Council on Homelessness Overview …………………………………Page 3 Programs and Services……………………………………………………………Page 4 Program Outcomes and Performance Measures…………………………………..Page 5 Program highlight…………………………………………………………………Page 6 Zero:2016 ………………………………………………………………………..Page 6 Cost of Homelessness……………………………………………………………...Page 8 Coordinated Entry………………………………………………………………...Page 9 2015 Point in Time Count…………………………………………………………Page 10 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1377 ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY – A LETTER FROM THE CHAIR VISION and CHANGE are the two words that best sum up fiscal year 2014-15 for Contra Costa’s Homeless Continuum of Care (the Continuum). The year began amidst a collective re-enVISIONing of the provision of housing and services for all of those who are homeless in Contra Costa County. An unprecedented number and scope of community members took part in this effort, including partner agencies that provide such services, faith and other community members, homeless and formerly homeless individuals, hospitals, police, and local government. An important guiding principle emerged - “Homelessness is first a housing issue, and necessary supports and services are critical to help people remain housed.” The end result of the extensive community discussion and planning efforts was Forging Ahead Toward Preventing and Ending Homelessness - a fresh strategic plan to guide our County’s efforts in addressing homelessness in the next decade. The Plan concentrates on goals to increase permanent housing opportunities and preventing homelessness, with three key strategy areas to meet these goals: 1) Coordinated Entry of homeless people into the systems of care (to streamline the process for clients, effectively address barriers, implement a Housing First approach, and better match clients with the appropriate level of housing and services); 2) Performance Standards (to systematically evaluate the impact of efforts on clients and integrate evaluation and performance measures with implementation of programs and practices); and 3) Communication (to increase access, support advocacy, and connect the community with information about homelessness and available resources). The Continuum invested many hours to conceptualize and develop these three strategies, with guidance from a number of evidence-based and evidence-informed resources. These efforts were aligned with the Contra Costa Council on Homelessness (the Council) Zero: 2016 campaign to end veteran and chronic homelessness. This campaign acted as a catalyst to bring new stakeholders to the Continuum’s efforts, leverage new resources, encourage greater communication, and use data to inform programming and systems change. And then began the process of actually implementing CHANGE! The Council was heavily involved with Zero: 2016 planning and development, roll-out of the Coordinated Entry system, and updating Performance Measures. This report demonstrates the impact of these efforts. Included is a summary of Continuum-wide outcomes with a brief review of annual Performance Measures as well as process and outcome measures for the various types of programming provided by Continuum partners. As you will see, many Contra Costa residents who were homeless improved their housing and living situations in 2014-2015. The Council is looking forward to a year of continued successes in the Continuum’s ability to meet the needs of our most vulnerable community members. In the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year, the Council will focus on even broader system change to improve housing resources and services across the county. Teri House, Chair Contra Costa Council on Homelessness For more information, email homelessprograms@hsd.cccounty.us. *A description of the Continuum of Care and the Council on Homelessness is provided on page 3 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1378 THE CONTRA COSTA COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS The Contra Costa Continuum of Care (the Continuum) is a network of providers, agencies, local governments, current and former consumer of services, and community members that coordinate the funding and provision of housing and services for homeless families and individuals. As a cohesive entity, the Continuum provides short- term financial assistance, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, substance use disorder treatment and supports, primary care and mental health services, housing navigation, and case management. The Contra Costa Council on Homelessness (hereinafter referred to as the Council) provides the necessary leadership to ensure that the Continuum implements comprehensive, evidence-informed programming to address homelessness across the county. The Council’s fourteen member Executive Board is appointed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to provide guidance and assist in the development and implementation of long range planning and policy formulation of homeless issues in Contra Costa County. It also serves as an advisory body to Contra Costa Health Services Department’s Health Care for the Homeless Program, in compliance with US Department of Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) requirements. The Contra Costa Council on Homelessness provides monthly forums that bring the Continuum of Care together for communication and coordination of the County's Strategic Plan to End Homelessness, education to the community on homeless issues, and advocacy on federal, state, and local policy issues affecting people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. Other service partners: Berkeley Food and Housing, East Bay Community Recovery Project, Monument Crisis Center, and West Contra Costa Unified School District May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1379 7,597 Individuals Served • 5,883 were homeless; 952 were in Permanent Supportive Housing • 711households with children • 948 minors • 1,710 chronically homeless • 479 homeless veterans70 minors  1,860 chronically PROGRAMS AND SERVICES The Continuum serves thousands of homeless and formerly homeless people of all ages and demographics through the many service providers delivering homeless prevention and intervention programs. Continuum programs fall under seven different categories.  Emergency Shelters provide temporary shelter for people that have no safe and healthy sleeping arrangements. Consumers generally come from uninhabitable locations (encampments, streets, or vehicles), are fleeing domestic violence, or lost temporary housing.  Support Services Only programs include a variety of services to assist homeless individuals get back on their feet and/or simply provide basic health needs. This programming includes Drop-in Centers and Employment Programs.  Transitional Housing is short-term housing for underage youth and families to get them off the streets and into more stable living environments until permanent housing can be established.  Rapid Rehousing programs provide financial assistance and services to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless and help those who are experiencing homelessness to be quickly re-housed and stabilized.  Permanent Supportive Housing links long-term, safe, affordable, community-based housing with flexible, voluntary support services designed to help the individual or family stay housed and live a more productive life in the community.  Street Outreach provides basic hygiene supplies, housing and shelter referrals, food, and water.  Prevention Programs provide short-term financial assistance to help families and individuals stay in their homes and avoid entering homelessness. 3864 1407 1123 952 831 480 386 319 270 Drop-In Centers Emergency Shelters Street Outreach Permanent Supportive Housing Rapid Rehousing Employment Programs Transitional Housing Benefits and Money Mgmt Prevention Individuals Served by Program Type* *Individuals utilizing multiple programs are included under each program type. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1380 PROGRAM OUTCOMES The Council reviews a variety of metrics to determine program performance across the Continuum. One key metric are the Performance Measures, or outcome measurements required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to track outcomes in HUD-funded Continuum of Care programming. Performance Measures are critical in understanding areas of improvement and to determine how many consumers are achieving positive outcomes within various types of programming. 2014-2015 System-wide Performance Measures The Contra Costa County Homeless Continuum of Care established Performance Measures for all types of programming (Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Rapid Rehousing, Support Services and Outreach, and Permanent Supportive Housing). Three of the key Performance Measures are provided below. 27% of consumers in Emergency Shelters exited straight into Permanent Housing 81% of consumers in Rapid Rehousing exited to Permanent Housing opportunities; only 9% returned back into homelessness after being placed into Permanent Housing 97% of individuals placed into Permanent Supportive Housing remain in their housing for at least a year; 70% retained for at least 3 years. Sub-population Outcomes Additional measurements collected by the Continuum provide a deeper understanding of how consumers move through the system as well as how different populations achieve housing. Movement through the system from no or temporary housing to permanent housing is the best indicator of success. In the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year, we see that consumers, regardless of service type utilized, improve their housing and living situations. Population Prior Living Situation % Exiting to Permanent Housing Veterans 55% came from encampments; 45% came from emergency shelters or temporary living situations 36% Chronically Homeless 55% came from encampments; 43% came from emergency shelters or temporary living situations 22% Minors (under 18 yrs) Prior sleeping arrangement is not collected for minors 55% May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1381 “I enjoy being part of CCIH’s program because they helped me acquire housing and assisted me with my educational goals to become an EMT (Emergency Medical Technician). I was paired with a good roommate. Without CCIH I don’t know where I’d be.” -Cory PROGRAM PARTNER HIGHLIGHT Contra Costa Interfaith Housing Scattered Site Housing In 2015, Contra Costa Interfaith Housing (CCIH) launched its new scattered-site permanent housing program to provide housing for 48 chronically homeless adults struggling with mental health and other complex issues. In addition to obtaining affordable permanent housing, residents in this program receive intensive support from a mobile service team of case managers and mental health clinicians who visit them in their homes. Case managers partner with residents to set goals specific to their unique needs including from mental health, sobriety, employment, and access to essentials such as food and primary health care. This supportive housing model is cost-effective and successful in preventing high cost emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and incarceration while offering dignity and support to chronically homeless adults. This is a new housing model for CCIH which already provides permanent housing and/or supportive services at four affordable housing sites which serve more than 1,000 formerly homeless and very low-income Contra Costa residents. For more information about Contra Costa Interfaith Housing, please visit www.ccinterfaithhousing.org. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1382 Getting to Zero # entering homelessness each month # exiting homelessness each month to permanent housing   ≤ CONTRA COSTA ZERO: 2016 CAMPAIGN In January, 2015, Contra Costa joined 70 other communities across the U.S. working to quickly and efficiently reduce the number of veterans and chronically homeless people in need of permanent housing through the national Zero: 2016 campaign organized by Community Solutions. The campaign aims to house all homeless veterans by the end of 2015, and all people who are chronically homeless by 2016. Guided by the Contra Costa Zero: 2016 Leadership Committee, a sub-committee of the Council on Homelessness, local Zero: 2016 efforts are focused on meeting housing placement goals for homeless veterans, individuals who are chronically homeless, families, and unaccompanied youth through cross-sector collaboration, systems development, and the use of data to drive change and achieve success. Using a formula offered by Community Solutions, Contra Costa’s housing placement goals for veterans and chronically homeless were derived by combining 2015 Point in Time data (see page 11) with a multiplier designed to estimate the number of newly homeless people entering the system each month. Housing placement goals established for Contra Costa’s Zero campaign are to house • 237 veterans; and • 763 chronically homeless. Each month, targets are revised based on the total placements remaining and length of time left to meet the final placement goals. “Zero” will be achieved when the number of homeless individuals and families who are permanently housed each month is equal to or greater than the number of individuals who are entering homelessness. In 2015-2016, Contra Costa’s Zero: 2016 campaign efforts will focus on landlord engagement to address the shortage of housing opportunities for veterans and chronically homeless. Data will also be incorporated into program efforts to better understand the breadth of housing needs and assets in the county. Additionally, the Continuum of Care will establish “by-name” lists that identify each and every veteran and chronically homeless person in the system of care that needs housing. Contra Costa Zero: 2016 Leadership Committee partner agencies May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1383 $45 Million in Health Care Costs COST OF HOMELESSNESS ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM Cities and counties across the United States bear extraordinary financial and social costs related to homelessness and lack of related resources such as health care and prevention. Contra Costa County continues to analyze data from across multiple county programs to determine the cost of homelessness at the local level. Health costs include Primary Health Care (emergency, inpatient, and outpatient), Mental Health Care (emergency, inpatient, and outpatient), and Alcohol and Other Drug Services (outpatient and residential). Using 2013-2014 Fiscal Year data, 6,601 unique individuals were identified as homeless in the Continuum’s system of care. Just under half of those individuals (3,170) also utilized mental health, primary health, or alcohol and drug treatment offered through the Contra Costa Health Services Department for a total of $45,412,145. While many consumers incurred few and nominal healthcare expenses, a small minority, twelve percent, of the homeless population that accessed the county health services amassed almost three-quarters of the total county healthcare costs. These 12% are referred to as the high-cost consumers in this report and is consistent with other cost studies on homelessness that identifies the top 10-15% of consumers as high-cost users. For this evaluation, high-cost consumers are individuals incurring over $25,000 in total costs across the three county health services. This cut-off was established after identifying that the majority of the 3,170 consumers (60%) costs less than $5,000 in medical and behavioral health care costs and a small minority (12%) incurred over $25,000. Among high-cost users, primary health inpatient and mental health outpatient were the greatest expenses; with $46,729 and $7,763 in average annual costs respectively. During 2015-2016, the County will continue to analyze data to incorporate additional costs, including clean- up of encampments along the water canals and emergency services transportation. Analyses will also review service expenses for consumers that go into Permanent Supportive Housing to understand savings in healthcare and local government once homeless individuals become housed and receive support services. For the full report, click here: Cost of Homelessness Study. 12% of utilizers incurred 71% of healthcare costs 88% of utilizers incurred 29% of healthcare costs $13 Million $32 Million $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Primary Health Emergency Primary Health Inpatient Primary Health Outpatient Alcohol, Drug, and Other Substances Mental Health Emergency Mental Health Inpatient Mental Health Outpatient Average Health Care Costs by Service Type among High-Cost Users May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1384 What is the VI-SPDAT? The VI-SPDAT is a “supertool” that combines the strengths of two widely used existing assessments: 1. The Vulnerability Index (VI), developed by Community Solutions, is an outreach tool currently utilized in more than 100 communities. Rooted in leading medical research, the VI helps determine the chronicity and medical vulnerability of homeless individuals. 2. The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT), developed by OrgCode Consulting, is an intake and case management tool utilized in more than 70 communities. Based on a wide body of social science research and extensive field testing, the tool helps service providers allocate resources in a logical, targeted way. The VI-SPDAT helps identify the best type of support and housing intervention for an individual by relying on three categories of recommendation: Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing, or Affordable Housing. FIRST STEPS TO COORDINATED ENTRY The Continuum continues to design and implement a coordinated entry system that streamlines access to services for homeless consumers in need of housing. The Council established a Coordinated Entry sub- committee to research best and promising practices around coordinated entry, identify a universal screening tool, and develop a Continuum-wide implementation strategy. The VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index-Screening Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool) was adopted by the Council as the evidence-informed tool to identify the appropriate housing type and level of services for homeless individuals based upon their physical and behavioral health needs. The VI- SPDAT is a simple-to-administer that can be completed in the field, over the phone, or in person. The Continuum’s efforts with Coordinated Entry included pilot testing the VI- SPDAT and case conferencing for housing placement based on VI-SPDAT scores. Over the past fiscal year, the CoC: • Launched a CoC-wide pilot of the VI-SPDAT assessment tool • Designed our coordinated entry process • Began pilot of Housing Placement Committee to test the referral process • Identified the need for housing navigators and housing locators to ensure successful placements During the 15-16 Fiscal Year, Continuum service providers will be encouraged to enter VI-SPDAT scores into the Homeless Management Information System, allowing facilitation of Housing Placement Committee meetings using the assessment scores to identify appropriate housing placements. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1385 3,715 individuals: • 1,326 unsheltered • 704 sheltered • 1,685 other “Other” homeless category includes other temporary living arrangements eligible for HUD funded services and would be homeless if not for temporary accommodation they had the night of the count. 2015 POINT IN TIME COUNT The 2015 Point in Time (PIT) count was a great example of collaboration and innovation among Continuum partners and community agencies. In past years, the PIT Count was conducted over a one day/night period and PIT surveys were conducted on a sample of individuals. This year’s methodology was changed to reflect recommendations made by Housing and Urban Development to extend the number of days volunteers and street outreach teams were in the community, administering a survey to community members at service and community sites, and conducting a full census instead of sampling across the community. These efforts required partnerships with service sites, community organizations, local governments, and about 100 volunteers from the community and partner agencies. The Point in Time count data is used to both track homelessness trends across the county and to understand funding and programmatic needs to ensure housing and other resources for the community. The PIT numbers also informed goals for the Zero:2016 initiative and helped to set priorities and strategies for ending veteran and chronic homelessness. Outreach teams documented locations of encampments at the time of the PIT Count. These encampments are identified in the GIS map below. The full report and a one-page info-graphic are available on the Council website. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1386 RESOURCES AND LINKS Links provided in this report: Performance measures Report: http://cchealth.org/homeless/council/pdf/2015-PIT-report.pdf Zero: 2016 Community Solutions: http://cmtysolutions.org/zero2016 Cost of Homelessness Report: http://cchealth.org/homeless/council/pdf/cost-of-homelessness-in- contra-costa-county.pdf 2015 Point in Time Report: http://cchealth.org/homeless/council/pdf/2015-PIT-report.pdf 2015 Point in Time Infographic: http://cchealth.org/homeless/council/pdf/2015-PIT-infographic.pdf Council on Homelessness Website: http://cchealth.org/homeless/council/about.php Please contact the Contra Costa County Homeless Program at homelessprograms@hsd.ccounty.us for more information about this report or activities within the Contra Costa Continuum of Care. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1387 Annual Update on the Homeless Annual Update on the Homeless Continuum of CareContinuum of Care Presentation to the Family and Human Services Committee Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors May 9, 2016 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1388 2 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1389 Contra Costa Council on Contra Costa Council on HomelessnessHomelessness •17 voting seats •Representing primary health care, law enforcement, ESG federal programs, County/City government, Housing Authority, faith community, non-profit service providers. •Executive Board meets monthly. Community forum is convened quarterly. 3 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1390 Continuum of Care FocusContinuum of Care Focus FY 14FY 14--1515 1) Defining the need through data 2) Service Delivery and Outcomes 3) Expanded partnerships 4) Systems Change 4 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1391 Point in Time Count 2016Point in Time Count 2016 5 1,730 homeless * 620 in shelters * 1,110 on streets 1,770 imminently at- risk9% veterans 7% families with minor children 15% chronically homeless 29% mental health issues 3,500 Homeless or Imminently At-Risk May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1392 One Year PIT ComparisonOne Year PIT Comparison 620 704 1110 1326 1770 1685 201 6 201 5 2015 and 2016 PIT Sheltered, Unsheltered, and At-Risk Sheltered Unsheltered At-risk Total: 3,500 Total: 3,715 6% decrease 6 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1393 7,597 individuals received shelter, support services, and/or housing assistance FY 14-15. •5,883 were homeless An Expanded ViewAn Expanded View 7 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1394 Facts about the PopulationFacts about the Population FY14FY14--1515 37% are households with children 27% are children (<18) 11% are veterans 37% are chronically homeless 30% have a medical / health condition 25% have alcohol abuse issues 27% have drug abuse issues 34% have a mental health disability 8 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1395 Disabling condition 9 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1396 SystemSystem--widewide PerformancePerformance Measures FY 14Measures FY 14--1515 •27%of consumers in Emergency Shelters exited straight into Permanent Housing •81%of consumers in Rapid Rehousing remained in Permanent Housing; only 9% returned back into homelessness. •97%of individuals placed into Permanent Supportive Housing remain in their housing for at least a year; 70% retained for at least 3 years. o Among those that exit the program, 75% go to other permanent housing opportunities 10 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1397 Cost of Homelessness to Primary Cost of Homelessness to Primary and Behavioral Health Systemand Behavioral Health System 11 12% of consumers incurred 2/3 of healthcare 88% of consumers incurred 1/3 of healthcare costs $13 M $32 M $45 Million in Health Care Expenditures May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1398 Driving towards Driving towards functional zerofunctional zero Since January 2015, we have housed… •229 veterans •250 chronically homeless 12 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1399 Coordinated Entry DesignCoordinated Entry Design 13 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1400 Next Years WorkNext Years Work Coordinated Entry Implementation New housing for families and veterans Whole Person Care Housing Security Fund Integrated outreach (including street medicine) 14 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1401 Need to Contact Us?Need to Contact Us? Lavonna Martin, MPH, MPA Chief, Homeless Program Lavonna.Martin@hsd.cccounty.us 15 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1402 1 CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Family and Human Services DATE: May 11th, 2016 Committee Members Board of Supervisors FROM: Rachael Birch, Project Director Health Care for the Homeless SUBJECT: Health Care for the Homeless Annual Report Recommendations 1. Accept this report from the Health Services Department; and 2. Forward this report to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance; and 3. Direct staff to continue to report on an annual basis to the FHS Committee regarding progress and status of the Health Care for the Homeless Program and to submit an additional written report to the Board of Supervisors, at six-month intervals. Background Since 1990, the Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Program has provided health care services to the homeless population in Contra Costa County through mobile clinics, stationary health centers and the Concord Medical Respite facility. Health care services provided by the HCH team include routine physical assessments, basic treatment of primary health problems such as minor wounds and skin conditions, respiratory problems, TB screening, acute communicable disease screening, coordination and referrals for follow up treatment of identified health care needs, dental services, health education, behavioral health services and outreach and enrollment services. A significant portion of the homeless patients seen by the HCH team have chronic diseases, including asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and mental health/substance abuse issues. They also have disproportionately more dental, substance abuse and mental health needs than the general population. The clinical team is comprised of a Medical Director, Family Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurses, Community Health Workers, Dentist, Registered Dental Assistance, Mental Health Specialist, Substance Abuse Counselor, Health Educator and Eligibility Workers. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1403 2 Homeless patients who receive care on one of the mobile clinics are referred into one of the CCHS ambulatory care health centers for primary and specialty care, into County mental health and substance abuse services, and to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for emergency, inpatient hospital, outpatient surgeries, laboratory and radiology. There are four ambulatory care clinics, located in Antioch, San Pablo, Martinez and Concord, designated specifically for homeless patients to help them transition from the mobile clinic setting into the ambulatory care system. HCH staff members are present at each of these clinics. The HCH Program also has priority scheduling access for homeless patients in all of the CCHS Health Centers. During 2015, CCHS treated 32,093 homeless patients who generated 166,589 visits. Table 1 (below) indicates the Board of Supervisor’s District where homeless patients reside. If no residential zip code data are available, the zip code where a patient received care is used. Table 1: Percent of Homeless Patients by Supervisorial District District 2015 I 30.1% II 2.5% III 36.9% IV 19.4% V 11.1% The attached presentation contains additional demographic information on our Homeless population. New Actions The following activities and updates have occurred since the last briefing to the Board of Supervisors on HCH activities: New Staff Linae Young, MPH - Senior Health Education Specialist Linae was added to our team in January 2016 to manage our expanding Health Education program. She is responsible for arranging education classes in our County-run shelters and other community agencies. So far she has implemented Expressive Art Therapy groups, and Diabetes, Substance Abuse, Stress Management and Health Care Maintenance classes at County shelters. Classes and groups have been well-attended and well-received. New Funding Opportunities May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1404 3 The HCH Program received a Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) grant in March 2016 to develop a new program focusing on therapy and treatment for opiate addiction. The HCH Program is currently hiring four Nurses and four Mental Health Providers to provide these services in Antioch, West County and Concord. Services will include group counseling, medication treatment using buprenorphine and case management to assist patients transitioning off opiate drugs. Narcan Kits The HCH Program is now providing Narcan units and Narcan training to team members and to community organizations. Narcan is an opiate antidote and can save lives if administered to an overdosing individual. HIV Testing The HCH Program is now providing on-the-spot HIV testing in our mobile clinics. HIV testing technology now allows cheek swabs and 20 minute processing. The HCH Program has noticed a very low compliance rate for patients referred to the lab for HIV testing. Due to various barriers or personal reasons, homeless patients do not comply with referrals to obtain a blood test for HIV testing. Providing a simple test in the field, the HCH team hopes to increase HIV screening rates for our population. Dental Program The HCH Program has operated a Dental Clinic for almost one year now. Operating at 16 hours per week, the Respite Dental Clinic has been a much needed addition. Homeless people have disproportionally more dental problems than other populations and lack access to dental services. The HCH Program is working on expanding our dental program and recently applied for a funding opportunity to add mobile dental units. There is still a lot of work to be done to meet the large need for dental services among this population. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1405 HEALTH CARE FOR THE HOMELESS (HCH) CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES MAY 9 TH , 2016 PRESENTATION TO THE FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1406 FUNDING FOR HCH SERVICES •Section 330(h) Public Health Services Act Health Care for the Homeless grant from the Federal Government (BPHC/HRSA) – approx. $2.7M per year. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1407 NEW FUNDING Dental Service Expansion – HCH Program operates a Dental Cli nic at the Respite Health Center in Concord. Medication Assisted Treatment – MAT services include Buprenorphine, a medication used to treat opioid dependence May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1408 WHAT WE DO? Primary Care Mental Health Substance Abuse Dental Care Respite Care Case Management Eligibility Assistance Patient Education Linkages to larger CCHS systems of care May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1409 STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS •GOAL 1: Improve Communication within and between Homeless Providers in Contra Costa County. •GOAL 2: Expand BH integration within the HCH Program •GOAL 3: Increase preventative services compliance •GOAL 4: Improve HCH visibility, service alignment and integration within CCHS system •GOAL 5: Reduce barriers to care and provide comprehensive services to all Homeless clients in County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1410 PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS 2015 •46.5% Male •53.6% Female •8.5% Uninsured (16.7% in 2013) •75.4% Medi-Cal (63% in 2013) •2% Veterans •24.1% Best served in language other than English (22.5% in 2014) May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1411 HOMELESS RACE/ETHNICITY Race 2015 2014 Latino/Hispanic 31.9% 30.2% White 28.8% 31.2% Black/African American 18.2% 18% May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1412 WHERE ARE PATIENTS BEING SERVED? District 2013 2014 2015 I 20.6% 24.6% 30.1% II 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% III 40.5% 36.2% 36.9% IV 19.9% 19.5% 19.4% V 10.4% 10.9% 11.1% May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1413 UPDATES •Education Program •Diabetes, Nutrition, Hypertension, Substance Abuse, Cancer, Health Care Maintenance, Stress Management •Expressive Art Therapy Groups •HIV testing •Narcan kits •Miller Wellness Clinic May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1414 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/382 authorizing the County Administrator to participate in a regional effort to evaluate the feasibility of a countywide taxicab regulation process and DIRECT the County Administrator to make regular updates to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee as the process moves forward. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On September 5, 2013, the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (the "Committee") received a staff report regarding the status of a regulatory structure for taxicab permitting within the unincorporated area, pursuant to Government Code § 53075.5. At that time, the Committee directed staff to work with the County Administrator’s Office (CAO) to: 1. Obtain advice from County Counsel regarding the County’s potential risk and exposure for not having a taxicab permitting ordinance or resolution pursuant to the California Code. 2. Coordinate with the Office of the Sheriff to identify resources and develop a budget for codifying and administrating a taxicab permitting ordinance or resolution. On June 5, 2014, the County Administrator’s Office returned to the Committee with a framework for the implementation of a taxicab ordinance in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The implementation frame APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C.144 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:RESOLUTION DECLARING FORMAL INTEREST IN A REGIONAL TAXICAB REGULATION PROCESS May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1415 work, including roles of County departments, is summarized below: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1416 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Treasurer-Tax Collector I. Issues general business license to taxi companies operating in the unincorporated area. II. Notifies applicants of the need to acquire a taxicab permit in jurisdiction where business is located. Sheriff’s Office I. Issues Permits to new taxicab operators and businesses located in the County unincorporated area. a. Applicant provides valid business license to operate in the unincorporated area. b. Sheriff facilitates referrals for the California Department of Justice Live Scan and drug testing for permit applicants with businesses established in the unincorporated area, at cost of the applicant. c. Applicant provides proof of taxicab vehicle inspection conducted by private entity at time of application for a permit, at cost of the applicant. d. Sheriff to establish a fee for reviewing new applications and annual renewals as part of the Taxicab ordinance. II. Existing taxicab operators and businesses permitted in other jurisdictions within Contra Costa County doing business in an unincorporated area. a. Ordinance to allow a permit from any other jurisdiction within Contra Costa County to operate a taxicab to be accepted with no further action required by Sheriff’s Office. b. Business owner are still responsible for acquiring a business license to operate in the unincorporated area from Treasurer Tax Collector. At the June 5, 2014 meeting, the Committee approved the implementation framework and directed staff to work with County Counsel to draft the Ordinance for review by the Committee. Shortly following the meeting, the Contra Costa County Police Chief’s Association discussed, at a regular meeting, the notion of a regional taxicab cooperative. On October 23, 2014, the County Administrator’s Office and Sheriff’s Office met with the Concord Police Chief and staff to explore options for implementing a regional taxicab cooperative with the intention of reporting back to the Committee with options and requesting direction. Shortly after that meeting, the Contra Costa County Local Government Leadership Academy, sponsored by the Contra Costa County Public Manager’s Association and local jurisdictions, received a submission from the City of Walnut Creek to explore, as a project for Academy participants, the implementation of a regional taxicab permitting program. The project duration was from January through July 2015. In light of the Academy submission, staff recommended and the Committee approved the tabling of further discussion about implementing a taxicab permitting regime for the unincorporated area until the results of the Academy project were complete and an analysis by County and municipal stakeholders was completed to assess the viability of a regional approach. In August 2015, the Academy completed and a workgroup of participants issued a thorough report on how best to move forward with a regional approach. The research of the workgroup cited a current Joint Exercise of Powers Authority (JPA) model in Marin County as a successful example of a regional effort to address taxicab permitting. On August 26, 2015, the regional workgroup convened to discuss the Academy workgroup’s findings and recommendations. The City of Walnut Creek, as the lead agency, offered to invite the General Manager of the Marin General Services Agency to discuss how that program worked and the interaction between the Authority, Marin County and cities within the County. On September 21, 2015, the regional workgroup convened to hear a presentation from the General Manager of the Marin General Services Authority about its operations and experience regulating taxis. Following that presentation, the workgroup was encouraged that an example of a regional model had proved to be a feasible May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1417 endeavor, but had reservations about establishing a new, standalone JPA within Contra Costa County to manage the operations. Alternatively, there was discussion regarding setting up an MOU process whereby a regional process would be “governed” by a set of MOUs between the County and cities. Following the discussion, the group agreed to report back to home agencies and return to the next workgroup meeting with the current position of each agency. On February 11, 2016, representatives from the City of Walnut Creek presented a proposal to the Public Manager’s Association (PMA) regarding a regional framework for regulation of taxicabs within the County. The proposal used a JPA model and the representatives provided a template policy resolution for governing boards to consider – essentially agreeing to participate in the next phase of planning. Following that meeting, there was discussion between some city and county representatives as to the relative benefits and drawbacks of a JPA vs. MOU approach and whether the two options had been fully vetted prior to making a formal recommendation to establish a JPA. Following those discussions, the City of Walnut Creek agreed to hold a conference call with city and county representatives, and their legal counsel, to determine a path forward. In the end, the group agreed that it would be best to continue vetting a JPA vs. MOU structure, but ask jurisdictions to adopt a policy resolution declaring formal interest in participating in a regional taxicab effort. This will help to get an accurate count of interested jurisdictions to determine the financial feasibility of a regional process. On May 12, 2016, the Committee directed staff to bring the attached policy resolution forward to the full Board of Supervisors for review and approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not have declared formal interest in reviewing the feasibility of establishing a regional taxicab regulation process. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/382 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/382 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1418 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/382 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO PURSUE EITHER THE POTENTIAL FORMATION OF A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (JPA) OR THE NEGOTIATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) FOR THE REGIONAL REGULATION OF TAXICAB SERVICES WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53075.5 states that every city or county shall protect the public health, safety, and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution regarding the provision of taxicab services within its jurisdiction; WHEREAS, each individual jurisdiction within the County of Contra Costa is currently responsible for the regulation of taxicab services within its own boundaries, including but not limited to the licensing/permitting of vehicles and drivers, the conduct of driver background checks and testing for controlled substances, vehicle inspections, approval of taxicab rates, and the establishment and enforcement of other operating rules and procedures; WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa anticipates that the formation of a single regional taxicab authority, or the negotiation of a regional MOU, would provide a benefit to the residents, visitors, and businesses of the unincorporated area, and those of other participating jurisdictions, through the promotion and establishment of consistent rules and standards for the regulation of taxicab services across the County; WHEREAS, it is also anticipated that the formation of a single regional taxicab authority, or the negotiation of a regional MOU, would allow taxicab drivers to obtain a single license/permit covering all participating jurisdictions, instead of having to obtain multiple licenses/permits throughout the County; and WHEREAS, it is also anticipated that the regulation of taxicab services through a single regional authority, or the negotiation of a regional MOU, would create efficiencies that could reduce overall staff time currently dedicated to the administration and regulation of taxicab services, both within the County, and in other participating jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as follows: 1. The County Administrator, in partnership with other participating jurisdictions, is hereby authorized to investigate the feasibility of either forming a joint powers authority (“JPA”) or negotiating a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) for the regional regulation of taxicab services within Contra Costa County. 2. The County Administrator shall designate a staff representative to work with the representatives of other participating jurisdictions in an effort to determine the feasibility of either creating a regional JPA or negotiating a regional MOU and, if feasible, to draft agreements and documents necessary to implement such regional JPA or MOU, including but not limited to: (i) a proposed JPA among participating jurisdictions, (ii) proposed bylaws and uniform taxicab regulations to be adopted by a JPA, (iii) an MOU among participating agencies, or (iv) any other local resolutions or ordinances necessary to implement the JPA or MOU, all subject to final review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1419 3. The County Administrator, or designee, is further authorized and encouraged to participate in regional outreach efforts, along with other jurisdictions, with community stakeholders. 4. The County Administrator, or designee, will continue to provide periodic updates to the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) regarding the work authorized by this Resolution. 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1420 C.144XXXXMay 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1421 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1422 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/381 delegating authority to the County Administrator and his designees to authorize, compromise, or settle claims, including workers' compensation claims, up to a maximum of $50,000. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has established and prescribed procedures that govern the presentation of claims against the County pursuant to the Government Tort Claims Act (Government Code section 935). Those procedures include delegating to the County Administrator and his designees authority up to $20,000 to allow, compromise, or settle a claim against the County (Resolution No. 81/1523). Government Code section 935.4 was amended in 1989 to allow the Board of Supervisors to increase the monetary limit of settlement authority from $20,000 to $50,000. The number and dollar amount of claims made against the County and the cost of settlements have escalated since Government Code section 935.4 was amended; therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached Resolution increasing the maximum settlement authority from $20,000 to $50,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. This is an administrative action to increase the monetary limit of $20,000 established in 1981 to $50,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C.143 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution No. 2016/381 Delegating Authority to Allow or Compromise Claims Against the County May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1423 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/381 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/381 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1424 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/381 IN THE MATTER OF DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO ALLOW OR COMPROMISE CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors has established and prescribed procedures that govern the presentation of claims against the County pursuant to the Government Tort Claims Act (Government Code section 935); WHEREAS those procedures included delegating to the County Administrator and his designees authority up to $20,000 to allow, compromise, or settle a claim against the County (Resolution No. 81/1523); WHEREAS Government Code section 935.4 was amended in 1989 to allow the Board of Supervisors to increase the monetary limit of settlement authority from $20,000 to $50,000; and WHEREAS the number and dollar amount of claims made against the County and the cost of settlements have escalated since Government Code section 935.4 was amended and since the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 81/1523; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Board of Supervisors does hereby delegate to the County Administrator and his designees the authority to authorize, compromise, or settle claims, including workers’ compensation claims, up to a maximum of $50,000; and 1. The allowance, compromise, and settlement of claims falling within this limit shall be the responsibility of the County Administrator and his designees, and no further formal authorization from this Board shall be required. 2. Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1425 C.143XXXXMay 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1426 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/353 amending the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon, and; AUTHORIZE and APPROVE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute the attached Third Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations. FISCAL IMPACT: The Third Amendment to the Master Property Tax Exchange will result in an estimated $173,600 decrease in ad valorem property tax for the County. The completion of the San Ramon City Center Project will result in a projected net increase of $1.58 million to the County after adjusting for the decrease of $173,600, estimated to result from the Third Amendment. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Resolution No. 2007/370 (Second Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations) was approved on July 24, 2007 to amend the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for three parcels in the Bishop Ranch area (APN 213-133-086; APN 213-120-013; APN 213-133-063), in order to aid in financing four to five parking structures for the then proposed San Ramon City Center. Included in the Second Amendment to the Master Agreement was an APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/24/2016 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Rich Seithel, (925) 674-7869 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Bob Campbell, Greg Rodgers, Julie Enea, Gayle Israel C.125 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:San Ramon Bishop Ranch Tax Exchange Amendment May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1427 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > automatic termination clause requiring the City to notify the County of either the Project Commencement or Extension Notice by November 1, 2009 or the Second Amendment would be considered null and void. The County did not receive either the Extension Notice or the Project Commencement Notice by November 1, 2009, thereby terminating the second amendment. Since 2007, the City of San Ramon has modified their City Center Concept Plan. Of particular note, the modified Plan does not include parking structures, but it now includes 450-500 residential units. Currently, the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement as amended by the first amendment, thereto the "Master Agreement", County Resolution No. 86/305, provides that the property tax revenues the City is to be allocated from the County shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the sum of the sales tax revenue and transient occupancy tax revenue received by the City during the preceding tax year throughout the Bishop Ranch area. Any such reduction, however, shall not result in a negative transfer (i.e. more than 100% of City’s Bishop Ranch property tax). It is estimated that the City Center will create approximately 3,000 additional jobs and result in an increase in assessed value of approximately $850 million. The $850 million assessed value increase is estimated to result in additional ad valorem property tax of $884,541 to the County and $869,070 ($173,814 of which is residential) to the City. Given that the residential units will not generate sales tax or transient occupancy tax, and in recognition of the additional jobs created and the increase in assessed valuation, it has been recommended that the assessed value generated by the residential units in the City Center area not be subject to the 50% sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue provision. This amendment will apply to units identified by Assessor Responsibility Code 1 or 2 and Use Codes 10 thru 29 and located in current Assessor Parcels 213-133-063 and 213-133-086 (see attached map of City Center project area and parcels). Assuming the preceding year’s sales and transient occupancy tax revenue generated in the City Center project area are more than twice the City’s ad valorem property tax, it is estimated that the County will receive $1,753,611 (San Ramon + County portion) less $173,814 (San Ramon’s residential portion) for a net of $1,579,797 in additional County revenue from the City Center Project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Resolution not adopted, City Center residential units will continue to be exposed to the Master Property Tax Agreement's sales and transit occupancy tax reduction formula. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/353 Master/First Amendment Parcel Map Third Amendment MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/353 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1428 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 05/24/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/353 Third Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations. WHEREAS, effective June 3, 1986, pursuant to County Resolution 86/305 and City of San Ramon Resolution 86-57, County and City entered into the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (as amended by the first amendment thereto, the “Master Agreement”), which governs the administration of property, sales, and transient occupancy taxes for the Bishop Ranch annexation; and WHEREAS, effective July 24, 2007, County and City entered into that certain Second Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (the “Second Amendment”) amending the Master Agreement pursuant to duly adopted resolutions; and WHEREAS, the operative terms of the Second Amendment never came into effect because City did not provide County with either a Project Commencement Notice (as defined in the Second Amendment) or a Project Extension Notice (as defined in the Second Amendment) by November 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement provides that the property tax revenues the City is to receive from the County shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the sum of the sales tax revenue and transient occupancy tax revenue received by the City during the preceding tax year, however, any such reduction shall not result on a negative transfer; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to promote the development of a City Center project in Bishop Ranch that will include approximately 391,000 square feet of retail space, 450-500 residential units, 139,900 square feet of hotel space, and 700,000 square feet of office space (the “City Center Project”); and WHEREAS, the City has proposed and County has agreed to amend the Master Agreement in order to facilitate development of the City Center Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY that City’s portion of property tax revenues from current Assessor Parcel Nos. 213-133-086 and 213-133-063, and further identified by Assessor Responsibility Code 1 or 2 and Use Codes 10 thru 29 (residential units) shall not be reduced by San Ramon's sales and and transient occupancy tax revenue, but shall be apportioned pursuant to the Third Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations. Contact: Rich Seithel, (925) 674-7869 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: May 24, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Bob Campbell, Greg Rodgers, Julie Enea, Gayle Israel 5 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1429 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1430 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1431 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1432 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1433 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1434 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1435 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1436 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1437 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1438 213120034 213120016 San Ramon §¨¦680 Alcosta Blv d B o llin g e r C a n y o n R d Bishop Dr Camin o R am o n Marke t P l S u n s e t D r Chevron Dr Montgom ery S t B i s h o p R a n c h 1 B i s h o p R a n c h 1 213120030 213133063 213120033 213133086 213120011 213120021 213120028 213120020 213120022 213120032 Map Created 3/28/2016by Contra Costa County Department ofConservation and Development, GIS Group30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756WI05301,060265Feet This map was created by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation andDevelopment 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. San Ramon City Center Project May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1439 THIRD AMENDMENT TO MASTER PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE CITY OF SAN RAMON UPON ANNEXATIONS This Third Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (this “Third Amendment”) is entered into as of this day of , 2016, by and between Contra Costa County (“County”) and the City of San Ramon (“City”), pursuant to Resolution No. 2016/ _, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of County and Resolution No. 2016/ , adopted by the City Council of City. RECITALS A. On June 3, 1986, in connection with City’s annexation of what is now known as Bishop Ranch (LAFCO Nos. 87-58 and 87-60), County and City entered into that certain Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (as amended, the “Master Agreement”), pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and B. Effective December 1, 1987, County and City entered into that certain Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County Of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations amending the Master Agreement, pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and C. Effective July 24, 2007, County and City entered into that certain Second Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (the “Second Amendment”) amending the Master Agreement pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and D. The operative terms of the Second Amendment never came into effect because City did not provide County with either a Project Commencement Notice (as defined in the Second Amendment) or a Project Extension Notice (as defined in the Second Amendment) by November 1, 2009, and E. City now desires to promote the development of a City Center project in Bishop Ranch that will include approximately 391,000 square feet of retail space, 450-500 residential units, 139,900 square feet of hotel space, and 700,000 square feet of office space (the “City Center Project”), and F. City has proposed and County has agreed to amend the Master Agreement in order to facilitate development of the City Center Project, and in recognition of the additional jobs the City Center Project will create, the increase in assessed property value due to the City Center Project, and the fact that the proposed residential properties within the City Center project do not generally produce sales or transient occupancy tax revenue. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1440 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, County and City hereby agree as follows: 1. Property Tax Revenues. Sections 4(g), (h), (i), and (j) of the Master Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following: “g. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, but subject to Section 4(h) below, the parties hereto agree that the total amount of property tax revenues City is to receive from County in any tax year pursuant to the foregoing provisions from the territory (i) in the Bishop Ranch Development annexed in the Central San Ramon I and II Boundary Reorganization (LAFC 87-57 and LAFC 87-58), and (ii) annexed in the Central San Ramon III Boundary Reorganization (LAFC 87-60) (collectively, the “City Center Area”) shall be reduced by an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the sum of the sales tax revenue and transient occupancy tax revenue received by City during the preceding tax year throughout those areas (the “Sales Tax and TOT Reduction”). Any such reduction, however, shall not result in a negative transfer of ad-valorem property tax revenues; i.e., a net transfer of ad-valorem property tax revenues from City to County. h. In calculating the Sales Tax and TOT Reduction under Section 4(g) above, the ad- valorem property tax revenues generated by residential units (units identified by Assessor responsibility code 1 or 2, and Assessor use codes 10 thru 29) located in the City Center Area (currently Assessor Parcel Numbers 213-133-063 and 213- 133-086) (the “Excluded Residential Parcels”) shall be excluded from the Sales Tax and TOT Reduction. i. City shall report to County and the County Auditor-Controller by August 1 of each year: (i) the total amount of sales tax revenue received by City from the City Center Area, (ii) the total amount of transient occupancy tax revenue received by City during the preceding tax year from the City Center Area; and (iii) the ad- valorem property tax revenue generated by the Excluded Residential Parcels and a list of the residential assessor parcel numbers. County and the County Auditor- Controller have the right to audit City’s books to verify the calculations of the foregoing amounts. j. Except as expressly specified in this agreement, City shall not receive any part of the property tax revenue to which County would be entitled from the Bishop Ranch Development; provided, however, that this provision shall not preclude City from receiving additional portions of County’s property tax revenue as a result of other property tax exchange agreements or legislation adopted after the effective date of the annexations.” May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1441 2. Miscellaneous. a. To the extent any provision of this Third Amendment conflicts with any provision set forth in the Master Agreement, this Third Amendment shall control. b. This Third Amendment and the Master Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Third Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political Approved as to Form: Subdivision of the State of California Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel By: _ By: _ Candace Anderson, Chairperson of Eric S. Gelston the Board of Supervisors Deputy County Counsel ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: _ Deputy CITY OF SAN RAMON, a Municipal Corporation Approved as to Form: By: _ By: _ Bill Clarkson, Mayor of the Robert Saxe, Attorney for City of San Ramon City of San Ramon Attest: By: _ Renee Beck, Clerk of the City of San Ramon May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1442 EXHIBIT A Master Agreement and All Amendments See attached. 4 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1443 1 MASTER PROPEHT Y TAX EXCHANGE AGHEEMENT FOll /\LLOCJ\T ION OF PROPERT Y TA X- OETWEEN 1'HE OJUNT Y OF CONTili\. COS.TA A.ND C I'T Y OF S AN MIVKJN UPON ANNEXAT lONS (ll.&T .C • S 9 9 ( d ) ) B y Re s o lu t io n 86 / 30 - ' a do p t e d by he Bo nr d o f S u pe r v i s o r s o f t h e C oun t y o f Con t r a Cos t a , nnd by He s o lut i o n 8 6 - 5 7 n do p t e d by t h e C i t y Co u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f S a n nnmo n , t he-Count y -o f Co n t r a C o s t a (Co un t y ) a nd t h e C i t y o f Sn n 1.l mo n (C i t y ) a g r e e a s f o l l ow s : 1. The pa d i e s h e r e lo w is h t o a v o i d t he e K p e ns e a nd d e l a y o f n e go t i a t i n g a pr o pe r t.y t a x· e x c ha n ge n gr e emen t f o r e a c h a n n e x a t i o n lo t h e C i t y a o d t o a v o i d t he unc e r t a i n t ie s o f wh e t he r a g r e emen t ca n be r e a c h e d i n ti me t o a l l ow o r d e r l y , p l a n n e d d e v e l o pme n t . A c c o r d i ng I y , t h e pa r t ie s in t e n d t ha t., no t w i t h s t a nd ing nn y f u t ur e c h a n ge s i n t h e l a w go v e r n i n g p r o pe r t y t a x: e xc h a n ge a g r e eme n t s , t h i s ma s t e r p r o pe r t y t a x e x c h a n ge a g r e emen t , u n d e r a u t h o r i t y o f Il e v e n u e a nd Ta x a t i o n Co de § 9 9 ( d ) , s ha ll b ind t h e Coun t y a n d t he C i t y f o r t h e p u r po s e o f s pe c i f y i ng t h e a l l oca t i o n o r p r o pe r t y t a x r e v e n u e s be t we e n t he Co un t y a n d t he C i t y f or n il a n n e x o. t i o n s t o t h e C it y wh ic h a r e comp let e d f r om t he e f f e c t i ve da t e o f t h i s A gr e eme n t un t i l t e r m i n a t i on a s se t f r t h i n Pa r a g r a p h 2 h e r e i n . 2 . Th is A gr e·eme n t s ha ll co n t inue un t i l t e r_!n i na t e d by mu t ua l co n s e n t o r t h e pa r t i es ; p r o v i de d , h ow e v e r. , t h a n n n y nnn e x a t i o n s c ornp l e t e.d p r i o r t o t e rm i na t ion o f t h i s A gr e emen t s ha l l c o n t i n u e t o be s u b j e c t t o t he a l l oc a t i o n o f p r o pe r t y l u x e s e s t a b l i s he d by t h is A g r e em en t . 3 . The de f i n i t ions o f Ca l i f o r n iu R e v e n ue &:. Tn x n t i o n Cod e 59 5 nnd Go v e r nme n t Cod e §§ 5 6 0 10- G O S l s hn ll n pp ly h e r e i n . T he f o l I o vd ng n d d i t io na l de fi n i t io ns s h a I l a p p l y : a . " Bn s e t u x u sh a l l me a n t h e t o t a l amoun t o f p r o p e r t y t a x r e v e n u e s s ub j e c t t o n lloc a t ion un d e r H .O::T .C . S § 9 7 ( a ) a n d ( b ) , wh ich o r e ge n e r a t e d i n t h e t e r r i t o r y t o be a nn e x e d . No t w i lhs t n n d ing t h e f o r e go i ng , ba s e t a x s h a l l no t inc lude a n y p r o pe r t y l o x r e v e n u c. s n lloc n t e d t o n n y Cou n t y f r e e l i b r o r y o r n n y amo un t s ge n e r n t e d by t he inc r e a s e d a s s e s sme n t s un de r Ch a p t e r 3 . 5 o f P n r t 0 . 5 o f D i v i s i o n 1 o f t h e l\ e v e n ue n n d T a x a t" i o n . Cod e ( c onme n c i n g w i t h §7 5 ) . b . "A nn un l t o x inc r eme n t " s h a l l me a n t he t o ln l Dmo u n t o f p r o pe r t y t n x r e v e n ue s s ub j e c t t o n l loc a lio n und e r ll .&T .C . S S 9 7 ( e ) a n d 98 , w h- i c h n r e g e n e rn t C? d i n lhe t e r r i t o r y t o be a nne x e d . c • "Tu x y e a r 11 s h a l I me u n t h e o n n u n 1 pe r i o cl f r om J u l y 1 t h r o·ugh t h e s uc c e e d ing J un e 3 0 . d . "D i s so l v e d Co u n t y S e r v i c e A r en " s hn l l 111e t111 l h e pa r t o f o Co un t y S e r v i c e /\ r e n wl.J i .c h i s cJ i s s o l v c <I upo n May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1444 r 1 c r e y . a n n x a t i o n o t t e r r i t o r y o f t h e .. :;; l'i t . . ®rJ.Jl ;f!!i 1J f o r n n y ann e xa t ion o f t e r r i t o r y o f t he S e r v i c e t\ r ea t o t h e c i t y . e . ·£3 is ho p Ilanc h Dev e lopme n t rne n n s t he t e r r i t o r y d s e r i be d on t he ma p a t t a c he d a s Ex h ib i t I\ he r e l o , b e i ng o. pp r o x imu t c 1 y 5 8 5 n c r e s • n u c!;, li r o a r : o a f f_ t_ :-:ca,ltWiiJSil a n c omp le t e d , t he C it y s ha ll r e c e i v e a t o ln l o ( r l·..i\ l I t h e IJu s e T a : t o wh i c h . an y d is s o lve d Co un t y S e r v ice /\ e o s wo u ld be e n t i t led o nd 13 . 8% o f t h e Da s e T a r. t o wh i ch t he Co un t y wo u ld be c11 t i t l e d , w i t h t he coun t y r e c e i v i ng ·t he r ema i n de r nri d Z ) n l1 t IIe I\ nn u n L T n x I n c r em en t t o wh i ch a n y d i s so l v e d Co un t y .Se r·v i ce J\ r eu s wo u l d b e e n t i t l e d a n d 2 9 . 8% o f t'h e A n n u a l Ta x I n c r em en t t o w h i ch t h e Cou n t y w o u 1 d be e n t it 1 ed , w .i t h t he Co un t y r e c e i 'v in g t he r ema i nd e r ; p r o - v ide d , h owe v e r , t ha t s uc h t o t a 1 amo un. t t o be r e c e i v e d by C it y s h a ll be r e du c e d by a n llmo un t e qu a l t o 5 0% o f t he s um o f t h e s a J e s t a x r ev en u e and t rans i en t occ upa ncy t a x r ev enu e rece i v ed by t he C it y d u r ing t he p r ec e d ing t a x ye a r f r om t he t e r r i t o r y t o be a n n e xe d . An y s u c h r e d u c t i o n , h o w e v e r ; s ha l l no t r e s u l t i n a " ne ga. t iv e t r a ns f e r 11 , i .e • , a n e t t r a: n s f e r f r om C t y l o Co u n t y .. T he t o t a ·1 . amo un t o f t r a ns i en t o c c upa nc y t a x a nd s a le s t a x r e v e nu e r ec e i v e d by t he C it y du r i ·n g lh e p r e c e d i ng. t a x y e a r f r om e o c h t e r r i t o r y a nne x ed du r i ng t h e p r e c e d i n g ca 'l en dn r y e a r s h fl f l be r e po r t ed t o t h e 'co un t y A u d i t o r -Co n t r o l l e r : by A ugu s t 1 o f eo. c l1 y e n r , a n d t h e A u d i t o r -Co n t r o l l e r s h a l l h a v e t h e r i g h t t o a u d i t t il e C i t y ' s boo k s t o v e r i f y s uc h nmoun i. '.i .·< ..;.:f '-· 5 . Fo r ea ch t a x y e a r n f t e r t h e c a lenda r y e a r i n wh i c h u n € .. =i:;..a·:...:. -::..... ..,.·,,·· rn-.4)..,:..·?1':=;...:;· -J ts!t:. ."'-:;,#,:!...·';. o l h H t e r r i t o r y j n .h e p r e s e n t o f .i 1)1'T u ·n r:'· o f l h ,.. r i t i :. c u111 1' l d t d , l h·c C l l y s h u l l ·r e c e i v e u l o l u l ·o f 1 ) n i l tin U a s e T n x t o wh ic h n n y d i s s o l ve d Co un t y S e r v ice A r e n s wo u ld be e n t i t l e d a nd 13 . 4% o f t h e Oo. s e T a x t o wh i h t h e Co u n t y w o u l d be e n ti t t' e d , w i t h ' t h.e Coun t y · r e c e· i v ing t h e r ema inde r a n d 2 ) n l l t he A n nut1 l Tn x I n c r em en t t o w h i c h n n y d i s s o l v e d Co un t y Se r vi ce A r e a s wo u l d b e e n t i t l ed a nd 3 3 . 8% o f t h e A nnun l T a x I nc r emen t t o w h i c h t h e Co u n t y . wo u ld be e n t i t l e d , w i t h t h e Co un t y r e c e iv i ng L ile r.emu i nde r . G . Th is A gr e eme n t is in t e n de <l t o go v e r n o n l y a n ri e x o l i on s o f t e r r i t o r y i n t h e p r e s e n t s ph e r e 11 f in f l ue n c e o f t h e C i t y , n s s h ow n o n t he ma p a t t a c h e d n s Ex h i b it B he r e t o-. 7 . The pn r t i e s i n t e nd t hn t e n c h n n n c x n t i o n l i s t e d 011 Ex h i b i t A he i n i t i a t e d by l h e own e r o f t he p r o pe r t y n t n p p r o :-: i 11w t e l l h e t ime s e t r o r l h i n Ex h i b i t /\ i 8 . Tl1e c r r e c t i v e d n t e 0 r . t 11 i s A g r e e111e 11 l i s J u II c .1 ' 19 8 l) • I I 't I . h e l d v o I f :rn y c I :i u s e , s c n t e n c c o r i d o r un c n f o r c e ub l e by n c o u p n r 11 g r n p h r t o f l a w o f l h i s 1\ g r e cm e n l , t h e p11 r l i e s i n t e n i s d \ I I - 2 - May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1445 :)ifjl . / ·y:-r · / ii> ./ ,,., ,·/ t h a t · t he . r em a i·nd e r o f lh is A g r .e em en t s h.a:1 l c o n t i nu e t 9 h a v e f u l l o pe r ·n t i v e e f f e c t • Da t c d :__XJ- _ _t£ f j_f_-.---- C i t y o f San Ramon At tes t: City Clerk Ili e..-H .b y cvr.t.i 6.fJ that .the. a.t:t.ache.d .i.-0 a. 6 uU , t-wt ·.'.:and acc.wi.ate. copy 0 6 a. Ma..ti tM PJi ope)r..t.y · Tax Ag.te.e.me.n t 6 0-'1. AU oc.atJ.011 0 6 PJt opVLty Ta.x. Be..{c•.ie.e.·n the. Cou.tity 06 C ontJu:i C01.>ta . aJtd C.i..tfj 06 Sct11 Ramon Upon Anne.xa .t-ioM a.dop t.e.d by :t l1 e C.U.y Co , ,CJ.:U;. 0 6 .tlte. C-i.ty 06 Sa.It Ramon Do t e d :---Ju-n-e--3-,--19-8-6-------- Co un t y o f Con t r a Co s t a - 1- Oil . (/ • 3 _i_U k_, --- I May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1446 as amended, Master Agreement AMENDMENT. TO MASTER PROPERTY TAX EXc;HANGE AGREEMENT . . . FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX BETWEEN .THE COUNTY OF· CONTRA COSTA AND THE CITY OF SAN RAMON UPON ANNEXATIONS The county of contra Costa C "County") and City of San Ramon ("City11 ). hereby aqree that the Master Property Tax Exchanqe Aqreement or Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations, adopted by · Resolut _ion 86/305 of the Board of supervisors of Contra Costa County and Resolution 86/57 of the city council of the City of San Ramon, (hereafter the "Agreement") is amended as follows: l. Paaqraphs 3,- 4 and 7 of the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety. · 2. The annexation of the Bishop Ranch Development to the City, alonq with the annexation of such other territory as has been included .in the Central San Ramon I and II Boundary Reorqanization (LAFC 87-57 & 58) (hereafter the "Reorqanization") and the Central San Ramon IiI Boundary Reorqanization (LAFC87-60), shall not be opposed by the County. 3. The definitions of the California Revenue & Taxation Code s 95 a-nd Government Code SS 56010-56081 ·shal1 apply herein . The following additional definitions shall apply: a. "Base tax" shall mean the total amount of property tax revenues subject to allocation under R.&T.C. ss 97 (a ) and (b) , ·which are generated in the identified territory. Notwithstanding the foregoinq, base tax shall not include any poperty 1 - May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1447 .. tax. revenues allocated to any Coty free librry or any amounts ·generated by the increased assessments .under Chapter 3.5 of Part o.s of Division lof the Revenue and Taxation Code (commencing with s 75). b. "Annual tax increment" shall mean·the total amount of property tax revenues subject to allocation . under R.& T.C. s 97(c) and 98, which are generated in the identified· territory. c-. "Tax year" or "fiscal year" shall mean toe annual period from July l through the succeedinq June 30. d. "Dissolved county Service Area" shall mean the part of a county Service Area which is dissolved upon annexation of territory of the service Area to the City. For purposes of this Agreement, a County-service Area shall be deemed a local agency different than the county and havinq a property tax allocation separate from the cunty . Base tax and annual - tax increment entitlement$ frem Dissolved County Service Areas shall be separate from any entitlements due rom the county. e. Bishop Ranch Development means the territory described on the map attached as EXhibit A to the original Aqreement, being approximately 585 acres, except that th• area known as BR4 and ident fied on said Exhibit A as "Hotel/Retail/Health Club" shall not be deemed a part of the Bishop Ranch. Development for purposes of this Aqreement until it - 2 - May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1448 is annexed to the City. Upon annexation, said BR4 area shall b'e deemed a part of the Bishop Ranch Development fr purposes cf this Agreement. If he annexation of said BR4 area is not completed· in 1987, the provisions of .this Aqreement relatinq to . . specific tax years (e.g., e first tax year after · the calendr year of annexation) shall apply at such · later times as are appropriate. f "Pha.sinq Plan Property" shall mean the properties, including land nd all existinq and currently planned improvements, for the areas known as BRlS and BR17 and for the areas covered by the Development Plan Approvals specified in Paragraph 2.4 of the .February 27, 1987 Bishop Ranch Development Aqreement By and Between The county Of Contra Costa and Granada Sales, Inc., Annabel Invest ent Company, and Alexander Properties Company Relative To The Development Known As Bishop Ranch {hereafter the "Development Aqreement"), except for the areas shown as BR2, BRll, BR12 and BR6 on Exhibit A to the oriqinal· property tax exchange Aqreement. Phasing Plan Property shal1 include, but not be i;mited to, all existinq and currently planned improvements in the areas known as BR s, 7., 9 15, and 17 , which areas are designated as "Future BR Development" on the Phain9 Plan of Exhibit A to the oriqinal property tax exchan9e Agreelllent. For purposes of this Agreement, "currently planned improvements" shal.l - 3 - May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1449 mean 1) those ·improvements sown on any pre_l ilni.n.ary . . development plan that has been approved by the County and specif ied in Par . 2 ·.4 of the Development Aqreement and. 2) those mprov·ements shown on any preliminary development plan that has been approved by the City, as of the end of 1987, for the areas of the Bishop Ranch Development known as BR15 and BR17. g. "Other Property" shall mean all existinq and future property in the Bishop Ranch Development except property defined as Phasinq Plan Property. h. "County ATl Entitlement" shall i:nean the amount of annual tax increment revenues which the County would receive if no transfer of taxes to the City occurred for the tax year in question. i. "Completed Portion". shall mean all parts of Phasing Plan Property f or which, by the end of the tax year one year prior to the tax year for which allocation · is beinq made (e.g., by the June 30, 1988 end of the tax year 1987-8 for the allocation tax year beqinninq July 1, 1989): 1) Construction has been completed, as evidenced by the City's issuance of a certificte of occupancy or comparable document evidencing completion ·issued by the conty, and 2) The county Assesso has enrolled a new base year value as a result of the completed new construction. - 4 - May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1450 4 · For the Sishop Ranch Development,. the transfer of property tax revenues from the County to the City shall be as follows: a. in the first tax year after the calendar year in which the Reorqanization is completed, the City shall receive from the County an amount equal to 13.8% of the County's total property tax revenues from all property in the Bishop Ranch Development for the prior tax year, which shall be known as the city's initial base tax entitlement. As part of its total base tax entitlement (specified in Paraqraph 4f. below) in each of the tax years succeedinq the first tax year after the calendar year in which the Reorganization is completed, the City shall receive ·from ·the county the dollar amount of the City's initial. base tax entitlement. b. In addition to the amount received by the City from the County each year pursuant to Paraqraph 4a, the City shall receive all base tax to which all Dissolved county Service Areas would have been entitled for the tax year. c. In each tax year after the calendar year in which the Reorqanization is completed, the city shall receive from the county an amount equal to 29.8% of the County ATI Entitlement fom Other Property in the Bishop Ranch pevelopment and from the Completed Portion of ·the Phasing Plan Property. d. _ I each ax year after the calendar year in which the Reorganization is completed, the city shall receive May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1451 fro•the County an amount equal to 21.8% ·of the County's AI Entitlement.fro ·Phasinq Plan Property that is not part of the Complete Portion. Notwith- standing the foregoing, taxes resultinq from any assessed value increase attributable to any change of ownership ocurrinq in the tax year prior to the tax .Year for which allocation is beinq made shall be deemed taxes fr m the completed Portion of the Phasing Plan Property, so that the city shall receive an amount equal to 29.8% of the county ATI Entitlement thereon. Prior to July 15 of the tax year for which allocation is being made, the City shall notify the County Auditor of any such taxes attributable to such chanqes of ownership. e. In addition to the foreqoing amounts received by the City, for each ,tax year after th calendar year in which the Reorganization is completed the City shall receive all the annuai tax increment to which any Dissolved County Service Areas would have been entitled for the tax year. f. For tax years succeedinq the tax year after the calendar year in which the Reo%'9aniztion is effective, the City's total base tax entitlement from the county for the Bishop Ranch Development shall be the sum of the. City's initial base tax entitlement (specified in Paraqraph 4a, above) plus the total of all annual tax increment amounts received by the City from the county for all prior years pursuant to May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1452 Paragraphs 4c· and 4d ,· above. 9. Notwithstandinq anything in the foegoin9 to the contrary, the Parties hereto aqree that the total amount of property tax revenues the city i to receive . from the County in any tax year pursuant to the foreqoing provisions from the territory of the Bishop Ranch Development annexed in the Central San Ramon I and II Boundary Reorqanization (LAFC 87-57 and 58).shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the sum of the sales tax revenue and transient occu- pancy tax revenue received by the City durinq the preceding tax year throuqhout that area. Any such reduction, however, sl;la ll not result in a 1tnegative transfer", i.e.,. a net transfer .from .city to county. h. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrary, the Parties hereto agree that the total a111ount of property tax revenues the City is to receive from .the county in any tax year pursuant to the fore- . . going provisions from the area annexed in the central San Ramon III Boundary Reorganization (LAFC 87-60) shall be reduced by an amount equl to sot of the sum of the sales tax revenue and transient occupancy tax revenue received by the city durinq the precedinq tax · year throughout that area. Any such reduction, however, shall not result in a "negative transfer", i.e., a net transfer from City to county. · i. The total amount of transient occupancy tax nd sales tax revenue received by the City during the preceding May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1453 I tax year,· as pecif d i Paraqraph 4g. ·and 4h., above, shall be reported to the County Auditor- Controller by August l of each year, and the Auditor- Controller shall have the right to audit the City's books to verify such amount. . . j. Except as expressly so specified hereinabove, the City shall eceive no part of the property tax revenue to which the County would be entitled from the Bishop Ranch Development; provided, however, that this provision shall not preclude the city from receiving additional portions of the County's property tax revenue as a result of other property tax exe anqe . aqeements or leqislation adopted after the effective date of the annexations. Dated: Dated: county of contra Costa City of San Ramon Chair, Board of Supervisors Pursuant to Resolution 871 1/ S- adopted l.2a./.r7 Mayor Pursuant to City Council Resolution 87/169 adoptedll/17/8 7 Approved as to Form: .Approved as to Form: -. counsel May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1454 ' .. . THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ABSTAIN: SUJECT: Secon Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations Resolution No. 2007/370 WHEREAS, effective June 3, 1986, pursuant to County Resolution 86/305 and City of San Ramon Resolution 86-57, County and City entered into the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (as amended by the first amendment thereto, the "Master Agreement"), which governs the administration of property, sales, and transient occupancy taxes for the Bishop Ranch annexation; and · WHEREAS, City and County have agreed to amend the Master Agreement for a period of - twenty-five years in order to aid City in the development of parking structures that will serve its City Center Project to be constructed in Bishop Ranch. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY that City's portion of property taxes for Assessor Parcel Nos. 213-133-086; 213- 120-013, and 213-133-063 shall not be reduced as set forth in the Master Agreement but shall be apportioned pursuant to the Second Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement For · Allocation Of Property Tax Between The County of Contra Costa and The City of San Ramon Upon Annexations. 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:o't/"(2007 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And County A · ·strator . ' By Deputy Contact: Rich Seithel, CAO cc: Auditor-Controller - Attn: Sue Turner County Counsel RESOLUTION 2007/370._. . l °+- \ Adopted this Resolution on July 24, 2007 by he following vote: NOES: - ABSENT: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1455 • • I • • RESOLUTION NO. 2007-128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPROV E THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE CITY OF SAN RAMON UPON A NNEXATIONS (APNs: 213-133-086, 213-133-063, and 213-120 013) WHEREAS, on June 3, 1986, in connection with City's annexation of what is now known as Bishop Ranch (LAFCO Nos. 87-58 and 87-60), County and City entered i nto that certain Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for AJ location of Property Tax between the County Of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and WHEREAS, effecti ve December 1, 1987, County and City entered into that certaii:i Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County Of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (the "First Amendment"), amending the Master Agreement, pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and WHEREAS, City now desires to promote the development of a City Center project i n Bishop Ranch which will include approximately 650,000 square feet of retail space, 450-500 residential units, a 170 room hotel, 700,000 square feet of office space and a San Ramon City Hall and Ji brary (the "City Center Project"), on the Excl uded Parcels (as such term is defi ned below). In order to finance the four or five parki ng structures necessitated by the City Center Project, City requires additional financi ng, and WHEREAS, the development of the Cily Center Project will result in two tax exempt parcels cun-ently owned by City (Assessor Parcel Nos. 213-133-086 and 213-120- 013), being returned to the tax roll and a substantial increase in the assessed value of a third parcel (APN 213-133-063), and WHEREAS, City has proposed and County has agreed to a Second Amendment to the Master Agreemen t temporari ly revise the Master Agreement in order to faci l itate the development of che City Center Project parki ng structures. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Ci ty of San Ramon approves the Second Amendment to the Master Agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment (attached herelo as Exhi bit 1). Signatures 011 thefollowing page May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1456 h . .. ..• ,. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 101 day of July 2007 by the following vote: · A YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: H. Abram Wilson, Mayor ATTEST: c;;;;l&> Patricia Edwards, City CJerk Exhibit 1: Second Amendment to the Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax Between the County of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations Page 2 of 2 May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1457 . SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE CITY OF SAN RAMON UPON ANNEXATIONS This Second Amendment to Master Property Tax ·Exchange Agreement for ' Allocation of Property Tax between the County Of Contr'1; Cota and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (this "Second Amend ment") is entered into as of this 24th day of July, 2007, by and between Contra Costa County ("County") and the City of San Ramon ("City"), pursuant to Resolution No. 2007/370, adopted by the Board of · Supervisors of County and Resolution No. 2007-128, adopted by the City Council of City. WHEREAS, on June 3, 1986, in connection with City's annexation of what is now known as Bishop Ranch (LAFCO Nos. 87-58 and 87-60), County and City entered i nto that certain Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation . of Property Tax between the County Of Contra Costa and the City of San Ramon Upon Annexations (attached hereto as Exhibit A, as amended by the First Amendment, the "Master Agreement"), pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and WHEREAS, effective December 1, 1987, County and City entered into that certain Amendment to Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement for Allocation of Property Tax between the County Of Contra Costa and the City qf San Ramon Upon Annexations (the "First Amendment"), amending the Master Agreement, pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, and WHEREAS, City now desires to promote the development of.a City Center project in Bishop Ranch which will include approximately 650,000 square feet of retail space, 450-500 residential units, a 170 room hotel, 700,000 square feet of office space and a San Ramon City Hall and library (the "City Center Project"), on· the Excluded Parcels (as such term is defined below). Jn order to finance the four or five parking structures necessitated by the City Center Project, City requires additional financing, and · WHEREAS, the development of the City Center Project will result in two tax exempt parcels currently owned by City (Assessor Parcel Nos. 213-133-086 and 213-120- 013), being returned to the tax roll and a substantial increase in the assessed value of a third parcel (APN 213-133-063), and WHEREAS, City has proposed and ·county has agreed to temporaril y revise the Master Agreement in order to facilitate the development of the City Center Project parking structures. NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, County and City hereby agree as follows: May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1458 h A. Propertv ·Tax Reven ues. The following sections shall be added to the Master Agreement immedi ately fol lowing Section 4(j): I. "k. (i) For a temporary period of time commencing no earlier than County fiscal year 2010-2011 and no later than County fiscal year 2011-2012, and ending on June 30 of the County fiscal year that is twenty-five (25) years thereafter, which shall in no event be later than County fiscal year 2036-2037 (such period of time, the "Modification Period"), A.ssessor Paree] Nos. 213-133-086, 213-120-013 and 213-133-063 (as described in Exhi bit B attached hereto, the "Excluded Parcels"), shall be excluded from the provisions of Sections 4(g) and 4(h) hereof and the property tax revenues recei ved by City that are derived from the Excluded Parcels shall not be ·subject to reduction as provided in Sections 4(g) and 4(h). (ii) It is intended that the Modification Period begin in County fiscal year 2010-2011 and end in County fiscal year 2035-2036. However, if and only if County recei ves notice from City no later than November 1, 2009 that the City Center Project has been delayed and that it is thereby requesting that the Modification Period begi n in County fiscal year 2011-2012 (the "Extension Notice"), then upon County's receipt of the Extension Notice, the Modification Period shall begin in County fiscal year 2011-2012 and end in County fiscal year 2036-2037. (iii) City shaJJ provide the Extension Notice to each of the County departments set forth below via registered mail, return receipt requested or via . a nationally recognized overnight courier. Fail ure to comply with the notice procedures set forth herein shall render the Extension Notice ineffecti ve. Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller Attn: Auditor Controller 625 Court Street Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa County Administrator's Office Attn: County Administrator 65 lPine Street, l01 Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Contra Costa County Counsel 's Office 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor Martinez, CA 94553" May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1459 . . . .. 2. "J. Notwithstandi ng anything in _thi s Agreement to the coritrary, on ·an annual basis during the Modification· Period, the total amount of property tax revenues City is to recei ve from County in any tax year pursuant to the foregoi ng provisions from the Excluded Parcels shall be reduced by Twenty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and No/lOOths ($24,745.0Q). The foregoing amount of property taxes that is to be retained by County shall be increased by two-percent (2%) annually during the Modification Period." 3. "m. As set forth in Sections 4(k) and 4(1), the provisions therein are temporary and onJy effective· during the Modification Period. Upon the termination of the Modification Period, the ExcJ uded Parcels shal1 be subject to the provisions of Sections 4(g) and 4(h) and Sections 4(k) and 4(1) shall no longer be operative or effective." B. Automatic Termination. 1. As set forth in the recitals above, the purpose of this Second Amendment is to assist in the development of the City Center Project and not for any other purpose. Accordingl y, this Second Amendment shall automaticaJly terminate as set forth below unless City provides notice to County that either: a. In the event County has not recei ved the Extension Notice pursuant to Section A(l) above, then City shall provide notice to County no later than November 1, 2009 that the Excl uded Parcels are owned by Sunset Development Company and that the City Center Project is under construction or will begin construction within six mon ths of the date of the notice (the "Project Commencement Notice"). In the event County has not recci ved either the ·Extension Notice or the Project Commencement Notice by November 1, 2009, this Second Amendment sha11 automaticalJ y terminate on November 2, 2009 pursuant to this section and Sections 4(k), (I) and (m) shall be automatically deleted from the Master Agreement in their entirety and the amendments made to the Master Agreemen t by thi s Second Amendment will be considered null and void ab initio; or b. In the event County has recei ved the Extension Notice as required by Section A(l) above, then City shall provide the Project Commencement Notice to County no later than November 1, 2010. In the event County does not recei ve the Project Commencement Notice by November 1, 2010, this Second Amendment sha11 automatically terminate on November 2, 2010 pursuant to this section and Sections 4(k), (1) and (m) shall be automatically deleted from the Master Agreement in their entirety and the amendments made to the Master Agreement by this Second Amendment will be considered null and void ab initio. May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1460 ? J. - 2. The Project ommcncement Notice shaJJ be provided to County by City in the same manner and to the s·ame County addressees as set forth i n Section A(l) above and such notice shall be ineffecti ve if otherwise provided. C. Miscellaneous. I . Exhibits A and B attached hereto and referenced herein are deemed incorporated herein and are made a part hereof. To the extent any provision of this Second Amendment conflicts with any provision set forth in the Master Agreement, this Second Amendment shall control. 2. This Second Amendment and the attachments constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Second Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to be executed as of the date first set forth above. · TRA COSTA, a political tate of California Approved as to Form: Silvano B. Marchesi , County Counsel· By : --+-.0,... J. _ Eric S. elston. Deputy County Counsel ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CITY OF SAN RAMON, a Municipal Corporation Approved as to Form . . · \ By: rJl1tfJJP= By: . . .:.. / . .[, Abram Wilson, Mayor of the City of San Ramon yr n Athan, Attorney for Cit of San Ramon Attest: Ba;..) Patricia Edwards, Clerk of the City of San Ramon May 24, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1461 May 24, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes1462