Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09272016 -CALENDAR 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 September 27, 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)) Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County v. Contra Costa County, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C12-00944 JST 1. 9:30 a.m. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- "There are a whole lot of things in this world of ours you haven't started wondering about yet." ~ Roald Dahl Present: 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 Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 1 Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator Sharon Anderson, County Counsel CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.66 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 Poll Worker Appreciation Week in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Andersen)   PRESENTATION recognizing September as Anti-Hazing Awareness, and throughout the year in Contra Costa County. (Supervisor Andersen)   PRESENTATION honoring Joseph Jackson for serving as Chair of the Youth Council in the City of Richmond. (Supervisor Gioia)   PRESENTATION honoring County employees for their many years of service to Contra Costa County: Maria Ferrer, 25 years of service, to be presented by Sherry Martija, Health Services Finance Division.   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no consent items removed for discussion.   D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker)    Jerome Knott, Love-A-Child Missions, provided an update on foreclosure proceedings of the shelter property (handout attached); Courtney Davis, Love-A-Child Missions, spoke on the August 10 visit to the property by Supervisor Glover and representative of the mortgage holder Nehemiah Community Reinvestment Fund, to inspect at the property, at which time she felt intimidated by the tone and body language of the Supervisor; Duane Champman, MHC, Richmond Minds, spoke on October being Mental Health Month, and requested the Board sponsor a resolution; The following members of SEIU Local 1021, spoke upon little progress being made at the negotiating table and staffing and retention issues: Dan Jameyson, SEIU Local 1021, Kim Carter Martinez, SEIU Local 1021, Peggy Henderson, SEIU 1021, Suzy Porter, EHS. Ms Carter-Martinez provided a copy of letter notifying the County of a planned strike (attached).   D.3 CONSIDER accepting report from the Health Services Department on the implementation of    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 2 D.3 CONSIDER accepting report from the Health Services Department on the implementation of Laura's Law (Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program) in Contra Costa County, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. (Warren Hayes, Mental Health Program Manager)       Speaker: Douglas Dunn, resident of Antioch. 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 D.4 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543, to adjust transportation mitigation fees for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit, reestablish the boundaries of that area of benefit, and make related California Environmental Quality Act findings, Bethel Island area. (No fiscal impact) (Mary Halle, Public Works Department)       CLOSED the hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-12 to adjust the fees within the Bethel Island AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bethel Island AOB.; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/543 to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption; DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 in the Official Record of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. DIRECT that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-12 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance; REDESIGNATED Trust Fund No. 1290 as the fund into which all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue must be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund; DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1290 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bethel Island AOB Fee; DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bethel Island AOB, and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bet hel Island AOB Fee.     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.5 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545, to adjust transportation mitigation fees for the Bay Point Area of Benefit, and reestablish the boundaries of that area of benefit, and make related California Quality Environmental Act findings, Bay Point area. (No fiscal impact) (Mary Halle, Public Works Department)       CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-18 to adjust the fees September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 3  CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-18 to adjust the fees within the Bay Point AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bay Point AOB; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/545, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. DIRECTED that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-18 remains in effect, the Public Works Director will adjust the Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance. REDESIGNATED Trust Fund No. 1395 as the fund into which all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue to be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund. DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1395 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bay Point AOB Fee. DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bay Point AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bay Point AOB Fee.     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.6 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/539 abolishing outstanding performance pay steps for the classification of Director of Human Resources - Exempt, effective October 17, 2016; and CONSIDER appointing Dianne Dinsmore to the position of Director of Human Resources - Exempt at Step 3 of the salary range, effective October 17, 2016. (David Twa, 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 D.7 CONSIDER adopting Resolution No. 2016/522 adopting the FY 2016-17 Adopted Budget as finally determined, as recommended by the County Administrator. (David Twa, 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 D. 8 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no reports from Closed Session.   ADJOURN September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 4    Adjourned today's meeting at 12:15 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Engineering Services   C. 1 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/546 approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD06-09131, for a project being developed by Jasraj Sing & Tomas Baluyut, 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 Special Districts & County Airports   C. 2 ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project and related findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Brentwood area. (50% Flood Control Zone 1 Funds; 50% Private 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. 3 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract with McNabb Construction, Inc., in the amount of $218,481 for the Slifer Park Improvements – Shade Structures, Discovery Bay area. (100% Countywide Landscape District (LL-2) Zone 61 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 Resolution No. 2016/547 declaring October 2016 as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month, ACCEPT the status report from the Public Works Department and the Flood Control & Water Conservation District on the Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, and DIRECT the Public Works Department and the Flood Control & Water Conservation District to continue with implementation and the annual campaign of a Countywide sustainable Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, as recommended by the Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Countywide. (100% Flood Control Zone 3B 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 Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 5 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Debra Fernandez vs. Contra Costa County;   September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 5 C. 5 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Debra Fernandez vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $190,000, less permanent disability advances, as recommended by the Risk Manager.        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 DENY claims filed by Enterprise Damage Recovery Unit, Robin McCloud, Zoila Quiroz, and Sergio Rimoldi. DENY late claims filed by Diana Lee Byrns and Edward Haney.        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. 7 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/513 honoring the service of Joseph Jackson, who has served for two years, ending August 30, 2016, as Chair of the Youth Council in the City of Richmond, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       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 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/518 recognizing Poll Worker Appreciation Week in Contra Costa County, 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. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/521 recognizing September as Anti-Hazing Awareness, and throughout the year in Contra Costa County, 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. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/549 recognizing Maria Ferrer for 25 years of service as recommended by the 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 Appointments & Resignations   C. 11 APPOINT Beth Mora to the At-Large #11 seat and Lanita Mims to the At-Large #12 seat on the Contra Costa Commission for Women, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee.        September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 6  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. 12 Employment & Human Services (0501, 0502, 0503, 0581, 0586): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment #5006 authorizing a decrease of $2,261,436 in temporary salaries and professional services and an increase of $4,319,273 in new revenues from the State of California, and Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance, and appropriating it to personnel expenses in the Employment and Human Services Department.       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 CSA P-6 Discovery Bay (7629)/Sheriff's Office (0255): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5010 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $15,000 from County Service Area P-6 Discovery Bay Zone funding and appropriating it for the Resisting Aggression Defensively Kids (radKIDs) Program implemented by the Sheriff's Office - Investigation Unit. (100% CSA P-6 Discovery Bay Zone 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 Personnel Actions   C. 14 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21909 to add four Animal Center Technician (represented) positions, cancel three Animal Services Utility Worker (represented) positions and cancel one Special Services Worker II (represented) position in the Animal Services Department. (32% User Fees, 31% City Revenues, 37% County)        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. 15 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21960 to add nine positions and cancel nine vacant positions in the Information Technology Division of 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. 16 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21928 to add nineteen Social Worker III (represented) positions, Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21929 to add fourteen Social Casework Assistant (represented) positions, and Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21930 to add two Children’s Services Clerical Specialist (represented) positions in the Employment and Human Services Department. (42% Federal, 57.6% State, 0.4% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III September 27, 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. 17 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21936 to add one Employment and Human Services Division Manager-Project (represented) position and Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21937 to add one Administrative Services Assistant II-Project (represented) position in the Employment and Human Services Department. (83% Federal, 17% 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. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21962 to add two full-time Clerk - Experienced Level positions (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Health care premiums)        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 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21939 to add three Social Worker (represented) positions and Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21942 to add one Clerk – Experienced Level (represented) and one Account Clerk Experienced Level (represented) positions in the Employment and Human Services Department. (52% Federal, 43% State, 5% County)        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 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21963 to add one Pre-Hospital Care Coordinator position (represented) and cancel one vacant Emergency Medical Services Program Coordinator position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (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. 21 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21964 to add one Clerk- Specialist Level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% 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. 22 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21965 to add one Clerk- Experienced Level position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Third party 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. 23 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21958 to add one part time (20/40) Mental Health Community Support Worker I position (represented) in the Health Services Department. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 8  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. 24 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No.21961 to establish the class of Student Intern, Level I (unrepresented), Student Intern, Level II (unrepresented); Student Intern, Level III (unrepresented), Student Intern, Level IV (unrepresented), and Student Intern, Level V (unrepresented) and allocate on the Salary Schedule; and abolish the classifications (unrepresented) of Student Worker - Deep Class (999E), Administrative Intern – Deep Class (AP9A) and Library Student Assistant – Exempt (3KW2) (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. 25 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21948 to add three Accounting Technician (represented) positions, and cancel one Clerical Supervisor (represented) position, one Account Clerk- Advanced Level (represented) position and two Account Clerk–Experienced Level (represented) positions in the Sheriff's Office - Fiscal Unit. (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 Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Pittsburg Unified School District, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $4,000 to provide the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project for the District's 7th and 8th grade students for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 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. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Antioch Unified School District, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $18,000 to provide the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project for the District's 7th and 8th grade students for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 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. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to submit and accept a grant application in an amount not to exceed $18,000 from the National Association of County and City Health Official to support the County’s Environmental Health Retail Standards Mentorship Program, for the period November 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. (No County match)      September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 9  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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in the amount of $25,000 from the California Endowment for the Proposition 47 Outreach Program, for the period October 15, 2016 through April 14, 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. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, to pay the County at the rate of $148 per hour, plus expenses, to provide radio communication maintenance services to the District, for the period October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. (100% Central Contra Costa Sanitary 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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a purchase order to Carousel Industries of North America Incorporated in the amount of $135,000, and a Software and Services Agreement with Voice Print International, LLC, for the term of September 27, 2016 through September 26, 2019. (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. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, effective September 30, 2016, to extend the term from September 30 to December 31, 2016 with no change in the payment limit of $373,913, to continue providing Phase II Lethality Assessment Program implementation for domestic violence homicide prevention. (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. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Valley Air Conditioning & Repair, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 to provide co-generation plant maintenance and repair for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 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. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 10 C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $600,000,000 to provide health care services for Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, for the period October 1, 2016 through October 30, 2019. (100% Contra Costa Health 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. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Fred Nachtwey, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $164,000 to provide pulmonary services at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers, for the period November 1, 2016 through October 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. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with DFM Associates to extend the term for an automated voter registration and election management system for one year, beginning June 30, 2016, and continuing thereafter for successive one-year periods, unless otherwise terminated. (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. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract with Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for the delivery, pick up and storage of election supplies and equipment for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. (100% General Fund, with a portion reimbursed by various agencies)        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. 38 APPROVE clarification of Board action of January 19, 2016 (Item C.42), which authorized the Health Services Director, or designee, to contract with Laura Hans, M.D., to correct the contract term to January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, with no change in the payment limit. (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. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to increase the payment limit by $24,300 to a new payment limit of $111,530, to continue to provide Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Financial and Real Estate Consulting services, and extend the term from June 30, 2017 through June 30, 2018, . (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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 11 C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Justice to pay the State an amount not to exceed $7,349 for the County's participation in the Electronic Recording Delivery System Program, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (100% Electronic Recording Delivery Trust 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. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Violence Solutions, effective September 1, 2016, to extend the term from September 30 through December 31, 2016 and increase the payment limit by $6,056 to a new payment limit of $182,695, for continued 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. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Philip R. Mill, O.D. & Michael D. Sutton, O.D., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $125,000 to provide optometry services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018. (100% CCHP 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. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Arthritis and Rheumatology Medical Associates, Inc. (dba Northern California Arthritis Center), in an amount not to exceed $425,000 to provide rheumatology services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018. (100% CCHP 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. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Omnipro Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $140,000 to provide consulting and recruitment services to the Information Systems Unit of the Health Services Department, for the period September 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. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Persimmony International, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,026,888 for license renewal and maintenance of the Public Health’s Home Visiting Program database, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2019. (62% Targeted Case Management, 48% Federal Medical Administrative Activities and budgeted County funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 12  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 Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Citrix Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $280,620 for Citrix software support renewals for the period October 1, 2016 through September 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. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Director, a purchase order with Hill-Rom Company, Inc., in the amount of $374,949 for rental beds at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, for the period November 1, 2016 through October 31, 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 C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with California Psychiatric Transitions in an amount not to exceed $1,022,000 to provide residential care and mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed adults for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. (100% 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. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Ujima Family Recovery Services in an amount not to exceed $669,500 to provide trauma therapy, case management, and assessment services for SAMHWorks clients, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. (63% CalWORKS Alcohol and Other Drugs Services; 37% by CalWORKs Mental Health)        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 execute a cancellation agreement with Vyend, LLC for the existing contract, effective at close of business on September 30, 2016; and execute a new contract with Vyend, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $427,014, to provide management and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Technology Unit, for the period from October 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. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 13 C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Xerox Consulting Company, Inc., to amend the prior contract amendment's effective date of June 30, 2016 to April 1, 2016, with no additional changes to the payment limit or contract term date as approved by the Board on July 12, 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. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Soliant Health, Inc., to amend the prior contract amendment's effective date of January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2015, with no additional changes to the payment limit or contract term date as approved by the Board on May 10, 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. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Chenoa Information Services, Inc., to amend the prior contract amendment's effective date of June 30, 2016 to May 1, 2016, with no additional changes to the payment limit or contract term date as approved by the Board on July 12, 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. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $14,705 to Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. (dba TEK Systems, Inc.), for additional temporary help and recruitment services provided to the Health Services Department Information Systems Unit during the month of June 2016, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (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. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order amendment with Good Source Solutions, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $80,500 to a new payment limit of $180,000 in order to provide packed food meals for Martinez Detention Facility in addition to supplying food products for the preparation of inmate meals at all three County adult detention facilities for the period April 1, 2016 through March 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. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Director, a purchase order with Lakeshore Equipment Company in the amount of $1,900,000 for childcare center furniture, classroom supplies and equipment, for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2021. (50% Federal, 50% State)      September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 14   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 Chief Information Officer, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with International Business Machines Corporation, to extend the term through September 30, 2017 with no change to payment limit of $154,400, to complete the replacement of the Department of Information Technology's current billing application with IBM's Usage and Accounting Collector mainframe application. (100% 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 Other Actions   C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Assessor’s Office, a purchase order with Tyler Technologies, Inc., in the amount of $145,861 for maintenance of the AES Rapid 2000 computer automated appraisal system for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2017, as recommended by the Assessor. (100% AB589 Property Tax Administration Program 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 the report "Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California" and staff recommendations in response to the report, as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee, 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. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with ECS Imaging, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $307,908 to implement Laserfiche, an electronic records content management system, for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019, Countywide. (100% Various Public Works 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 ACCEPT the Annual Report on Revolving and Cash Difference Funds, Overage Fund, and Shortages for fiscal year 2015/2016, as recommended by the County Auditor-Controller.       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. 62 APPROVE the demolition projects located at 3939 Bissell Avenue, Richmond and 343 Rodeo Avenue, Rodeo and related actions under the California Environmental Quality Act, as recommended by the Public Works Director. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III September 27, 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. 63 AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to pay vendors and reimburse employees for expenses incurred upon the approval of the County Administrator not to exceed $5,000 per request, 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. 64 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/530 authorizing the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Public Finance Authority in an amount not to exceed $17,000,000 to provide financing for the costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a multifamily housing development commonly known as Willowbrook Apartments, a 72-unit residential rental housing development located at 110 Bailey Road, Bay Point area, as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (100% Special Revenue 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. 65 ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/555 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Walnut Creek School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016)" in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 by the Walnut Creek School District on its own behalf pursuant to Section 15140(b) of the Education Code, as recommended by the County Administrator. (No County 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. 66 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999, and most recently approved by the Board on September 13, 2016, 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   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. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 16 of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913. The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at (925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, Room 106. Copies of recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements. Forms are available to anyone desiring to submit an inspirational thought nomination for inclusion on the Board Agenda. Forms may be obtained at the Office of the County Administrator or Office of the Clerk of the Board, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Applications for personal subscriptions to the weekly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The weekly agenda may also be viewed on the County’s Internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us 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. Ad Hoc on Sustainability Committee October 24, 2016 4:00 p.m.See above September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 17 Airports Committee September 28, 2016 1:30 p.m. See above Family & Human Services Committee October 10, 2016 1:00 p.m.See above Finance Committee October 13, 2016 10:30 a.m. See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee October 10, 2016 9:00 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee October 24, 2016 11:00 a.m. See above Legislation Committee October 10, 2016 10:30 a.m. See above Public Protection Committee October 24, 2016 9:00 a.m. See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee October 13, 2016 1:00 p.m. See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 18 CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 19 O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 20 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER accepting the report from the Health Services Department on the implementation of Laura's Law (Assisted Outpatient Treatment program) in Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact; the report is informational. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2015, the Health Services Department provided the Board of Supervisors with an update on the progress of the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program. The Board approved the department's recommendation to continue with the program's implementation using $2.25 million per year of Mental Health Services Act funding, which would not impact the County's General Fund or reduce the existing voluntary mental health program services. The Board asked that the department return with an update after six months of the full implementation. On January 5, 2016, the Board approved the staff recommendation to continue Referral #107 Laura's Law to the 2016 Family and Human Services (FHS) Committee. On September 12, 2016, FHS received the attached report and supporting documents from the Health Services Department's Behavioral Health division on the implementation of Contra Costa County's Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program and approved forwarding it to the full Board. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: William Walker, Health Services Department D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Referral No. 107 Laura's Law - Assisted Outpatient Treatment September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 21 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker: Douglas Dunn, resident of Antioch. Handout attached. ATTACHMENTS AOT Report Feb - Jul 2016 AOT Brochure - Attachment 1 AOT Brochure - Attachment 2 AOT Brochure - Attachment 3 AOT Data Report - Attachment 4 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 22 Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services Interim Report Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program - Period Covered: February – July 2016 The Contra Costa County (County) Board of Supervisors (BOS) has authorized the program design and budget to implement Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), and has requested an interim report after six months of operation. AOT is civil court ordered treatment for persons with serious and persistent mental illness who demonstrate resistance to participating in services. The program design incorporated stakeholder input through a series of workgroup meetings, and consists of a partnership between, 1) the County’s court system to adjudicate petitions for mandating mental health treatment, 2) Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services (CCBHS) staff to determine eligibility, ensure mental health care is provided, and initiate petitions, as appropriate, and, 3) a community based organization, Mental Health Systems’ ACTiOn Team (MHS) to provide outreach, engagement and Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) level of care to individuals referred by CCBHS. The program officially started on February 1, 2016 by opening a web site with a dedicated telephone line for referrals, and informing the community with promotional materials and approximately fifteen presentations to NAMI – Contra Costa, law enforcement agencies, and service providers that staff were hired, trained, and open for business. (Attachments 1,2,3) Through the end of July, CCBHS has processed 101 qualified referral requests; 62 of the requests coming from family members, 16 from law enforcement, 16 from mental health service providers, and 7 from other sources. Geographical breakdown roughly approximates the respective populations of East, Central and West Contra Costa County. The rate of requests has been gradually increasing, with 26 of the requests still in the investigatory process. The length of time to determine AOT eligibility has ranged from a minimum of two weeks for cases currently open to CCBHS, to more than six weeks when information has to be obtained elsewhere. Of the 75 cases where a disposition has been established, 13 have been referred to MHS for outreach and engagement, 16 are receiving ACT services, and 3 petitions have been recently filed and are awaiting a first court appearance. 39 individuals were deemed not to be eligible, with 16 of these individuals connected to other appropriate mental health services, and one individual incarcerated. (Attachment 4) The litigation, or court function of AOT, is new and in its early stages. A total of six court petitions have been filed, with three cases resulting in a settlement agreement where the individual is voluntarily participating in services, and three petitions have been recently been filed. The number of petitions filed appear to be low, as CCBHS and MHS staff appear to be successful in connecting individuals, whether eligible for AOT or not, to either the Adult Mental Health System of Care, or to Mental Health Systems’ ACTiOn Team, depending upon the acuity level of their illness. For those AOT petitions that have gone to court, CCBHS staff, County Counsel, the Public Defender’s Office and Superior Court staff have communicated and worked well together to benefit and complement the AOT program. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 23 The above data reflects a start-up pattern consistent with other large counties who have implemented AOT; namely, program numbers start slow, accelerate at about the six month period, and then plateau. Also consistent is low court involvement, with the preponderance of referred individuals accepting mental health treatment. CCBHS staff have worked hard to adapt to the role of expeditiously responding to referral requests, determining eligibility, and ensuring connection to the appropriate next steps; whether referral to MHS for outreach and engagement, engaging the court process, or ensuring individuals receive the right type of care, whether they are eligible for AOT or not. Staff report an increase over time in the quality of information and support supplied by qualified requestors. This is resulting in a greater rate of appropriate referrals that exhibit acute clinical need. Reported challenges include managing confidentiality while serving court summons to a service user in a treatment setting, adapting the original program design to day-to-day operations, and establishing a computerized data management system specific to AOT. Mental Health Systems has achieved full staffing capacity to field a multi-disciplinary mobile team consisting of mental health clinicians, psychiatry, nursing, vocational and housing support, and peer and family partner providers. They have established a master-leased property that has the capacity to safely house up to seven non-crisis clients. Staff have undergone extensive trainings in the ACT model of treatment and various evidence based practices, such as various assessment tools and Motivational Interviewing. The ACTiOn Team has partnered with Contra Costa NAMI to develop supportive and collaborative relationships, and has provided a three part training series to assist family members have a better understanding of ethical, legal and cultural practices of care providers. Two written testimonials from family members have been received that attest to both the effectiveness of the care provided, as well as the support they have received during the process. Reported challenges include clarifying CCBHS’s role as it affects day-to-day clinical care decision-making by the MHS ACTiOn Team, introducing the ACT model of care to this County, and housing clients who are not yet ready to safely maintain themselves in housing that is available. In March of this year Resource Development Associates (RDA) was authorized to provide an independent quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Contra Costa’s AOT Program, and to report on the program’s programmatic and cost effectiveness. Since then RDA, CCBHS and MHS staff have together identified the data sources, methodology and time line to gather, analyze and report on the research questions of 1) how faithful are ACT services provided to the ACT model, 2) what are the outcomes for people who participate in AOT, 3) what are differences between people who voluntarily participate in AOT versus those who are court ordered, and 4) what are the differences between those who participate in AOT versus those who participate in the County’s Full Service Partnership Programs. Recent and planned activities include a site visit to MHS by RDA in August that utilizes the Dartmouth University ACT Fidelity scale, collection of agreed upon data by RDA in September, analysis with participating partners in October, and a full report with data generated in November to CCBHS, the Mental Health Commission, and the Board of Supervisor’s Family and Human Services Committee. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 24 Assisted Outpatient Treatment Qualified Requesters 1430 Willow Pass Road, Suite 100 Concord, CA 94553 925-957-5201 cchealth.org/bhs You Should Know Information you provide as a referring person, such as your identity and personal information, may not be held as confidential and could become part of a court record. As a qualified requesting party you will be expected to participate, and the process may require a substantial amount of your time and effort. The AOT program works within the parameters of medical privacy laws to safeguard protected information. Client information and outcomes may not be shared with qualified requesting parties without informed written consent. In Crisis? If you are experiencing a life-threaten- ing emergency, call 911 immediately. To speak with a trained crisis counselor about a mental health concern, call 1-888-678-7277 day or night The AOT Program does not provide mental health crisis services to the general public. For more information about the AOT Program, visit chealth.org/mentalhealth/lauras-law.php September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 25 How to Request Services Contra Costa Behavioral Health provides assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) for persons experiencing mental illness who meet the criteria of 2002 California Assembly Bill 1421, also known as Laura’s Law. „18 or older with a mental illness „Mental health condition worsening „Unlikely to be safe in the community without supervision „Needs the program to prevent serious harm to themselves or others „Has not engaged in offered treatment „History of resisting mental health treatment, and ‡Hospitalized due to mental illness 2 times in the last 36 months, OR ‡1 or more acts of violence toward themselves or others in the last 48 months „Program participation would be the least restrictive option to ensure recovery and stability „Likely to benefit from participating If you know someone who meets ALL these criteria, you can request AOT services from Contra Costa County if you are over 18 and are a: „Probation or police officer „Parent, spouse, child or member of the person’s household „Mental health clinician serving the person „Director of a facility where the person is hospitalized or receiving mental health care To request AOT services, call 1-844-422-2268. Making a Request A clinician will return your call during business hours. Please be ready to share details and provide examples supporting your request. Your information helps Behavioral Health Services (BHS) determine if AOT is appropriate for the person. Documentation such as prescriptions, hospital papers or other medical records will aid the process. Information about how to locate or contact the person also helps. What to Expect If BHS determines AOT is an appropriate legal option to pursue, mental health outreach workers will try to contact the person and connect them to services, potentially several times. Voluntary participation is always the goal. The clinician may also contact you again for follow-up information. BHS will refer the person to appropriate services within the Mental Health System. When a person who needs AOT will not participate, BHS petitions a Contra Costa Superior Court judge for a private civil hearing. After the hearing, the judge may require them to participate. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 26 Assisted Outpatient Treatment For Clients 1340 Arnold Drive, Suite 200 Martinez, CA 94553 925-957-5201 cchealth.org/bhs You Should Know The AOT Program does not provide mental health crisis services. If you are experiencing a life-threatening emergency, call 911 immediately. In Crisis? If you are experiencing a life-threatening emergency, call 911 immediately. To speak with a trained crisis counselor about a mental health concern, call 1-888-678-7277 day or night The AOT Program does not provide mental health crisis services to the general public. For more information about the AOT Program, visit chealth.org/mentalhealth/lauras-law.php September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 27 How does it work? What is Assisted Outpatient Treatment? Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) is a team- based support service to help you feel better and stay safe. A supportive team helps you identify your needs, helps create a plan for getting those needs met, and supports you each step of the way. Who gets AOT? We offer AOT to people who have had serious things happen, such as going to Psychiatric Emergency Services, having a problem with the police or who may just feel unsafe in the community. We only offer AOT if we think it can help. What are the benefits of AOT? NOBODY wants police, hospitals or courts in your life. People who participate in AOT are much less likely to have that kind of problem again. Also, people who participate in AOT are treated with respect and make their own choices. While receiving services, you still live at home and go where you want. Or, if you need a home, AOT can work with you to find one. People who participate in AOT work with a team of professionals to make a treatment plan just for them. Plans address things that can get in the way of staying safe and healthy. Services can include: „Help with medication „Access to primary health care „Substance abuse counseling „Mental health treatment „Help with health benefits „Access to supportive housing programs „Job training „Peer support for you and your family Why have I been contacted about AOT? Someone recommended that this program might be helpful to you. Trained support staff from Contra Costa Behavioral Health will work with you to decide if AOT is a good fit, or if some other service might be better for you. Do I have to pay? This program is funded through a combination of the county’s General Fund and the Mental Health Services Act. All eligible people will be served regardless of their ability to pay. What about my privacy? AOT is confidential. Not even the person who recommended you will know if you join the program or any other details about your treatment, unless you tell someone. You have the opportunity to include others in your plan if you choose. What if I do not want help? AOT works best for people who are willing to participate. A few of our clients are placed in the program after a court hearing, because a judge decides it is very important for them to participate. The AOT team is mobile and offers flexible hours that make connecting more convenient for you. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 28 Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program Overview 1430 Willow Pass Road, Suite 100 Concord, CA 94553 925-957-5201 cchealth.org/bhs The Court’s Role The goal is for eligible individuals to voluntarily participate in the AOT Program. However, in cases where a referred individual will not do so, they will be summoned to a private civil hearing in Contra Costa Superior Court. In this situation, BHS files a petition with the court, and a judge holds a hearing that includes the referred individual and their legal representation, provided by the Public Defender’s office. After the hearing, the judge may order the referred individual to participate in AOT. In Crisis? If you are experiencing a life-threatening emergency, call 911 immediately. To speak with a trained crisis counselor about a mental health concern, call 1-888-678-7277 day or night For more information about the AOT Program, visit cchealth.org/mentalhealth/lauras-law.php September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 29 What AOT does Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) is for people with severe and persistent mental illness, who need treatment to prevent them from getting worse, may pose a risk to themselves or others, and who usually decline care or struggle to stay or enroll in treatment. For these individuals, Contra Costa County has adopted Laura’s Law, which allows counties to use the civil court system to supervise care. The court process is only used after every effort has been made to encourage individuals who need treatment to voluntarily participate. The AOT program is a partnership between Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services (BHS), the Superior Court, the Public Defender’s Office and Mental Health Systems, a nonprofit service provider. Eligible individuals benefit from a 24-hour team response that can include treatment, medication, access to primary health care, substance abuse counseling, counseling regarding benefits and other resources, access to supportive housing services, vocational rehabilitation, and peer and family member support. Participants are either referred to the program by the court or join voluntarily. Those who do not meet all AOT eligibility requirements are connected with appropriate behavioral health services. When a person who needs AOT will not participate, BHS petitions a Contra Costa Superior Court judge for a private civil hearing. After the hearing, the judge may require them to participate. Who is eligible for AOT An adult with mental illness may qualify for the AOT program if their mental health is getting worse, they are unlikely to be safe in the community without supervision, and they have a recent history of hospitalization or violence related to their mental health. The program is intended for those who have previously declined or not engaged in offered treatment. For more information about who qualifies for AOT and who can request an AOT screening, visit cchealth.org/ mentalhealth/lauras-law.php How AOT works A Care Team responds to qualified requests for AOT screening and supports those involved, encourages participation in appropriate mental health care, provides links to services and engages the person in the least restrictive care needed. Eligible individuals receive Assertive Community Treatment, a nationally recognized, evidence-based practice. The ACT team is led by a licensed mental health clinician and works with clients to implement individualized treatment plans. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 30 Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program Data – FEB through JUL 2016 ATTACHMENT 4 Number Percentage County Demographic Percentage Gender Male 59 58 49 Female 42 42 51 Total 101 Region West 28 28 24 Central 46 45 50 East 27 27 26 Total 101 Type of Qualified Requestor Family Members 62 61 Law Enforcement 16 16 Service Providers 16 16 Other 7 7 Total 101 Outcomes Case opened - determining AOT eligibility 26 Referred to MHS for outreach and engagement 13 Volunteered for ACT Services 16 Court Involved petition pending 3 Connected to other mental health services 16 Not eligible for AOT 26 Incarcerated 1 Total 101 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 31 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2016-12, to adjust Bethel Island Area of Benefit (“Bethel Island AOB”) fees; RECEIVE public comments; CONSIDER all objections and protests received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. DETERMINE that the County did not receive protests from owners of more than one half of the area of the property within the proposed boundaries of the Bethel Island AOB, and therefore a majority protest does not exist. 3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-12 to adjust the fees within the Bethel Island AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bethel Island AOB. 4. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/543 to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto. 5. DETERMINE that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Liza Mangabay, 925-313-2232, Mary Halle, 925-313-2327 D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 32 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. 7. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 in the Official Record of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. 8. DIRECT that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-12 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance. 9. REDESIGNATE Trust Fund No. 1290 as the fund into which all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECT all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue must be deposited into that fund, and DIRECT the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund. 10. DIRECT that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1290 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. 11. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bethel Island AOB Fee. 12. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bethel Island AOB, and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bethel Island AOB Fee. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 will result in the collection of transportation mitigation fees from new development in amounts calculated to reflect new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of transportation improvements that are necessary to mitigate transportation impacts within the Bethel Island AOB, as specified in the Development Program Report and the Nexus Study. BACKGROUND: A. INTRODUCTION: One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to connect new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. Imposing transportation mitigation fees on new development is a means of raising revenue to construct road improvements to serve new developments. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation mitigation fee ensures that new development pays its proportional share of the transportation improvements that need to be constructed to alleviate traffic impacts attributable to that development. B. PAST AND PURPOSE OF BETHEL ISLAND AOB: On March 15, 1988, the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) passed Resolution 88/122, forming the Countywide Area of Benefit (“Countywide AOB”), a development fee program to raise revenue for the improvement of the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee ordinance, pursuant to Government Code section 66484. The boundaries of the Countywide AOB coincided with the County boundary, but only unincorporated areas were included in the Countywide AOB. The Board also adopted a Development Program Report (“1988 DPR”), which showed the Countywide AOB to be divided into seven regions – West County, Central County, Lamorinda, September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 33 Alamo, South County, East County and Bethel Island. The 1988 DPR set forth a list of improvements in each region, their estimated costs, the basis for apportionment of these costs among different land use categories, and fees applicable to development in each region. Ordinance No. 88-27, adopted the same date, established the fees applicable to all development in the seven regions. The 1988 DPR provided that fees collected in a subarea were to be kept in a separate trust fund specific to that subarea, to “ensure that the money collected in a subarea is used to improve the road deficiencies in that subarea only and will not be diverted for use elsewhere in the County.” On March 9, 1993, the Board adopted a revised development program report (“1993 DPR”) for the Countywide AOB, which outlined the boundaries of seven areas of benefit within the original Countywide AOB and described them as coinciding with the boundaries of the seven regions created in 1988. Among the new areas of benefit was the Bethel Island AOB. The 1993 DPR identified the same four projects for the Bethel Island AOB that were identified in the 1988 DPR. The four projects were estimated at that time to cost $9,200,000, unchanged from the cost estimate provided in 1988. The 1993 DPR also provided that the funding mechanism and trust fund accounts specific to a particular region would remain in place but be “specific to a particular Regional Area of Benefit.” Simultaneously with the adoption of the 1993 DPR, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 93-27, formally establishing the Bethel Island AOB and adopting fees to fund the four projects identified in the 1993 DPR for that area. Fees imposed on new development pursuant to Ordinance No. 93-27 have funded transportation improvements to satisfy traffic demands within the Bethel Island AOB. For example, the Bethel Island Road Bridge over Dutch Slough (one of the key Area of Benefit improvement projects), has been replaced with a new, widened structure. However, other AOB improvements identified in the 1993 DPR have not been constructed. The proposed road widening on Bethel Island Road from Wells Road to Sandmound Road is yet to be completed. This project will “carry-over” from the current project list to the new project list with the current fund balance allocated towards this project. C. PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEE PROGRAM: In recent years, the development potential and traffic circulation needs have changed within the Bethel Island AOB. In 2006, the City of Oakley annexed portions of the AOB south of Dutch Slough. New development within the Bethel Island AOB will generate nearly 900 residential units, 107,000 square feet of office space, 32,000 square feet of industrial, and 97,000 of retail by year 2040. These changes in the AOB, along with population growth and new estimated potential growth, have prompted an update to the AOB program, resulting in an amended project list and fee schedule, and some administrative modifications, as discussed below. 1. New Project List : County staff and consultants have identified transportation projects that are needed to serve development within the Bethel Island AOB through 2040. These projects have been included on a new project list, attached as Exhibit C to the August 2016 Development Program Report (“2016 Development Program Report”). Each of the new projects includes adding shoulders or pavement widening to certain existing road segments, to improve road safety and bicycle and pedestrian transit on those road segments. These road segments include portions of Bethel Island Road, Sandmound Boulevard, Gateway Road, and Piper Road. The total estimated cost of the updated list of projects is $6,928,000, of which $2,339,000 is attributable to new development within the Bethel Island AOB. The current Bethel Island AOB fund balance will be applied to the portion of the estimated costs attributable to new development, resulting in a net $1,862,000 needing to be paid by new development. (Detailed estimates of the cost of each of the projects on the project list are included in the August 2016 Nexus Study, Bethel Island Area of Benefit (the “Nexus Study”), attached as Exhibit D to the 2016 Development Program Report.) The cost of the projects attributable to new development will be paid with revenue from transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development within the Bethel Island AOB. The remaining cost of the project is attributable to existing development, which shall be paid from other revenue sources, including but not limited to State or Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant funds, Local Measure J funds, gas tax revenue, and various other grant programs that may become available in the future. 2. Revised Fee Rates: Based on the analysis in the Nexus Study, transportation mitigation fees were calculated to charge new development for its proportional share of the cost of the projects on the project list in the 2016 Development Program Report. These transportation mitigation fees are set forth in Table 1, below. These fees will September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 34 be imposed on new development within the Bethel Island AOB on and after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2016-12. On January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 st thereafter, each of the fees in Table 1 will automatically increase or decrease based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco Bay Area, for the 12 month period ending September 30th of the year prior to the year in which the adjustment will take effect. Table 1: Proposed Fee Rates Note: du = dwelling unit; sf = square foot; due = dwelling unit equivalent The total fees required to be paid by a new development project applicant will be calculated based on the number of dwelling units (residential), square feet (commercial, office, industrial), or dwelling-unit-equivalents (other) attributable to that development, as specified in the Nexus Study, multiplied by the applicable fee in Table 1. The fee for the expansion of an existing development will be calculated by determining the number of dwelling units, square feet, or dwelling-unit-equivalents attributable only to the expansion. The fees to be paid by each new development will be collected at the time a building permit is issued for the development, in accordance with Ordinance Code Chapter 913-4. Fee revenue will be deposited in the fund for the Bethel Island AOB – Trust Fund No. 1290 – and used only for the transportation improvements identified in the 2016 Development Program Report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-12 to adjust fees in the Bethel Island Area of Benefit and reestablish the boundaries of the area of benefit will result in new development not paying its proportional share of the transportation improvements needed to serve development within the AOB through 2040. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLOSED the hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-12 to adjust the fees within the Bethel Island AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bethel Island AOB.; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/543 to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption; DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-12 and Resolution No. 2016/543 in the Official Record of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. DIRECT that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-12 remains in effect, the Public Works Director adjust the Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance; REDESIGNATED Trust Fund No. 1290 as the fund into which all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Bethel Island AOB transportation Land Use Category Proposed Fee Rate Single-Family $1,617 / du Multi-Family $986 / du Commercial $2.30 / sf Office $1.86 / sf Industrial $1.47 / sf Other $1,617 / due September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 35 transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Bethel Island AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue must be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund; DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1290 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bethel Island AOB Fee; DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bethel Island AOB, and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bethel Island AOB Fee. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/543 DPR - Bethel Island AOB Nexus Study for Bethel Island AOB Aug 2016 Ordinance 2016-12 CEQA - Notice of Exemption Board Resolution Final Reso No. 2016/543 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/543 Signed Ordinance No. 2016-12 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 36 Recorded at the request of:Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 Return To:mary.halle@pw.cccounty.us THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 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. 2016/543 IN THE MATTER OF the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-12, adjusting the fees for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2016, to consider the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-12, to adjust transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development in the Bethel Island Area of Benefit; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at said hearing reestablished the boundaries of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit, the costs of the proposed improvements, and the method of fee apportionment, as set forth in the August 2016, Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit (“Development Program Report”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66484 requires a resolution incorporating a description of the area of benefit boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment to be recorded by the governing body conducting the hearing; and WHEREAS, the August 2016, “Nexus Study, Bethel Island Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report, sets forth the nexus findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code. § 66000 et seq.); September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 37 NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Development Program Report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. 2. INCORPORATES herein by reference the following, which were established at the hearing described above: A. The boundaries of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to the Development Program Report, and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B to the Development Program Report. B. The estimated costs of the bridge and thoroughfare improvements to be funded with revenue from the Bethel Island Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit C to the Development Program Report; and C. The method of apportionment of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly described in the Development Program Report, and in the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. Contact: Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Liza Mangabay, 925-313-2232, Mary Halle, 925-313-2327 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 38 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 39 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 40 Julia R. Bueren, Director Deputy Directors R. Mitch Avalon Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski Stephen Silveira "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000  FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ___________________ Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit August, 2016 Prepared Pursuant to Section 913 of the County Ordinance Code Prepared by and for: Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division and Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 41 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 3: LOCATION AND BOUNDARY .................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER 5: PROJECT LIST ........................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... 6 CHAPTER 8: METHOD OF COST APPORTIONMENT ....................................................... 7 CHAPTER 9: FEE RATES ................................................................................................. 9 CALCULATION OF FEES ............................................................................................................. 9 RECOMMENDED FEES ............................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 10: PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS............................................... 11 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................................................................... 11 REVIEW OF FEES .................................................................................................................. 11 COLLECTION OF FEES ............................................................................................................. 11 INTEREST ON FEES ................................................................................................................ 12 DEDICATION IN LIEU OF FEE .................................................................................................... 12 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 42 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit List of Tables TABLE 1. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUMMARY 5 TABLE 2. DWELLING UNIT EQUIVALENT (DUE) RATES 7 TABKE 3. GROWTH IN DUE'S 8 TABLE 4. FEE CALCULATIONS 9 List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY PLAT MAP EXHIBIT C. ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT LIST EXHIBIT D. NEXUS STUDY: BETHEL ISLAND AREA OF BENEFIT September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 43 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 1 OF 12 Chapter Introduction and Purpose 1 The Bethel Island Area of Benefit (“Bethel Island AOB”) was created as a means to collect funds to maintain and improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the north-east county area of Contra Costa County (“County”) including Bethel Island, Jersey Island, Bradford Island, and King Edward Island. This Development Program Report (“DPR”) contains information and data in support of a decrease in the fees imposed on development projects within the Bethel Island AOB to fund improvements to the County’s roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the unincorporated portion of this AOB. The DPR is required by Chapter 913-6 of the County Ordinance Code and is required by the Board of Supervisors’ Policy on Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfare Fees (adopted July 17, 1979), which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to connect new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Bethel Island AOB Fee is a means of raising revenue to construct road improvements to serve new developments. Requiring that all new development pay a road improvement fee will help ensure that they participate in the cost of improving the road system. Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate new additional traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of a development program is to determine improvements ultimately required by future development and to require developers to pay a fee to fund these improvements. Because the Bethel Island AOB Fee is based on the relative impact on the road system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This report discusses the basis of that fee amount. The update results in lower fee rates because the largest project on the former list, Bethel Island Bridge, was completed with a large cost savings due to grant funding. The projects on the current list are relatively low cost and thus require lower traffic impact fees. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 44 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 2 OF 12 Chapter Background 2 On March 15, 1988, the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) passed a resolution forming the Countywide Area of Benefit (“Countywide AOB”) to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network in the County through the establishment of a traffic mitigation fee ordinance (Resolution 88/122 and Ordinance 88-27). This ordinance applied to unincorporated areas of the County and outlined boundaries of seven regional areas of benefit, including the Bethel Island AOB, within the original Countywide AOB. The Bethel Island AOB was last updated in 1993. The Bethel Island Road Bridge over Dutch Slough (one of the key Area of Benefit improvement projects), has been replaced with a new, widened structure. However, other AOB improvements to Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road have not been implemented. In recent years, the area within the Bethel Island AOB has experienced changes in the area’s traffic circulation needs and development potential. In 2006, the City of Oakley annexed portions of the AOB south of Dutch Slough. In addition, the County’s General Plan includes policies that significantly limit potential residential development on Bethel Island until financing for the island’s perimeter levee system can be assured. These changes in AOB area and growth potential have prompted an update to the AOB program, resulting in an amended project list and fee schedule. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 45 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 3 OF 12 Chapter Location and Boundary 3 The Bethel Island AOB boundary location is described in Exhibit A and generally shown in Exhibit B. Chapter General Plan Relationship 4 The Bethel Island AOB is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and its amendments, and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan policies include, but are not limited to, improving the County roadway network to meet existing and future traffic demands. The Bethel Island AOB Fee will assist in funding the necessary roadway improvements required for future growth as shown in the General Plan. The General Plan and its various elements are available for review at the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, during office hours. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 46 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 4 OF 12 Chapter Project List 5 The project List for the Bethel Island AOB is set forth in Exhibit C. This list contains five projects, all related to arterial roadway improvements through roadway widening. The improvements are not related to Level of Service (LOS) problems, as the Bethel Island roads are LOS A exceeding County standards. Instead, the improvements will address safety concerns on narrow roadways. The addition of shoulders will increase safety even as the amount of traffic increases. Shoulders will also provide a bike lane/walkway. The improvements proposed on the Bethel Island AOB project list were identified in a cooperative effort by the Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and Development, utilizing the combined knowledge of both agencies. The se improvements have been identified through previous planning and traffic studies and environmental impact analyses conducted in the area. The proposed improvements will be reviewed periodically to assess the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of development, and the accuracy of the estimated project costs. The periodic review of the program will also allow staff to evaluate project priority and the need to increase fees should project costs increase or exceed the rate of inflation. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 47 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 5 OF 12 Chapter Development Potential 6 The “Nexus Study: Bethel Island Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), dated August, 2016, was prepared by DKS in association with Urban Economics for the Public Works Department and is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. The Nexus Study provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development in Bethel Island AOB and the need for certain regional facilities. The projected growth in households, employment, and vehicle-miles traveled within the Bethel Island AOB is discussed and shown in the Nexus Study. A summary of the potential new residential dwelling units, office, industrial, and commercial/ retail developments (net growth from 2010 to 2040) for the unincorporated portion of AOB is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Development Potential Summary Land Use Category Units Single-Family Residential 819 dwelling units Multi-Family Residential 70 dwelling units Office 107,300 sq ft Industrial 31,800 sq ft Commercial/Retail 96,700 sq ft September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 48 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 6 OF 12 Chapter Estimated Cost of Road Improvements 7 The estimated costs of the road improvements planned for the Bethel Island AOB and the corresponding recommended Bethel Island AOB Fee contributions are shown in Exhibit C. The Bethel Island AOB will only finance the proportional share of the improvements necessitated by the impact on the road system from new development. Detailed cost estimates for the projects included in the road improvement plan are provided in Appendix A of the Nexus Study. The County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of the applicable fee. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the community groups and traffic advisory committees. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 49 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 7 OF 12 Chapter Method of Fee Apportionment 8 The total estimated cost of the projects included in the Bethel Island AOB project list is $6,928,000. Of this, approximately $2,339,000 is attributable to growth within the Bethel Island AOB. There is an existing account balance of $477,000. An adjusted project cost to be covered by the Bethel Island AOB fees was determined by subtracting the existing fund balance from the attributable project cost. $2,339,000 – $477,000 = $1,862,000 (Attributable Project Cost) (Balance) (Adjusted Project Cost) This adjusted project cost represents the amount of revenue needed from the Bethel Island AOB Fee to fund the construction of the projects shown in Exhibit C. The expected growth in the Bethel Island AOB to the year 2040 is 889 dwelling units and 235,800 square feet of retail, office, and industrial space. To determine a fee rate per unit, first each development type is assigned a dwelling unit equivalent or “DUE” rate. DUEs compare the trip making characteristics of a land use in relation to a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses with lower overall traffic impacts than a single family home are assigned values less than 1, and vice versa. The following Table shows the DUE rates for the various land use categories. Table 2 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per Unit1 Unit Trip Length (miles)2 Percent New trips2 VMT per Unit DUE per Unit Singe Family 1.01 Dwelling Unit 5.0 100 5.050 1.00 Multi-Family 0.62 5.0 100 3.100 0.61 Retail 4.10 Square Feet 2.3 76 7.167 0.00142 Office 1.40 4.5 92 5.796 0.00115 Industrial 0.98 5.1 92 4.598 0.00091 1 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition 2 ITE Journal, May 1992 Source: DKS Associates, 2013 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 50 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 8 OF 12 Next, the total growth in DUEs in the AOB by 2040 is found by multiplying the land use growth by the DUE per Unit factors found above. The growth in DUEs for each land use and the total growth in DUEs is shown below. Table 3 Growth in DUEs Land Use Category Unit Growth in Units1 DUE per Unit Growth in DUEs Singe Family Dwelling Unit 819 1.00 819.0 Multi-Family 70 0.61 42.7 Retail Square Feet 96,700 0.00142 137.3 Office 107,300 0.00115 123.4 Industrial 31,800 0.00091 28.9 Total 1,151.3 1 See Table 2: “Summary of Estimated Development 2010 to 2040 Growth” Source: DKS Associates, 2013 Finally, the Cost per DUE is found by dividing the total Cost of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth by the total Growth in Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE's): $1,862,000 1,151.3 =$1,617 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑈𝐷 Because the DUE rates are based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel generated during the PM peak hours for each general land use type, the developments are charged fees in proportion to the amount of traffic impact they are projected to generate. In this way, the fees attributed to each new parcel will be proportional to the estimated benefits they receive through use of the new improvements. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 51 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 9 OF 12 Chapter Fee Rates 9 Calculation of Fees The fee calculation is set forth in detail in the Nexus Study (Exhibit D). To determine a maximum fee rate for the various land use categories, the Cost per DUE is multiplied by the DUE per unit, which were both found in Chapter 8. In the residential categories, this results in a fee per dwelling unit. In the non-residential categories, the fee is charged per square foot. These calculations are summarized in the following Table. Table 4. Fee Calculations Nexus-Based Fee Rates for Bethel Island AOB Cost of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth in Dwelling Unit Equivalents Cost per DUE $1,862,000 1,151.3 $1,617 Land Use Units DUE per Unit Maximum Fee per Unit1 Single Family Multi-Family Retail Office Industrial Other Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Square Foot Square Foot Square Foot Dwelling Unit 1.00 0.61 0.00142 0.00115 0.00091 1.00 $1,617 $986 $2.30 $1.86 $1.47 $1,617 1 Maximum Fee per Unit = (Cost per DUE) x (DUE per Unit) Source: DKS Associates, 2014 The “Other” Land Use category is for unique land uses, which are most commonly recreational or institutional. To determine the DUE for a development considered “Other,” the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are first estimated using a combination of trip generation data, the default rate for trip length, and percent new trips. A conversion factor is then applied to find the DUE. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 52 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 10 OF 12 Recommended Fees The potential maximum fee rates calculated in the Nexus Study and presented in Table 4 above are the recommended fee rates for the Bethel Island AOB. These represent a 20% to 70% decrease from the current fee schedule, depending on the land use. The current fee rates are higher because the project list included the high-cost Bethel Island Bridge replacement project. Federal funding, which was not initially anticipated in the Bethel Island Area of Benefit program budget, was secured and used to complete the bridge replacement project. The updated Nexus Study indicates that a decrease in financial obligation is justified for the developers’ fair share contribution to the updated project list. Lowering the rates will encourage new development and will have a significant positive impact on the Bethel Island area. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 53 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 11 OF 12 Chapter Program Finance Considerations 10 Other Funding Sources The improvements planned for the Bethel Island AOB will be only partially funded by Bethel Island AOB fee revenues. Other sources of funding, such as State or Federal aid, or local sources such as sales tax, gas tax, etc., will be pursued. These other funding sources include, but are not limited to, Regional Measure J Funds, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds, and Federal Program Funds. The rate at which revenue is generated by the Bethel Island AOB Fee depends on the rate of new development. This rate of revenue generation affects the timing of construction of the improvement projects because it is dependent upon the total amount of fees collected, less expenditures. Alternate sources of funding would permit construction of AOB projects sooner. Review of Fees Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the Bethel Island AOB is in effect. On January 1 of each year thereafter, the amount of the fees will be increased or decreased based on the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the October index of the previous calendar year, without further action of the Board of Supervisors. Collection of Fees Fees will be collected when a building permit is issued, in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited into an interest bearing trust fund established pursuant to Section 913-8.002 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 54 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit 12 OF 12 Interest on Fees The interest accrued on the fees collected shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and shall be expended for construction of the improvements, or to reimburse the County for the cost of constructing the improvements, pursuant to Section 913-8.006 of the County Ordinance Code. Dedication in Lieu of Fee A development may be required to construct, or dedicate right-of-way for a portion of the improvements as a condition of approval. In such an event, the developer may be eligible to receive credit for the fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit and/or reimbursement shall be determined in accordance with the County’s “Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Policy.” September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 55 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Exhibit Area of Benefit Boundary Legal Description A September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 56 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Exhibit B Area of Benefit Boundary Plat Map September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 57 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Exhibit Road Improvement Plan – Project List C Allocation of Project Costs to Bethel Island AOB Program Roadway Location Recommended Project Estimated Total Cost Percent Allocated to AOB Cost Allocated to AOB Bethel Island Rd Taylor Rd to Sandmound Blvd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements $544,000 57.3 $311,712 Sandmound Blvd Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements $772,000 43.6 $336,592 Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements $2,629,000 43.2 $1,135,728 Gateway Rd Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements $1,690,000 12.1 $204,490 Piper Rd Gateway Rd to Willow Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements $1,293,000 27.1 $350,403 Total $6,928,000 33.8% $2,338,925 Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 58 Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit Exhibit Nexus Study Bethel Island Area of Benefit D Exhibit D Attached as separate document September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 59 Nexus Study Bethel Island Area of Benefit Prepared For: Contra Costa County Public Works Department August 2016 Prepared By: in association with Urban Economics Preepared By: in association with USeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 60 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit (AOB) Program is to help fund improvements to the County’s roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the unincorporated portion of this AOB. Contra Costa County has various methods for financing transportation improvements. One of the methods is the AOB Program. The AOB Program funds are collected from new development in the unincorporated portion of the AOB to finance a portion of the transportation improvements associated with travel demand generated by that development. Fees are differentiated by type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes its proportional share of the cost of transportation improvements, so that the County’s General Plan Circulation policies and quality of life can be maintained. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly, there is a mechanism in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Bethel Island AOB Program is a fee mechanism providing funds to construct transportation improvements to serve new residential, commercial and industrial development within the AOB. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation improvement fee will help ensure that it participates fairly in the cost of improving the transportation system. This Program applies only to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Bethel Island AOB. Each new development project or expansion of an existing development will generate new travel demand for all travel modes. Where the existing transportation system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of this development program is to determine improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve estimated future development and to require new development to pay a fee to fund its proportional share of these improvements. Because the fee is based on the relative impact of new development on the transportation system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This Nexus Study documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees proposed to be imposed on new development the local impact of proposed development, and the transportation improvements to be funded with fee revenue. 1.2 Bethel Island AOB The Countywide Area of Benefit was first adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988 with seven regions, each with its own fee schedule: West County, Central County, Lamorinda, Alamo, South County, East County, and Bethel Island. At the time, the County estimated a substantial growth potential for the Bethel Island AOB and the existing transportation system was inadequate to handle the additional traffic generated from the projected development. In 1993 the Area of Benefit program was reviewed. The Bethel Island AOB has experienced changes in the area's development potential and circulation needs. First, in 2006, the City of Oakley annexed a large area south of Dutch Slough. Second, the County’s 2005 General Plan includes policies that significantly limit potential residential development on Bethel Island until financing for the island's perimeter levee system can be assured. Since there is currently no financing plan or program in place, the County has estimated limited growth potential for the Bethel Island AOB. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 61 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 3 The Bethel Island Road Bridge over Dutch Slough (one of the key Area of Benefit improvement projects), has been replaced with a new, widened structure. However, other AOB improvements to Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road have not been implemented. The changes in development potential have prompted a revision to the Bethel Island AOB Program, resulting in a new project list and fee schedule. The purpose of this Nexus Study is to provide the technical basis for a comprehensive update of the Bethel Island AOB Program. The focus of the updated program is to support an overall transportation system in the Bethel Island AOB that serves the expected future demand based on changes in regional and local land use projections, planned and approved development projects, and associated changes to capital improvements and updated cost estimates. This Nexus Study documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the transportation fees proposed to be imposed on new development, the local impact created by anticipated development in the Bethel Island AOB, and the transportation improvements to be funded with fee revenues. A traffic and fair-share cost analysis was conducted to equitably distribute the costs of the necessary transportation improvements to developments that cause the impacts, in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.1 The most up-to-date versions of the analytical tools and techniques available at the time this study commenced were used to ensure the highest level of consistency with current information and practices. The Bethel Island AOB boundary, which was established in 1985, is shown in Figure 1. The area within the boundary includes a portion of the City of Oakley. However, fees will only be collected within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will only fund projects within the unincorporated portions of the AOB. 2. Evaluation of Current AOB Program The current Bethel Island AOB Program was last updated in 1993. The current Bethel Island AOB Program project list, shown in Table 1, has four projects, which were estimated in 1993 to cost about $9.2 million, with about $8.8 million to be funded by the AOB Program. This 2015 update of the Bethel Island AOB Program has included a new needs analysis to update this project list along with new project cost estimates, which are described in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Nexus Study. The current AOB Program uses “peak hour factors” to allocate trips by land use types based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate estimates for the evening (PM) peak hour. However, ITE trip rates only reflect the amount of traffic coming in and out of development’s entrances, not the extent of the roadway system that is impacted by those trips. This Nexus Study refines this approach to reflect current best practices for impact fee programs when estimating the impact of new development on the transportation system. . 1 California Government Code, Sections 66000 through 66026. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 62 MAIN CYPRESS SELLERSHWY 4 BETHEL ISLANDGATEWAY PIPERLAURELEMPIRE JERSEY ISLANDSANDMOUNDEsri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 1Boundary of Bethel Island AOB AOB Boundary City of OakleySeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 63 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 5 Table 1 1993 Project List for Bethel Island AOB Program Roadway Project Description Estimated Project Cost (1993 Dollars) 1 Bethel Island Road Widen to four lane arterial standard from Cypress Road to Gateway Road including realignment of curve and construction of new bridge $6,000,000 2 Bethel Island Road Install signal at Sandmound Boulevard $100,000 3 Cypress Road Construct new two lane arterial from Bethel Island Road to Sandmound Boulevard. $600,000 4 Cypress Road Widen to four lane arterial standard from Highway 4 to Bethel Island Road with grade separation at AT&SF and signal at Highway 4 $2,500,000 Total $9,200,000 Source: Development Program Report for Bethel Island AOB, 1993 For example, simple trip rates over-estimate the traffic impact of retail development on the overall roadway system. The average length of trips coming in and out of a new residential development is longer than trips coming in and out of a retail development. Furthermore, studies show that about 25 to 50 percent of the trips that will go in and out of a new retail development will already be traveling on roadways near that development, and thus are “pass-by” or “diverted” trips, not “new trips” to the surrounding roadway system. All of the trips going to and from a new residential unit are “new trips” To integrate best practices, the updated Bethel Island AOB Program will instead use estimates of vehicle- miles of travel (VMT) added by new development. The VMT rates multiply the trip rate for a land use type by its average trip length and also use percentages to reflect “pass-by trips” versus “new trips.” The calculation of fee rates based on this methodology is discussed in Section 4 of this study. 3. Determination of AOB Development Potential The transportation needs analysis and allocation of transportation improvement costs for the Bethel Island AOB is based on the countywide travel demand model developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA) using a 2040 horizon year. The calculation of fees is based on the following general land use categories and associated measurement units that are used as a basis for the land use inputs in CCTA’s travel demand model: __Land Use Type__ _____Units_____ Single-Family Dwelling units (DU) Multi-Family Dwelling units (DU) Commercial/Retail Jobs Office Jobs Industrial Jobs CCTA’s latest land use estimates of existing conditions and 2040 forecasts of new development by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the AOB were summarized and reviewed with County Planning September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 64 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 6 (Department of Conservation and Development) staff. The County Planning staff determined that CCTA’s 2040 forecasts varies from the County General Plan policies for the Bethel Island area, and, importantly, new state laws establishing higher standards for local jurisdictions to approve urban development behind levee systems. The County’s 2005 General Plan includes policies that significantly limit potential residential development on Bethel Island until financing for the island's perimeter levee system can be assured. There is no financing plan or program in place to provide for improvements to the perimeter levee needed to enable additional residential density on the island. Coupled with uncertainty about how and when the island's perimeter levee improvement would occur with the changes in state laws regarding urban development in areas protected from flood by levees, significant downward adjustments in the growth forecasts were needed. The County has indicated that it is reasonable to assume that both the Delta Coves project and the Coronado Village project could be developed by 2040. The County’s estimates of the development potential for the AOB are summarized in Table 2. The table shows estimates of jobs for nonresidential land uses according to CCTA’s model. It also applies estimates of square footage per employee to estimate the growth in building square feet, which are used in the AOB fee program. Table 2 Summary of Estimated 2010 to 2040 Development Growth Bethel Island Area of Benefit Land Use Category Units Unincorporated Portion of AOB City of Oakley Portion of AOB Total AOB 2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth Single-Family DU 846 1,665 819 313 1,468 1,155 1,159 3,133 1,974 Multi-family DU 622 692 70 47 57 10 669 749 80 Total DU 1,468 2,357 889 360 1,525 1,165 1,828 3,882 2,054 Retail Jobs 48 241 193 0 7 7 48 248 200 Office Jobs 230 620 390 11 260 249 241 880 639 Industrial Jobs 64 117 53 32 170 138 96 287 191 Total Jobs 342 978 636 43 437 394 385 1,415 1,030 Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 24.0 120.7 96.7 0.0 3.5 3.5 24.0 124.2 100.2 Office 1,000 sq. ft. 63.3 170.5 107.3 3.0 71.5 68.5 66.3 242.0 175.7 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 38.4 70.2 31.8 19.2 102 82.8 57.6 172.2 114.6 Total 1,000 sq. ft. 125.7 361.4 235.8 22.2 177.0 154.8 147.9 538.4 390.5 Notes: 1 See Figure 1 for AOB Boundary and portion within City of Oakley Land Use Retail Office Industrial Assumed Square Feet per Job 500 275 600 Source: DKS Associates, 2013 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 65 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 7 4. Transportation Needs Analysis Defining the transportation needs and project list for the Bethel Island AOB involved the following steps: 1. Collecting traffic count data (intersections and roadway segments) 2. Identifying existing deficiencies, including level of service (LOS) and roadway standard deficiencies 3. Preparing travel demand forecasts of 2040 conditions 4. Conducting transportation system analysis to identify improvement needs 5. Identifying pedestrian and bicycle facilities/improvements 6. Preparing a draft Bethel Island AOB project list 7. Presenting analysis and findings at the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) meetings to obtain input on the draft project list. 8. Finalizing project list The key technical tasks used to determine the transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development within the Bethel Island AOB and select a project list are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.8 below. 4.1 Traffic Count Data Traffic count data is required to determine existing deficiencies and to support the future year roadway/intersection needs analysis. Traffic counts were collected on weekdays in March 2013 on major roadway segments within the AOB (see Table 3). 4.2 Existing Deficiencies The technical methods and standards used to identify the impact of new development on roadway and intersection vehicular congestion are described in Section 4.4 below. The same methods and standards are used to identify existing deficiencies in the roadway network. When an existing deficiency is identified, it affects how the cost of an improvement is allocated to new development. New development can only fund its fair share of the total cost of an improvement not associated with correcting an existing deficiency (see Section 6). 4.3 Travel Demand Forecasting The transportation needs analysis and allocation of improvement costs were based on CCTA’s travel demand model using a 2040 horizon year and the development assumptions summarized in Table 2. Before its use, the output of the CCTA travel demand model for existing conditions was compared to existing traffic count data in the AOB area and some adjustments were made to the model within and near the AOB to improve its accuracy and detail. 4.4 Roadway System Analysis This section describes the analysis used to determine the roadway improvements needed to accommodate new development within the AOB. Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards that provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. A planning-level signal warrant analysis based on traffic volumes was conducted to determine if the traffic signals would be warranted at the following intersections under existing and future (2040) conditions: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 66 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 8 Table 3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis Bethel Island Area of Benefit Roadway From To 2013 2040 Comments Lanes Daily Volume LOS Lanes Daily Volume LOS Bethel Island Road Sandmound Blvd Taylor Rd 2 4,270 A 2 9,990 A 2040 LOS assumes current roadway geometry Taylor Rd Sandy Ln 4 4,740 A 4 5,990 A Sandy Ln Gateway Rd 4 3,790 A 4 4,900 A Gateway Rd W Willow Rd 2 250 A 2 560 A Sandmound Boulevard Holland Tract Rd E Cypress Rd 2 180 A 2 180 A E Cypress Rd Mariner Rd 2 630 A 2 1,110 A Mariner Rd Bethel Island Rd 2 1,100 A 2 1,950 A Gateway Rd Bethel Island Rd Piper Rd 2 5,900 A 2 6,710 A Piper Rd Riverview/N Stone Rd 2 860 A 2 860 A Piper Rd Gateway Rd N/S Willow Rd 2 1,880 A 2 2,580 A LOS highlighted in bold does not meet County’s standard Traffic volumes on roadway segments highlighted in grey warrant shoulder or sidewalk improvements to meet County standards Source: DKS Associates, 2013 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes67 Nexus Study- Bethel Island AOB Program 9  Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard  Bethel Island Road and Gateway Road  Gateway Road and Piper Rd The analysis indicated that none of these major intersections within the unincorporated portion of the AOB would warrant signals Level of Service The needs analysis for the AOB Program used the level of service (LOS) standards in the County’s General Plan, which has different standards for different areas, based on land use types. In the Bethel Island Area, LOS D or better conditions are considered acceptable while LOS E or F conditions are considered unacceptable. The relatively low existing and projected 2040 traffic volumes would not result in unacceptable LOS at intersections within the unincorporated portion of the AOB. Roadway segment LOS analysis compares traffic levels with roadway segment capacities determined by the number of travel lanes and the roadway type. The roadway segment LOS analysis is summarized in Table 3 as well as Figures 2 and 3 Roadway Pavement Width Standards Many of the County’s two-lane roads within the Bethel Island AOB will not have LOS problems but volume increases on narrow roads within the AOB is a safety issue that should be addressed in the AOB Program. Providing adequate roadway width, including the addition of shoulders to two-lane roadways would increase the safety as traffic increases and they would provide a bicycle lane/walkway. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends that rural roadways that carry more than 2,000 average daily traffic (ADT) should have 5 to 6 foot wide shoulders. Contra Costa County’s standards for two-lane roadways, shown in Table 4, call for shoulders on roadways with more than 1,000 ADT. Table 4 Two Lane Rural Shoulder/Lane Widths Contra Costa County Public Works Department Standard Plans Average Daily Traffic Shoulder Backing (ft.) Shoulder (ft.) Lane (ft.) < 250 0 1 11 < 400 2 1 11 < 1,000 2 4 12 < 3,000 2 5 12 < 6,000 2 6 12 > 6,000 0 8 12 Source: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Standard Plans, 2008 4.5 Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs Analysis New development also has impacts on roadway design that are not accommodated by increases in vehicle capacity and improvements to enhance vehicle safety. New development generates non-vehicular trips (bicycle and pedestrian) that are accommodated by improving roadway shoulders to provide bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways. On roadways that require improvements based on the roadway/intersection analysis described above bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be implemented to the extent that they are represented in the County’s current standard roadway designs. Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements may also reduce vehicular congestion by shifting trips from autos to these alternative modes. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 68 C I T Y O F C I T Y O F O A K L E Y O A K L E Y M a r shC r eekDutchSloughContraCosta Canal Contra Costa Canal SanJoaquinRiver PiperSlough BigBreak GrantSt CARPENTERRD Dutch Slough Rd Min n e s o t a Ave BartelsDrFrancisco Villa Dr FirePlLone Tree Wy E Ruby StW Ruby St Gateway Rd CypressRd O'Hara AveAndersonLnSR 4Sunset RdRose AveJersey Island RdLoneOak RdS a n d m o u n d B l v d Main StCypress Dr Rose AveDelta RdBethel Island RdBrentwoodBlvdDelta Rd FairviewAveBrownRdSR-4E. Cypress Rd LoneTree Wy Piper RdBethel Island RdTule Ln Sellers AveKnightsen aveByron HwyAOB Boundary City of Oakley Roadway Segments LOS A-C LOS D-E LOS F FIGURE 2EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 69 C I T Y O F C I T Y O F O A K L E Y O A K L E Y M a r shC r eekDutchSloughContraCosta Canal Contra Costa Canal SanJoaquinRiver PiperSlough BigBreak GrantSt CARPENTERRD Dutch Slough Rd Min n e s o t a Ave BartelsDrFrancisco Villa Dr FirePlLone Tree Wy E Ruby StW Ruby St Gateway Rd CypressRd O'Hara AveAndersonLnSR 4Sunset RdRose AveJersey Island RdLoneOak RdS a n d m o u n d B l v d Main StCypress Dr Rose AveDelta RdBethel Island RdBrentwoodBlvdDelta Rd FairviewAveBrownRdSR-4E. Cypress Rd LoneTree Wy Piper RdBethel Island RdTule Ln Sellers AveKnightsen aveByron HwyAOB Boundary City of Oakley Roadway Segments LOS A-C LOS D-E LOS F FIGURE 32040 LEVELS OF SERVICE September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 70 Nexus Study- Bethel Island AOB Program 12 4.6 Draft AOB Project List A draft list of capital improvements to the transportation system in the AOB Program was prepared. The improvements selected for the project list involved upgrading several two lane roadways to County design standards, which would add shoulders to improve safety and provide bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways. 4.7 Presenting Findings at MAC Meetings The draft project list was presented to the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) who supported the list as shown in Table 5 and Figure 4. 4.8 Finalize AOB Project List The final AOB project list below incorporates refinements suggested by the MAC. Table 5 Selected Bethel Island AOB Project List Roadway Location Existing Conditions 2040 Conditions Recommended Project Daily Volume LOS Deficiency Daily Volume LOS Bethel Island Rd Taylor Rd to Sandmound Blvd 4,270 A Design 9,990 A Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements Sandmound Blvd Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd 1,100 A Design 1,950 A Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd 630 A Design 1,110 A Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements Gateway Rd Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd 5,900 A Design 6,710 A Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements Piper Rd Gateway Rd to Willow Rd 1,880 A Design 2,580 A Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements Project list approved by Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)  Source: DKS Associates, 2013  5. Improvement Cost Estimates Planning-level cost estimates were prepared for the selected AOB projects in Table 5 based on conceptual designs for each project. The estimates for roadway segment improvements are based on implementing the County’s design standards (for roadway cross-sections) by facility type and number of lanes. The cost estimates reflect the known issues, such as creek crossings, relocation of major known utilities, etc. Typical excavation quantities were used except in areas where significant excavation was identified. The cost estimating does not have geotechnical or survey support information. Thus unknowns (such as rock excavation, removal of unsuitable material, relocation of unseen utilities, etc.) were assumed in a project contingency percentage. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 71 C I T Y O F C I T Y O FO A K L E Y O A K L E Y M a r shC r eekDutchSloughContraCosta Canal Contra Costa Canal SanJoaquinRiver PiperSlough BigBreak CARPENTERRD Dutch Slough Rd Min n e s o t a Ave BartelsDrFrancisco Villa Dr FirePloMeeets eTraffic Volume Threshold fKnior Adding Shoulders E Ruby StW Ruby St Gateway Rd CypressRd Rose AveJersey Island RdS a n d m o u n d B l v d Main StCypress Dr Rose AveDelta RdBethel Island RdDelta Rd FairviewAveBrownRdE. Cypress Rd Lon Tree Wy Piper RdBethel Island RdTule Ln avAOB Boundary City of Oakley FIGURE 4POTENTIAL PROJECTS Roadway Meets Volume Threshold for Adding Shoulders September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 72 Nexus Study- Bethel Island AOB Program 14 The cost estimates include the following appropriate percentages that are key elements in the implementation of each project:  Project contingencies,  Survey, design and construction management,  Environmental mitigation,  Right-of-way acquisition. The cost estimates for each of the selected projects for funding by the Bethel Island AOB, shown in Table 5 are provided in Appendix A. 6. Basis for Allocating Costs to New Development This section describes the process used to allocate improvement costs to new development in the Bethel Island AOB and the estimated development fees that result from this analysis. The allocation of costs of roadway and intersection improvements in the AOB is based on answering the following questions:  Is there an existing deficiency?  Would the improvement project be required without new development?  Who uses the roadway/intersection? The allocation of costs is based on estimates of who will use, through 2040, the roadways or intersections that require improvements. This allocation of improvement costs is based on the percentage of trips from 1) existing development, 2) new development in the AOB, and 3) new development outside the AOB (referred to as “through traffic”). An increase in through traffic represents an increase in trips that both start and end outside the AOB and pass through the AOB. Table 6 summarizes the estimated percentages for the selected AOB project list. The methods used to allocate costs are described below. 6.1 Improvements to Meet County LOS Standards No improvements are needed to address LOS impacts (either intersection or roadway LOS) in the Bethel Island AOB 6.2 Widening to meet Roadway Pavement Width Standards Costs to improve a roadway to County cross-section standards are allocated using one of the following methods:  For a roadway segment that is currently below the traffic volume thresholds shown in Table 5 but would exceed those thresholds by 2040, the entire cost of improving that segment to the County standard will be allocated to new development. This method did not apply to any of the selected projects on the Bethel Island project list.  For a roadway segment that currently has a traffic volume above the volume thresholds in Table 5 and does not meet the County’s applicable cross-section standards (an existing deficiency), the percent cost share for new development in the AOB is equal to the number of new trips on a roadway segment that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by all trips on that roadway, both from existing and new development. This method was used for improvements on Bethel Island Road, Gateway Road and Piper Road, as well as on improvements along Sandmound Boulevard between the Oakley City limits and Mariner Rd. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 73 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 15 Table 6 Cost Allocation Analysis for Bethel Island AOB Project List Roadway Location Recommended Project Existing Conditions 2040 Conditions Percent of 2040 Total Volume Percent of 2013 to 2040 Growth Percent Allocated to AOB Daily Volume LOS Deficiency Daily Volume LOS Existing Growth Local Through Local Through Bethel Island Rd Taylor Rd to Sandmound Blvd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements 4,270 A Design 9,990 A 42.7 57.3 0 100 0 57.3 Sandmound Blvd Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements 1,100 A Design 1,950 A 56.4 43.6 0 100 0 43.6 Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements 630 A 1,110 A 56.8 43.2 0 100 0 43.2 Gateway Rd Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements 5,900 A Design 6,710 A 87.9 12.1 0 100 0 12.1 Piper Rd Gateway Rd to Willow Rd Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements 1,880 A Design 2,580 A 72.9 27.1 0 100 0 27.1 Percentages were estimated using Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) travel demand model with the growth estimates summarized in Table 2  Percent allocated to AOB is based on percentage shaded in grey  Source: DKS Associates, 2013 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes74 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 16 6.3 Bikeway and Walkway Improvements For projects that focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety, the improvements will benefit both existing and future residents and the cost allocated to new development will equal new development’s proportional share of the total future traffic volumes on those roadways. This method was used for improvements on Sandmound Boulevard between Mariner Rd and Cypress Rd 6.4 Summary of Cost Allocation Table 7 summarizes the allocation of the cost for each of the selected projects that will have funding from the Bethel Island AOB Program. Table 7 Allocation of Project Costs to Bethel Island AOB Program Roadway Location Estimated Total Cost Percent Allocated to AOB Cost Allocated to AOB Recommended Project Bethel Island Rd   Taylor Rd to Sandmound Blvd  Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements   $544,000 57.3 $311,712   Sandmound Blvd    Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd  Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements   $772,000  43.6 $336,592   Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd  Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements   $2,629,000  43.2 $1,135,728   Gateway Rd  Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd  Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements   $1,690,000  12.1 $204,490   Piper Rd Gateway Rd to Willow Rd  Add bicycle and pedestrian improvements   $1,293,000 27.1 $350,403   Total  $6,928,000 33.8% $2,338,925   Source: DKS Associates, 2014  The County has various methods for funding the transportation improvements within the Bethel Island  AOB boundary. While the AOB fee program is one method, additional funding will be obtained from  Federal, State and local grants (such as the Active Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School,  Bicycle transportation Account, etc.). On an on‐going basis, the County will assess the unconstructed  projects on the AOB project list and define priorities. As enough funding is available from all sources to  implement “priority” projects, the County will implement those projects. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 75 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 17 7. Method for Calculating Fees Land Use Categories The calculation of fees for the AOB Program Updates will be based on the general land use categories that can be derived for all areas of the County from CCTA’s travel demand model. These general categories are the following: __Land Use Type__ _____Units_____ Single-Family Dwelling units (DU) Multi-Family Dwelling units (DU) Commercial/Retail Square feet Office Square feet Industrial Square feet Dwelling Unit Equivalents In the allocation of costs to various types of development, each development type will be assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate. DUEs are numerical measures of how the trip-generation characteristics of a land use compare to the trip generation of a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses that have greater overall traffic impacts than a typical single- family residential unit are assigned due values greater than 1, while land uses with lower overall traffic impacts are assigned due values less than 1. DUEs are developed by comparing both the trip-generation and trip-length characteristics of various land uses to those of a typical single-family residential unit. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the PM peak hour on an average weekday, the DUEs reflect the relative trip generation for the PM peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUEs are “percent new” trips, since some of the vehicles attracted to non-residential land uses would have been on the roadway system regardless of the presence of the trip generator. Average trip lengths for the remaining "primary" trips generated by a development are then utilized to better reflect overall impact of longer trips on the County’s roadway system. The DUE rates will thus be based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the PM peak hour for each general land use type. The DUE rates used to estimate the AOB fees are shown in Table 8. For example, one square foot of office development is estimated to have a traffic impact on the roadway system which is 0.00142 times that of a typical single-family residential unit. Table 8 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per Unit1 Unit Trip Length (miles)2 Percent New trips2 VMT per Unit DUE per Unit Singe Family 1.01 Dwelling Unit 5.0 100 5.050 1.00 Multi-Family 0.62 5.0 100 3.100 0.61 Retail 4.10 Square Feet 2.3 76 7.167 0.00142 Office 1.40 4.5 92 5.796 0.00115 Industrial 0.98 5.1 92 4.598 0.00091 1 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition 2 ITE Journal, May 1992 Source: DKS Associates, 2013 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 76 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 18 Fee Calculation The cost per DUE (i.e. cost for a typical single-family dwelling unit) is calculated by dividing the total costs allocated to new development in the AOB (methods described above) by the total growth in DUEs in the AOB by 2040 (see Table 9). The cost for each land use type is then based on its DUE rate. The nexus-based fee rates are shown in Table 10. Table 9 Growth in DUEs Land Use Category Unit Growth in Units1 DUE per Unit Growth in DUEs Singe Family Dwelling Unit 819 1.00 819.0 Multi-Family 70 0.61 42.7 Retail Square Feet 96,700 0.00142 137.3 Office 107,300 0.00115 123.4 Industrial 31,800 0.00091 28.9 1,151.3 1 See Table 2: “Summary of Estimated Development 2010 to 2040 Growth” Source: DKS Associates, 2013 8. Nexus Analysis A nexus analysis has been prepared for the Bethel Island AOB Program in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB1600 which is codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. These statutes set for the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting various development Table 10 Nexus-Based Fee Rates for Bethel Island AOB Cost of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth $2,338,925 Current AOB Fund Balance $477,000 Unfunded Costs of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth $1,861,925 Growth in Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE's) 1,151.3 Cost per DUE $1,617 Land Use Units DUE per Unit Fee per Unit Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 $1,617 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 0.61 $986 Retail Square Foot 0.00142 $2.30 Office Square Foot 0.00115 $1.86 Industrial Square Foot 0.00091 $1.47 Other Dwelling Unit Equivalent 1.00 $1,617 1 Fee per Unit = (Cost per DUE) x (DUE per Unit) Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 77 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 19 impact fees. These procedures require that “a reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.” Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:  Identify the purpose of the fee;  Identify how the fee is to be used;  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and,  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facility or the portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 8.1 Purpose of fee The purpose of the Bethel Island AOB Program is to fund improvements to the County’s major roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development in the unincorporated portion of Bethel Island AOB through 2040. The Bethel Island AOB Program will help meet the County’s General Plan policies, including maintenance of adequate levels of service and safety for roadway facilities. New development in the unincorporated portions of the Bethel Island AOB will increase the demand for all modes of travel (including walking, biking, transit, automobile and truck/goods movement), and, thus, the need for improvements to transportation facilities. The Bethel Island AOB Program will help fund transportation facilities necessary to accommodate new residential and non-residential development in the unincorporated portions of the Bethel Island AOB. 8.2 Use of Fees The fees from new development in the Bethel Island AOB Program will be used to fund additions and improvements to the transportation system needed to accommodate future travel demand resulting from residential and non-residential development within the Bethel Island AOB. The Bethel Island AOB Program will help fund improvements to roadways, including the provision of shoulders, providing bikeways and walkways plus fee program administration costs. The transportation improvements wholly or partially funded by the program are described in more detail in Section 4. 8.3 Relationship between use of Fees and Type of Development Fee revenues generated by the Bethel Island AOB Program will be used to develop the transportation improvements described in Section 4. All of these improvements increase the capacity, improve the safety, or facilitate the use of alternative modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) on those segments of the transportation system affected by new development. The results of the transportation modeling analysis summarized in this report demonstrate that these improvements either mitigate impacts from, and/or provide benefits to, new development. 8.4 Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Development The projected residential and non-residential development described in Section 3 will add to the incremental need for transportation facilities by increasing the amount of demand on the transportation system. The transportation analysis presented in Section 4 demonstrates that improvements are required September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 78 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 20 to minimize the negative impact on current levels of service caused by new development and/or accommodate the increased need for alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). 8.5 Relationship between Amount of Fees and the Cost of Facility Attributed to Development upon which Fee is Imposed The basis for allocating improvement costs to development is described in Section 6. Construction of necessary transportation improvements will directly serve residential and non-residential development within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will directly benefit development in those areas. New development within the AOB is allocated a percentage of improvement costs based on the number of new trips on a roadway segment or intersection that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by the total amount of trips from all development. The remaining percent of costs, reflecting new trips that have neither their origin nor destination in the AOB (through trips), are not allocated to development in the AOB. For facilities that have an “existing deficiency”, the cost of the improvement that is allocated to the Bethel Island AOB Program is modified to account for that deficiency. The fee that a developer pays for a new residential unit or commercial building varies by the type of development based on its impact on the transportation system. Each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate based on its estimated vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) per unit of development. DUE are numerical measures of how the trip-generation characteristics of a land use compare to a single- family residential unit. DUE were developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of the single-family residential units. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the peak hour on an average weekday, the DUE reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUE are “percent new” trips. The DUE rates were thus based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the peak hour for each general land use type. 8.6 Current AOB Fund Balance As of March 2015 the Bethel Island AOB had a fund balance of about $477,000. The fees collected were intended to fund the four projects on the list developed in 1993 (see Table 1). Two of the projects on that 1993 list are located on Cypress Road and are not included in the new 2015 project list (see Table 5) because those roadways were annexed to the City of Oakley. The 1993 project list (see Table 1) includes the widening of a segment of Bethel Island Road and improvements at the Sandmound Road/Bethel Island intersection, which overlap two improvement projects on the new 2015 list. The costs allocated to the Bethel Island AOB for the projects on those roadway segments (see Table 7) exceed the current fund balance of the Bethel Island AOB. Thus the current fund balance will be used to fund the new 2015 project list. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 79 Nexus Study - Bethel Island AOB Program 21 Appendix A Cost Estimates for Selected Projects in Bethel Island AOB September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 80 Project Roadway Location Item Description Total Cost 1 Bethel Island  Road Bethel Island Rd from Taylor  Rd to Sandmound Blvd Project will construct 8' shoulders along  both sides of Bethel Island Road to bring  the roadway up to County standards and  provide bicycle and pedestrian  improvements. $544,000 2.1 Sandmound  Boulevard Sandmound Blvd from Oakley  City Limits to Mariner Rd Project work includes widening  Sandmound Boulevard to County  standards and provide bicycle and  pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes  will be widened from 10' to 12', and 5'  shoulders with 2' of shoulder backing will  also be constructed. $772,000 2.2 Sandmound  Boulevard Sandmound Blvd from  Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Project work includes widening  Sandmound Boulevard to County  standards and provide bicycle and  pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes  will be widened from 9' to 12', and 5'  shoulders with 2' of shoulder backing will  also be constructed. $2,629,000 3 Gateway  Road Gateway Rd from Bethel  Island Rd to Piper Rd Project work includes widening Gateway  Road to County standards and provide  bicycle and pedestrian improvements.  Travel lanes will be widened from 10' to  12', and 8' shoulders will be constructed  along both sides of the roadway. $1,690,000 4 Piper Road Piper Rd from Gateway Rd to  Willow Rd Project work includes widening Piper  Road to County standards and provide  bicycle and pedestrian improvements.  Travel lanes will be widened from 10' to  12', and 5' shoulders with 2' of shoulder  backing will also be constructed. $1,293,000 Total $6,928,000 Bethel Island Area of Benefit Engineers Estimate Summary September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 81 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 1 Project Name:Bethel Island Road Shoulders Project Location:Bethel Island Rd from Taylor Rd to Sandmound Blvd Description Project Length (ft):2800 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No.1 Revision Date 8/16/2016 Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by J. Long No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 15400 SF $0.50 7,700$ 2 Earthwork 15400 SF $2.00 30,800$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1141 CY $65.00 74,148$ 4 Sidewalk 5493 SF $7.50 41,194$ 5 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)635 Ton $110.00 69,878$ 6 Striping 1100 LF $3.00 3,300$ 7 Headwalls 2 EA $5,000.00 10,000$ 8 Pipe extension 10 LF $250.00 2,500$ 9 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $24,000.00 24,000$ 19 Mobilization 1 LS 26,400.00$ 26,400$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 264,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)30,000$ Contract Items 290,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON) 58,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)12,000$ Contingency*44,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)10,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 392,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey) -$ Subtotal (Plan) 30,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 122,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W) -$ Construction Engineering *58,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL) 210,000$ GRAND TOTAL 544,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)544,000$ Project will construct 8' shoulders along both sides of Bethel Island Road to bring the  roadway up to County standards and provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bethel Island\Cost Estimates\Bethel Island Cost Estimates 8-16-16 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 82 Project 1: Bethel Island Road Shoulders September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 83 Project 1 (2): Bethel Island Road Sidewalk Gaps September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 84 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 2.1 Project Name:Sandmound Boulevard Shoulders ‐ Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd Project Location:Sandmound Blvd from Oakley City Limits to Mariner Rd Description Project Length (ft):1760 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 31680 SF $0.50 15,840$ 2 Earthwork 31680 SF $2.00 63,360$ 3 Shoulder Backing 290 Ton $30.00 8,712$ 4 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1825 CY $65.00 118,637$ 5 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)1016 Ton $110.00 111,804$ 6 Striping 1760 LF $3.00 5,280$ ?Asphaltic emulsion-slurry seal 35200 SY $1.00 35,200$ 7 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $35,900.00 35,900$ 8 Mobilization 1 LS 39,500.00$ 39,500$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 395,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)40,000$ Contract Items 434,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON) 87,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)32,000$ Contingency*66,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)13,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 587,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey) -$ Subtotal (Plan) 40,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 145,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W) -$ Construction Engineering *87,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL) 272,000$ GRAND TOTAL 772,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)772,000$ Project work includes widening Sandmound Boulevard to County standards and  provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes will be widened from 10'  to 12', and 5' shoulders with 2' of shoulder backing will also be constructed. Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bethel Island\Cost Estimates\Bethel Island Cost Estimates 12-29-15 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 85 Project 2.1: Sandmound Boulevard Shoulders ‐ Oakley City Limits to Mariner RdSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes86 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 2.2 Project Name:Sandmound Boulevard Shoulders ‐ Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Project Location:Sandmound Blvd from Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd Description Project Length (ft):6100 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 122000 SF $0.50 61,000$ 2 Earthwork 122000 SF $2.00 244,000$ 3 Shoulder Backing 1007 Ton $30.00 30,195$ 4 Class 2 Aggregate Base 7230 CY $65.00 469,926$ 5 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)4026 Ton $110.00 442,860$ 6 Striping 6100 LF $3.00 18,300$ ?Asphaltic emulsion-slurry seal 109800 SY $1.00 109,800$ 7 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $68,800.00 68,800$ 8 Mobilization 1 LS 144,500.00$ 144,500$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,445,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)145,000$ Contract Items 1,589,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*239,000$ Other Costs (CON)239,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)127,000$ Contingency*239,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)51,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 2,067,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan)145,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE)417,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *239,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)801,000$ GRAND TOTAL 2,629,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)2,629,000$ Project work includes widening Sandmound Boulevard to County standards and  provide bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes will be widened from 9' to  12', and 5' shoulders with 2' of shoulder backing will also be constructed. Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bethel Island\Cost Estimates\Bethel Island Cost Estimates 12-29-15 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 87 Project 2.2: Sandmound Boulevard Shoulders ‐ Mariner Rd to Cypress Rd September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 88 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 3 Project Name:Gateway Road Shoulders Project Location:Gateway Rd from Bethel Island Rd to Piper Rd Description Project Length (ft):5240 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 104800 SF $0.50 52,400$ 2 Earthwork 104800 SF $2.00 209,600$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 3881 CY $65.00 252,296$ 4 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)2162 Ton $110.00 237,765$ 5 Striping 5240 LF $3.00 15,720$ ?Asphaltic emulsion-slurry seal 104800 SY $1.00 104,800$ 6 Headwalls 1 EA $5,000.00 5,000$ 7 Pipe extension 5 LF $250.00 1,250$ 8 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $43,900.00 43,900$ 9 Mobilization 1 LS 92,300.00$ 92,300$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 923,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)93,000$ Contract Items 1,015,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*153,000$ Other Costs (CON) 153,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)88,000$ Contingency*153,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)35,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 1,321,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan)93,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE)276,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *153,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)522,000$ GRAND TOTAL 1,690,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)1,690,000$ Project work includes widening Gateway Road to County standards and provide bicycle  and pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes will be widened from 10' to 12', and 8'  shoulders will be constructed along both sides of the roadway. Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bethel Island\Cost Estimates\Bethel Island Cost Estimates 12-29-15 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 89 Project 3: Gateway Road ShouldersSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes90 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 4 Project Name:Piper Road Shoulders Project Location:Piper Rd from Gateway Rd to Willow Rd Description Project Length (ft):5005 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 90090 SF $0.50 45,045$ 2 Earthwork 90090 SF $2.00 180,180$ 3 Shoulder Backing 413 Ton $30.00 12,387$ 4 Class 2 Aggregate Base 2595 CY $65.00 168,687$ 5 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)1445 Ton $110.00 158,971$ 6 Striping 5005 LF $3.00 15,015$ ?Asphaltic emulsion-slurry seal 100100 SY $1.00 100,100$ 7 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $34,000.00 34,000$ 8 Mobilization 1 LS 71,400.00$ 71,400$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 714,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)72,000$ Contract Items 786,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*118,000$ Other Costs (CON) 118,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)58,000$ Contingency*118,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)23,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 1,022,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan)72,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE)199,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *118,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)389,000$ GRAND TOTAL 1,293,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)CURRENT YEAR 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION YEAR 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)1,293,000$ Project work includes widening Piper Road to County standards and provide bicycle and  pedestrian improvements. Travel lanes will be widened from 10' to 12', and 5' shoulders  with 2' of shoulder backing will also be constructed. Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bethel Island\Cost Estimates\Bethel Island Cost Estimates 12-29-15 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 91 Project 4: Piper Road Shoulders September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 92 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 93 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 94 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 95 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 96 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 97 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 98 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 99 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 100 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 101 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 102 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes103 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes104 Resolution No. 2016/543 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on _______, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/543 IN THE MATTER OF the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-12, adjusting the fees for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2016, to consider the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-12, to adjust transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development in the Bethel Island Area of Benefit; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at said hearing reestablished the boundaries of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit, the costs of the proposed improvements, and the method of fee apportionment, as set forth in the August 2016, Development Program Report for the Bethel Island Area of Benefit (“Development Program Report”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66484 requires a resolution incorporating a description of the area of benefit boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment to be recorded by the governing body conducting the hearing; and WHEREAS, the August 2016, “Nexus Study, Bethel Island Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report, sets forth the nexus findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code. § 66000 et seq.); NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Development Program Report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. 2. INCORPORATES herein by reference the following, which were established at the hearing described above: A. The boundaries of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to the Development Program Report, and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B to the Development Program Report. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 105 Resolution No. 2016/543 B. The estimated costs of the bridge and thoroughfare improvements to be funded with revenue from the Bethel Island Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit C to the Development Program Report; and C. The method of apportionment of the Bethel Island Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly described in the Development Program Report, and in the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 106 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 107 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 108 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 109 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 110 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 111 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 112 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 113 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 114 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 115 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 116 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 117 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 118 RECOMMENDATION(S): OPEN the public hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2016-18, to adjust Bay Point Area of Benefit (“Bay Point AOB”) fees; RECEIVE public comments; CONSIDER all objections and protests received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; and CLOSE the public hearing. DETERMINE that the County did not receive protests from owners of more than one half of the area of the property within the proposed boundaries of the Bay Point AOB, and therefore a majority protest does not exist. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2016-18 to adjust the fees within the Bay Point AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bay Point AOB. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/545, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto. DETERMINE that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, Liza Mangabay, 925-313-2232 D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 119 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. DIRECT that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-18 remains in effect, the Public Works Director will adjust the Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance. REDESIGNATE Trust Fund No. 1395 as the fund into which all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECT all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue to be deposited into that fund, and DIRECT the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund. DIRECT that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1395 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bay Point AOB Fee. DIRECT the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bay Point AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bay Point AOB Fee. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 will result in the collection of transportation mitigation fees from new development in amounts calculated to reflect new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of transportation improvements that are necessary to mitigate transportation impacts within the Bay Point AOB, as specified in the Development Program Report and the Nexus Study. BACKGROUND: A. INTRODUCTION: One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to connect new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that development. In other words, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. Imposing transportation mitigation fees on new development is a means of raising revenue to construct road improvements to serve new developments. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation mitigation fee ensures that new development pays its proportional share of the transportation improvements that need to be constructed to alleviate traffic impacts attributable to that development. B. PAST AND PURPOSE OF BAY POINT AOB: On September 24, 1985, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution forming the West Pittsburg Area of Benefit, now known as the Bay Point Area of Benefit. At the time, there were many vacant parcels in the area with potential for residential development, and the existing transportation system was inadequate to handle the additional traffic generated from the projected development. In 1991, 1996 and again in 1998, the Area of Benefit program was revised to reflect the changing needs of the area. Over the past 28 years, Area of Benefit fees have helped pay for improvements to Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road, Port Chicago Highway, Pacifica Avenue and Driftwood Drive. C. PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEE PROGRAM: The Bay Point area has, in recent years, experienced changes in the area's circulation needs and development potential. Most of the residential development potential has been fulfilled, and many of the original Area of Benefit projects have been constructed. The remaining development September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 120 fulfilled, and many of the original Area of Benefit projects have been constructed. The remaining development potential within the Bay Point AOB is estimated to generate nearly 1,500 residential units, 310,000 square feet of office space, 317,000 square feet of industrial space, and 237,000 of retail space by year 2040. These changes have prompted another revision to the Area of Benefit program, resulting in a new project list and fee schedule. 1. New Project List : County staff and consultants have identified transportation projects that are needed to serve development within the Bay Point AOB through 2040. These projects have been included on the updated project list, attached as Exhibit C to the August 2016 Development Program Report (“2016 Development Program Report”). These projects include arterial roadway improvements, intersection improvements, and signalization projects, as well as pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects. The roads that will be improved within the Area of Benefit include but are not limited to Willow Pass Road, Port Chicago Highway, and Bailey Road. The total estimated cost of the updated list of projects is $40,534,000, of which $16,820,812 is attributable to new development within the Bay Point AOB. The current Bay Point AOB fund balance will be applied to the portion of the estimated costs attributable to new development, resulting in a net $15,874,501 to be paid by new development. Detailed estimates of the cost of each of the projects on the project list are included in the August 2016 Nexus Study, Bay Point Area of Benefit (the “Nexus Study”), attached as Exhibit D to the 2016 Development Program Report. The portion of the project costs that are not funded through the AOB program will be funded through other revenue sources, including but not limited to State or Federal Highway Safety Improvement grant funds, Local Measure J funds, gas tax revenue, and various other grant programs that may become available in the future. One project from the 1998 project list, Port Chicago Highway west of McAvoy Road to Pacifica Avenue, has not been completed, and will carry over to the proposed project list. This carry over project is identified on the proposed list as Project 3.2. The existing balance in the account of approximately $950,000 will be ear marked to fund this project. 2. Revised Fee Rates: Based on the analysis in the Nexus Study, transportation mitigation fees were calculated to charge new development for its proportional share of the cost of the projects on the project list in the 2016 Development Program Report. These transportation mitigation fees are set forth in Table 1, below. These fees will be imposed on new development within the Bay Point AOB on and after the effective date of Ordinance No. 2016-18. On January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 st thereafter, each of the fees in Table 1 will automatically increase or decrease based on the percentage change in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index, San Francisco Bay Area, for the 12 month period ending September 30th of the year prior to the year in which the adjustment will take effect. Table 1: Proposed Fee Rates Note: du = dwelling unit; sf = square foot The total fees required to be paid by a new development project applicant will be calculated based on the number of dwelling units (residential), square feet (commercial, office, industrial), or dwelling-unit-equivalents (other) attributable to that development, as specified in the Nexus Study, multiplied by the applicable fee in Table 1. The fee for the expansion of an existing development will be calculated by determining the number of dwelling units, square feet, or dwelling-unit-equivalents attributable only to the expansion. The fees to be paid by each new development will be collected at the time a building permit is issued for the development, in accordance with Ordinance Code Chapter 913-4. Fee revenue will be deposited in the fund for Land Use Category Proposed Fee Rate Single-Family $7,870 / du Multi-Family $4,801 / du Commercial $4.62 / sf Office $3.74 / sf Industrial $2.96 / sf Other $7,870/ due September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 121 the Bay Point AOB – Trust Fund No. 1395 – and used only for the transportation improvements identified in the 2016 Development Program Report. The potential maximum fee rates for non-residential land uses, as calculated in the Nexus Study, represent an increase of roughly 180% for commercial land use, 175% for industrial, and about 130% for office use. In order to keep Bay Point competitive for job growth, a fee reduction of approximately 40% is proposed for employment generating land uses. The reduced non-residential fees are comparable to those imposed by other local agencies in the vicinity of Bay Point. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2016/545: Pursuant to Government Code section 66484 subdivision (a)(3), a resolution must be adopted by the Board that incorporates a description of the boundaries of the area of benefit, the costs, whether actual or estimated, and the method of fee apportionment established at the hearing. The 2016 Development Program Report attached to the resolution sets forth the boundaries of the Bay Point AOB, the list of projects and their estimated costs, the method of fee apportionment, and the nexus findings. Approval of Resolution No. 2016/545 is recommended because it serves to comply with the above legal requirements by adopting and incorporating the facts and findings contained in the 2016 Development Program Report, and the Nexus Study attached to the report. E. ORDINANCE NO. 2016-18: To adjust the Bay Point AOB fees, an ordinance must be approved by the Board of Supervisors to include the “nexus” findings required by Government Code section 66001. The ordinance also must include the specific information required by Government Code section 66484. Ordinance No. 2016-18 includes the information and findings required by those statutes. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 will repeal Ordinance No. 98-40, and impose new transportation mitigation fees on new development within the Bay Point AOB. The ordinance includes provisions for fee reductions for affordable and inclusionary housing, senior housing, and congregate care facilities. Revenue from the fees will fund the transportation projects necessary to serve transportation demands within the Bay Point AOB through 2040. Staff recommends that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 2016-18. F. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: In addition to the transportation mitigation fee imposed on a new development project, the County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of that transportation mitigation fee. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, technical support to the community groups, traffic advisory committees and other administrative tasks. G. CEQA FINDINGS: These actions are covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The implementation and imposition of fees has no associated environmental impacts. Therefore, this activity is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The future implementation of the transportation improvement projects to be funded with transportation mitigation fee revenue, however, may have associated project-specific impacts, and such impacts will be evaluated under CEQA as each project is planned and implemented. Notice of this hearing was given in accordance with Government Code sections 6061, 65091, 54986, 66484, and Ordinance Code Section 913-6.014. For the reasons specified above, Public Works Department staff recommends that the Board take each of the recommended actions listed in this board order, to adjust the transportation mitigation fees that are imposed on new development within the Bay Point AOB. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-18 to adjust fees in the Bay Point Area of Benefit, reestablish the boundaries, and update the proposed project list of the area of benefit will result in new development not paying its proportional share of the transportation improvements needed to serve development within the AOB through 2040. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 122 CLERK'S ADDENDUM   CLOSED the public hearing; DETERMINED no majority protest exists; ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2016-18 to adjust the fees within the Bay Point AOB, and to reestablish the boundaries of the Bay Point AOB; ADOPTED Resolution No. 2016/545, to adopt the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached thereto; DETERMINED that the adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);  DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk-Recorder; and DIRECTED the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk-Recorder for the filing of the Notice of Exemption. DIRECTED the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of Ordinance No. 2016-18 and Resolution No. 2016/545 in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder. DIRECTED that, on January 1, 2017, and on each January 1 thereafter that the Ordinance No. 2016-18 remains in effect, the Public Works Director will adjust the Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fees for the effects of inflation or deflation, in accordance with Section 5(a)(3) of the ordinance. REDESIGNATED Trust Fund No. 1395 as the fund into which all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue will be deposited, DIRECTED all Bay Point AOB transportation mitigation fee revenue to be deposited into that fund, and DIRECTED the County Treasurer-Tax Collector to invest all monies in that fund, with interest to accrue and remain in the fund. DIRECTED that all funds previously deposited in Trust Fund No. 1395 must be used solely to pay new development’s proportional share of the actual or estimated costs of constructing the transportation improvements specified in the Development Program Report and Nexus Study attached hereto, and to reimburse the County for payment of any such costs with money advanced by the County from its general fund, or from other County revenues. AUTHORIZED the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the applicable Bay Point AOB Fee. DIRECTED the Conservation and Development Director to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Bay Point AOB and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Bay Point AOB Fee. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/545 DPR -Bay Point AOB Nexus Study for Bay Point AOB August 2016 Board Resolution Final Reso. No. 2016/545 CEQA- Notice of Exemption Ordinance 2016-18 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/545 Signed Ordinance No. 2016-18 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 123 Recorded at the request of:Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 Return To:mary.halle@pw.cccounty.us THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 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. 2016/545 IN THE MATTER OF the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-18, adjusting the fees for the Bay Point Area of Benefit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2016, to consider the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-18, to adjust transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development in the Bay Point Area of Benefit; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at said hearing reestablished the boundaries of the Bay Point Area of Benefit, the costs of the proposed improvements, and the method of fee apportionment, as set forth in the August 2016, Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit (“Development Program Report”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66484 requires a resolution incorporating a description of the area of benefit boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment to be recorded by the governing body conducting the hearing; and WHEREAS, the August 2016, “Nexus Study, Bay Point Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report, sets forth the nexus findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code. § 66000 et seq.); NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Development Program Report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. 2. INCORPORATES herein by reference the following, which were established at the hearing described above: A. The boundaries of the Bay Point Area of Benefit, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to the Development Program Report, and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B to the Development Program Report. B. The estimated costs of the thoroughfare improvements to be funded with revenue from the Bay Point Area of Benefit fees, as September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 124 B. The estimated costs of the thoroughfare improvements to be funded with revenue from the Bay Point Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit C to the Development Program Report; and C. The method of apportionment of the Bay Point Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly described in the Development Program Report, and in the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Rep Contact: Mary Halle, (925) 313-2327 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Mary Halle, 925-313-2327, Liza Mangabay, 925-313-2232 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 125 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 126 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 127 "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000  FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Julia R. Bueren , Director Deputy Directors Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski Stephen Silveira Joe Yee ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON ___________________ Development Program Report For the Bay Point Area of Benefit August, 2016 Prepared Pursuant to Section 913 of the County Ordinance Code Prepared by and for: Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division and Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 128 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 3: LOCATION AND BOUNDARY .................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER 5: PROJECT LIST ........................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 6: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 7: ESTIMATED COST OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... 6 CHAPTER 8: METHOD OF COST APPORTIONMENT ....................................................... 7 CHAPTER 9: FEE RATES ................................................................................................. 8 CALCULATION OF FEES ............................................................................................................. 8 RECOMMENDED FEES ............................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 10: PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS............................................... 10 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ...................................................................................................... 10 REVIEW OF FEES .................................................................................................................. 10 COLLECTION OF FEES ............................................................................................................. 10 INTEREST ON FEES ................................................................................................................ 11 DEDICATION IN LIEU OF FEE .................................................................................................... 11 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 129 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit List of Tables TABLE 1. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SUMMARY 5 TABLE 2. FEE CALCULATIONS 8 TABLE 3. FEE SCHEDULE 9 List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B. AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY PLAT MAP EXHIBIT C. BAY POINT AOB PROJECT LIST EXHIBIT D. NEXUS STUDY: BAY POINT AREA OF BENEFIT September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 130 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 1 OF 11 Chapter Introduction and Purpose 1 The purpose of the Bay Point Area of Benefit (AOB) Program is to help fund improvements to the County’s roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the unincorporated portion of this AOB. Contra Costa County has various methods for financing transportation improvements. One of the methods is the AOB Program. The AOB Program collects funds from new development in the unincorporated portion of the AOB to finance a portion of the transportation improvements associated with travel demand generated by that development. Fees are differentiated by type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the fee program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes their fair share towards transportation improvements, so that the quality of life can be maintained and the County’s General Plan Circulation policies can be met. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Bay Point AOB Program is a fee mechanism providing funds to construct transportation improvements to serve new residential, commercial and industrial development. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation improvement fee will help ensure that it participates fairly in the cost of improving the transportation system. This Program applies only to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Bay Point AOB. Each new development project or expansion of an existing development will generate new travel demand for all travel modes. Where the existing transportation system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of this development program is to determine improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve estimated future development and to require the developers to pay a fee to fund their fair share of these improvements. Because the fee is based on the relative impact of new development on the transportation system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 131 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 2 OF 11 roughly proportional to the development impact. The Nexus Study, Exhibit D, establishes this impact and mitigation relationship to new development and the basis for the fee amount. Chapter Background 2 On September 24, 1985, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution forming the West Pittsburg Area of Benefit, now known as the Bay Point Area of Benefit. At the time, there were many vacant parcels in the area with potential for residential development, and the existing transportation system was inadequate to handle the additional traffic generated from the projected development. In 1991, 1996 and again in 1998, the Area of Benefit program was revised to reflect the changing needs of the area. Over the past 28 years, Area of Benefit fees have helped pay for improvements to Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road, Port Chicago Highway, Pacifica Avenue, and Driftwood Drive. The Bay Point area has, in recent years, experienced changes in the area's circulation needs a nd development potential. Most of the residential development potential has been fulfilled, and many of the original Area of Benefit projects have been constructed. These changes have prompted another revision to the Area of Benefit program, resulting in a new project list and fee schedule. The Nexus Study provides the technical basis for a comprehensive update of the Bay Point AOB Program. The focus of the updated program is to support an overall transportation system in the Bay Point AOB that serves the expected future demand based on changes in regional and local land use projections, planned and approved development projects, and associated changes to capital improvements and updated cost estimates. The Nexus Study documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees, the local impact created by anticipated development in the Bay Point AOB, and the transportation improvements to be funded with fee revenues. A traffic and fair-share cost analysis was conducted to equitably distribute the cost of the necessary improvements to developments that cause the impacts, per the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. The most up- to-date analytical tools and techniques, available at the time this study commenced, were used to ensure the highest level of consistency with current standards. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 132 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 3 OF 11 The Bay Point AOB boundary, which was established in 1985, is shown in Exhibit B, Figure 1. The area within the boundary includes a portion of the City of Pittsburg. However, fees will only be collected within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will only fund projects within the unincorporated portions of the AOB. Chapter Location and Boundary 3 The Bay Point AOB boundary location is described in Exhibit A and generally shown in Exhibit B. Chapter General Plan Relationship 4 The Bay Point AOB is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and its amendments, and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan policies include, but are not limited to, improving the County roadway network to meet existing and future traffic demands. Assessing new development the Bay Point AOB Fee will assist in funding the necessary improvements required for future growth that is generally shown in the General Plan. The General Plan and its various elements are available for review at the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, during office hours. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 133 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 4 OF 11 Chapter Project List 5 The project List for the Bay Point AOB is set forth in Exhibit C. This list contains a total of 13 projects, including arterial roadway improvements, intersection geometric improvements, and signalization projects, as well as providing appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. The improvements proposed were identified through a cooperative effort by the Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and Development. The improvements included on the Bay Point AOB project list have been identified through a Transportation Needs Analysis conducted by DKS Associates, in which existing deficiencies were identified, including traffic congestion and roadway deficiencies, as well as travel demand forecast for 2040 conditions. The draft project list was presented to the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) who supported the list as shown in Table 4, Exhibit C. The Bay Point AOB Program will be reviewed periodically to evaluate the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of development, and the accuracy of the estimated project costs. The periodic review of the program will also allow staff to evaluate project priority and the need to increase fees should project costs increase or exceed the rate of inflation. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 134 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 5 OF 11 Chapter Development Potential 6 The “Bay Point Area of Benefit Nexus Study” dated August 2016, was prepared by DKS for the Public Works Department and is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. The Nexus Study provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development in Bay Point and the need for certain transportation facilities. The projected growth in households, employment, and peak hour trips within the Bay Point AOB is discussed and shown in the Nexus Study. The potential growth for each development type is shown in a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE”. DUEs are numerical measures of how the trip- making characteristics of a land use compare to a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. DUEs reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour as further explained in the Nexus Study. A summary of the potential new residential dwelling units, office, industrial, and commercial/ retail developments (net growth from 2010 to 2040) is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Development Potential Summary – Growth in DUEs Land Use Category Growth in Units Growth in DUEs Single-Family Residential 416 dwelling units 416 Multi-Family Residential 1,014 dwelling units 619 Retail 237,000 sq ft 337 Office 310,000 sq ft 357 Industrial 317,000 sq ft 288 Total Growth 2,017 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 135 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 6 OF 11 Chapter Estimated Cost of Road Improvements 7 The estimated cost of the road improvements planned for the Bay Point AOB and the corresponding Bay Point AOB contribution is shown in Exhibit C. The Bay Point AOB will only finance the proportional share of the improvements necessitated by the impact on the road system from new development. Detailed cost estimates for the projects included in the road improvement plan are provided in Appendix A to the Nexus Study. The County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of the applicable fee. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting, and technical support to the community groups and traffic advisory committees. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 136 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 7 OF 11 Chapter Method of Fee Apportionment 8 The total estimated cost of the projects included in the Bay Point AOB project list is $40,534,000. Of this, approximately $16,821,000 is attributable to growth within the Bay Point AOB. There is an existing account balance of roughly $946,000. An adjusted project cost to be covered by the Bay Point AOB fees was determined by subtracting the existing fund balance from the attributable project cost. $16,821,000 – $946,000 = $15,875,000 (Attributable Project Cost) (Balance) (Adjusted Project Cost) This adjusted project cost represents the amount of revenue needed from the Bay Point AOB Fee to fund the construction of the projects shown in Exhibit C. The expected growth in the Bay Point AOB to the year 2040 is 2,017 “dwelling unit equivalents,” or “DUEs.” To determine a fee rate per DUE, the adjusted project cost was divided by the projected DUE to determine a maximum fee that could be charged per DUE: $15,875,000 = $7,870 per DUE 2,017 The DUEs projected to be generated by each type of development are used to apportion fees among the various development types. This method of apportionment is used so that developments are charged fees in proportion to the number of trips they are projected to generate. In this way, the fees attributed to each new parcel will be proportional to the estimated benefits they receive through use of the new improvements. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 137 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 8 OF 11 Chapter Fee Rates 9 Calculation of Fees The fee calculation is set forth in detail in the Nexus Study (Exhibit D). To determine a maximum fee rate for the various land use categories, the fee rate per DUE, calculated in Chapter 7 of the Nexus Study, is multiplied by a peak hour trip generation factor for each land use category designation, as shown in Table 2. In the residential categories, this results in a fee per dwelling unit. In the non-residential categories, the fee is charged per square foot. These calculations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Fee Calculations Land Use Category Units Peak Hour Trip Generation Factor Cost per DUE Maximum Fee Rate* Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 7,870 $7,870 / DU Multi Family Dwelling Unit 0.61 7,870 $4,801 / DU Retail Square Foot 0.00142 7,870 $11.18 / SF Office Square Foot 0.00115 7,870 $9.05 / SF Industrial Square Foot 0.00091 7,870 $7.16 / SF * Maximum Fee Rate = Fee Rate per DUE * Peak Hour Trip Generation Factor September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 138 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 9 OF 11 Recommended Fees The overarching goal of the AOB fee program is to strike a balance between assessments on developments to fund infrastructure improvements to serve new development and create a healthy local economy. The potential maximum fee rates for non-residential land uses, as calculated in the Nexus Study, represent an increase of roughly 290% for commercial land use, 280% for industrial, and about 230% for office use. In order to provide an incentive for new jobs to come to Bay Point, a fee reduction of approximately 40% is proposed for employment generating land uses in Bay Point. This reduction for non-residential fees, from the calculated maximum rates in the Nexus Study, results in the fee schedule identified in Table 3 below. Table 3. Fee Rates Single Family Multi Family Commercial Industrial Office Other Bay Point Current $3,498 $2,807 $3.87 $2.54 $3.87 $3,498 Bay Point Nexus $7,870 $4,801 $11.18 $7.16 $9.05 $7,870 Bay Point Recommended $7,870 $4,801 $4.62 $2.96 $3.74 $7,870 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 139 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 10 OF 11 Chapter Program Finance Considerations 10 Other Funding Sources The improvements planned for the Bay Point AOB will be only partially funded by Bay Point AOB fee revenues. Other sources of funding, such as State or Federal aid, or local sources such as sales tax, gas tax, etc., will be pursued. Other funding sources include, but are not limited to, Regional Measure J Funds, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds, and Federal Program Funds. The rate at which revenue is generated by the Bay Point AOB Fee depends on the rate of new development. This rate of revenue generation affects the timing of construction of the improvement projects because it is dependent upon the total amount of fees collected, less expenditures. Alternate sources of funding are required in order to fully fund the proposed projects. Review of Fees Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the Bay Point AOB is in effect. On January 1 of each year thereafter, the amount of the fees will be increased or decreased based on the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending with the September index of the previous calendar year, without further action of the Board of Supervisors. Collection of Fees Fees will be collected when a building permit is issued, in accordance with Section 913-4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited into an interest bearing trust fund established pursuant to Section 913-8.002 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 140 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 11 OF 11 Interest on Fees The interest accrued on the fees collected shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and shall be expended for construction of the improvements, or to reimburse the County for the cost of constructing the improvements, pursuant to Section 913-8.006 of the County Ordinance Code. Dedication in Lieu of Fee A development may be required to construct, or dedicate right-of-way for a portion of the improvements as a condition of approval. In such an event, the developer may be eligible to receive credit for the fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit and/or reimbursement shall be determined in accordance with the County’s “Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Policy.” September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 141 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit Exhibit Area of Benefit Boundary Legal Description A September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 142 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit Exhibit B Area of Benefit Boundary Plat Map Willow Pass Road Bailey Road September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 143 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit Exhibit Bay Point AOB Project List C Table 4 ID Project Total Cost Estimate Bay Point AOB Share2 Potential AOB Fee Contribution 1.1 Willow Pass Road: Signalize EB and WB off-ramps of SR 4. $1,088,000 12% $130,560 1.2 Intersection improvements at Willow Pass Road and Evora Road to facilitate traffic flow to WB SR 4. $ 803,000 70% $562,100 2.1 Willow Pass Road: Restriping from Bailey Road to Pittsburg City Limits to improve capacity. $ 214,000 40% $85,600 2.2 Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements $1,058,000 40% $423,200 3.1 Port Chicago Highway: Widen to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Driftwood Drive to west of McAvoy Road. $2,830,000 38% $1,075,400 3.2 Port Chicago Highway: Realign from west of McAvoy Road to Pacifica Avenue. $2,267,000 48% $1,088,160 4 Port Chicago Highway and Willow Pass Road: Construct multi-modal safety improvements through intersection from Lynbrook Drive to Weldon Street. $1,784,000 32.8% $585,152 5 Driftwood Drive: Construct pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements from Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue. $2,457,000 100% $2,457,000 6 Pacifica Avenue: Extend roadway from Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane extension. $4,773,000 100% $4,773,999 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 144 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit 7 Alves Lane: Extend roadway from Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue extension. $4,516,000 100% $4,516,000 8 Loftus Road: Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Willow Pass Road to Canal Road. $1,873,000 6% $112,380 9 Bailey Road: Construct bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements from Canal Road to Willow Pass Road. $9,731,000 6% $583,860 10 Bailey Road: Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from Canal Road to BART. $7,140,000 6% $112,380 TOTAL $40,534,000 $16,820,812 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 145 Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit Exhibit Nexus Study Bay Point Area of Benefit D Exhibit D Attached as separate document September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 146 Nexus Study Bay Point Area of Benefit Prepared For: Contra Costa County Public Works Department August 2016 Prepared By: in association with Urban Economics Prepared By: in association with USeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 147 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of the Bay Point Area of Benefit (AOB) Program is to help fund improvements to the County’s roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development within the unincorporated portion of this AOB. Contra Costa County has various methods for financing transportation improvements. One of the methods is the AOB Program. The AOB Program collects funds from new development in the unincorporated portion of the AOB to finance a portion of the transportation improvements associated with travel demand generated by that development. Fees are differentiated by type of development in relationship to their relative impacts on the transportation system. The intent of the AOB program is to provide an equitable means of ensuring that future development contributes its proportional share of the cost of transportation improvements, so that the County’s General Plan Circulation policies and quality of life can be maintained. One of the objectives of the County General Plan is to relate new development directly to the provision of community facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly, there is a mechanism in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The Bay Point AOB Program is a fee mechanism providing funds to construct transportation improvements to serve new residential, commercial and industrial development within the AOB. Requiring that all new development pay a transportation improvement fee ensures that it participates fairly in the cost of improving the transportation system. This Program applies only to new development within the unincorporated portions of the Bay Point AOB. Each new development project or expansion of an existing development will generate new travel demand for all travel modes. Where the existing transportation system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of this development program is to determine improvements that will ultimately be needed to serve estimated future development and to require the developers to pay a fee to fund its proportional share of the cost of these improvements. Because the fee is based on the relative impact of new development on the transportation system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This Nexus Study establishes this impact and mitigation relationship to new development and the basis for the fee amount. 1.2 Bay Point AOB On September 24, 1985, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution forming the West Pittsburg Area of Benefit, now known as the Bay Point Area of Benefit. At that time, there were many vacant parcels in the AOB with potential for residential development, and the existing transportation system was inadequate to handle the additional traffic generated from the projected development. In 1991, 1996 and 1998, the Bay Point AOB program was revised to reflect the changing needs of the area. Over the past 28 years, Area of Benefit fees have helped pay for improvements to Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road, Port Chicago Highway, Pacifica Avenue and Driftwood Drive. The Bay Point AOB has, in recent years, experienced changes in the area's circulation needs and development potential. Most of the residential development potential has been fulfilled, and many of the projects on the original Bay Point AOB project list have been constructed. These changes have prompted this revision to the Bay Point AOB program, resulting in a new project list and fee schedule. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 148 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 2 The purpose of this Nexus Study is to provide the technical basis for a comprehensive update of the Bay Point AOB Program. The focus of the updated program is to support a multi-modal transportation system in the Bay Point AOB that serves the expected future demand based on changes in regional and local land use projections, planned and approved development projects, and associated changes to capital improvements and updated cost estimates. This report documents the analytical approach for determining the nexus between the fees, the local impact created by new development in the Bay Point AOB, and the transportation improvements to be funded with fee revenues to mitigate transportation impacts. A traffic and fair-share cost analysis was conducted to equitably distribute the costs of the necessary improvements to developments that cause the impacts, in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act.1 The most up-to-date versions of the analytical tools and techniques available at the time this study commenced were used to ensure the highest level of consistency with current standards. The Bay Point AOB boundary, which was established in 1985, is shown in Figure 1. The area within the boundary includes a portion of the City of Pittsburg. However, fees will only be collected within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will only fund projects within the unincorporated portions of the AOB. 2. Evaluation of Current AOB Program The current Bay Point AOB Program was last updated in 1998. The current Bay Point AOB Program project list, shown in Table 1, has three projects, which were estimated in 1998 to cost about $6 million, of which $1 million was to be funded by the AOB Program. The 2016 update of the Bay Point AOB Program has included a needs analysis to update this project list along with new project cost estimates, which are described in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Nexus Study. Table 1 1998 Project List for Bay Point AOB Program Roadway Project Description Project Cost to be Funded by AOB (1998 Dollars) Estimated Project Cost (1998 Dollars) 1 Port Chicago Highway Reconstruct and re-stripe from Pacifica Ave to McAvoy Rd and construct intersection improvements at McAvoy Rd $200,000 $600,000 2 Pacifica Avenue Construct left turn pocket at Rio Vista School $75,000 $375,000 3 Evora Road Widening from Willow Pass Rd to Pomo St $750,000 $4,984,000 Total $1,025,000 $5,959,000 Source: Development Program Report for Bay Point AOB, 1998 The current AOB Program uses “peak hour factors” to allocate trips by land use types based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate estimates for the evening (PM) peak hour. 1 California Government Code, Sections 66000 through 66026. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 149 B a y P o i n t B a y P o i n t C o n c o r d C o n c o r d P i t t s b u r g P i t t s b u r g ÄÅ4 Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 1Boundary of Bay Point AOB Bay Point AOBSeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 150 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 4 However, ITE trip rates only reflect the amount of traffic coming in and out of development’s entrances, not the extent of the roadway system that is impacted by those trips. This Nexus Study refines this approach to reflect current best practices for impact fee programs when estimating the impact of new development on the transportation system. For example, simple trip rates over-estimate the traffic impact of retail development on the overall roadway system. The average length of trips coming in and out of a new residential development is longer than trips coming in and out of a retail development. Furthermore, studies show that about 25 to 50 percent of the trips that will go in and out of a new retail development will already be traveling on roadways near that development, and thus are “pass-by” or “diverted” trips, not “new trips” to the surrounding roadway system. All of the trips going to and from a new residential unit are “new trips”. To integrate best practices, the updated Bay Point AOB Program will instead use estimates of vehicle- miles of travel (VMT) added by new development. The VMT rates multiply the trip rate for a land use type by its average trip length and also use percentages to reflect “pass-by trips” versus “new trips.” The calculation of fee rates based on this methodology is discussed in Section 4 of this study. 3. Determination of AOB Development Potential The transportation needs analysis and allocation of improvement costs for the Bay Point AOB is based on the countywide travel demand model developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) using a 2040 horizon year. The calculation of fees is based on the following general land use categories and associated measurement units that are used as a basis for the land use inputs in CCTA’s travel demand model: __Land Use Type__ _____Units_____ Single-Family Dwelling units (DU) Multi-Family Dwelling units (DU) Commercial/Retail Jobs Office Jobs Industrial Jobs CCTA’s latest land use estimates of existing conditions and 2040 forecasts of new development by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the AOB were summarized and reviewed with County Planning staff. Based on that review, adjustments were made and the resulting growth estimate for the AOB summarized in Table 2. The table shows estimates of jobs for nonresidential land uses used by the CCTA’s model. It also applies estimates of square footage per employee to estimate the growth in building square feet, which are used in the AOB fee program. 4. Transportation Needs Analysis Defining the transportation needs and project list for the Bay Point AOB involved the following steps: 1. Collecting traffic count data (intersections and roadway segments) 2. Identifying existing deficiencies, including level of service (LOS) and roadway standard deficiencies 3. Preparing travel demand forecasts of 2040 conditions 4. Conducting roadway system analysis to identify improvement needs 5. Identifying pedestrian and bicycle facilities/improvements 6. Preparing a draft AOB project list September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 151 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 5 Table 2 Summary of Estimated Development 2010 to 2040 Growth Bay Point Area of Benefit1 Land Use Category Units Unincorporated Portion of AOB Unincorporated Area Assumed to be Annexed by 20402 City of Pittsburg Portion of AOB Total AOB 2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth 2010 2040 Growth Single-Family DU 4,948 5,364 416 399 3,601 3,202 3,241 13,148 9,907 8,588 22,113 13,525 Multi-family DU 1,806 2,820 1,014 8 9 1 508 417 -91 2,322 3,246 924 Total DU 6,754 8,184 1,430 407 3,610 3,203 3,749 13,565 9,816 10,910 25,359 14,449 Retail Jobs 328 801 473 10 104 94 76 776 700 414 1,681 1,267 Office Jobs 2,756 3,884 1,128 219 2,159 1,940 319 4,122 3,803 3,294 10,165 6,871 Industrial Jobs 1,116 1,645 529 50 481 431 63 999 936 1,229 3,125 1,896 Total Jobs 4,200 6,330 2,130 279 2,744 2,465 458 5,897 5,439 4,937 14,971 10,034 Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 164 401 237 5 52 47 38 388 350 207 841 634 Office 1,000 sq. ft. 758 1,068 310 60 594 534 88 1,134 1,046 906 2,795 1,890 Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. 670 987 317 30 289 259 38 599 562 737 1,875 1,138 Total 1,000 sq. ft. 1,592 2,456 864 95 934 839 164 2,121 1,957 1,850 5,511 3,661 Notes: 1 See Figure 1 for AOB Boundary 2 Growth was assumed in the portion of the AOB west of Bailey Rd and south of Pittsburg limits but, if it occurs, it was assumed this area would be annexed by the City of Pittsburg Land Use Retail Office Industrial Assumed Square Feet per Job 500 275 600 Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes152 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 6 7. Presenting analysis and findings at MAC meetings to obtain input on the draft project list. 8. Finalizing project list The key technical tasks used to determine the transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development within the AOB and select a project list are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.8 below. 4.1 Traffic Count Data Traffic count data is required to determine existing deficiencies and to support the future year roadway/intersection needs analysis. Traffic counts were collected on weekdays in March 2013 at key roadway segments and signalized intersections within the AOB. 4.2 Existing Deficiencies The technical methods and standards used to identify the impact of new development on roadway and intersection vehicular congestion within the Bay Point AOB are described in Section 4.4 below. The same methods and standards are used to identify existing deficiencies in the roadway network. When an existing deficiency is identified, it affects how the cost of an improvement is allocated to new development. New development can only fund its proportional share of the total cost of an improvement and cannot pay the cost of correcting an existing deficiency (see Section 6). 4.3 Travel Demand Forecasting The transportation needs analysis and allocation of improvement costs were based on CCTA’s travel demand model using a 2040 horizon year and the development assumptions summarized in Table 2. Before its use, the output of the CCTA travel demand model for existing conditions was compared to existing traffic count data in the AOB area and some adjustments were made to the CCTA model within and near the Bay Point AOB to improve its accuracy and detail. 4.4 Roadway System Analysis This section describes the analysis used to determine the improvements on arterial and collector roadways within the Bay Point AOB that are needed to accommodate new development within the AOB. Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards that provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. A planning-level signal warrant analysis based on traffic volumes was conducted at study intersections within the Bay Point AOB to determine if the traffic signals would be warranted under existing and future (2040) conditions. If one or more of the signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be recommended. Level of Service The needs analysis for the Bay Point AOB Program used the level of service (LOS) standards in the County’s General Plan, which has different standards for different areas, based on land use types. In the Bay Point Area, LOS D or better conditions are considered acceptable, while LOS E or F conditions are considered unacceptable. LOS is calculated separately for intersections and roadway segments. Intersection LOS analysis is based on average vehicle delay and analysis methods recommended by the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Roadway segment LOS analysis compares traffic levels with roadway segment capacities determined by the number of travel lanes and the roadway type. The intersection and roadway segment LOS analysis is summarized in Tables 3 and 4 as well as Figures 2 and 3. The 2040 analysis assumes construction of the extensions of both Pacifica Avenue and Alves Lane within the Bay Point AOB. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 153 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 7 Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Analysis Bay Point Area of Benefit Intersection Control 2013 20401 Comments AM PM AM PM Street 1 Street 2 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Willow Pass Rd SR 4 EB Ramps AWSC 43.9 E 45.3 E 73.2 F 67.8 F 2040 LOS assumes current stop sign control. Currently meets warrants for signalization Willow Pass Rd SR 4 WB Ramps AWSC 64.6 F 20.4 C 64.4 F 52.8 F Driftwood Dr Evora Rd Signal 15.4 B 10.9 B 37.8 D 10.9 B Willow Pass Rd Evora Rd/SR 4 WB Ramps Signal 15.1 B 8.7 A 72.9 E 20.2 C Port Chicago Hwy Pacifica Ave Signal 55.1 E 16.5 B 49.7 D 16.2 B Conditions in 2040 include extensions of Pacifica Ave and Alves Lane Port Chicago Hwy Willow Pass Rd Signal 15.1 B 12.5 B 40.4 D 10.4 B Bailey Rd Willow Pass Rd Signal 20.7 C 39.8 D 39.3 D 92.9 F 2040 LOS assumes current intersection geometry Alves Ln Willow Pass Rd Signal 2.2 A 3.1 A 43.5 D 19.3 B Bailey Rd Canal Rd Signal 13.6 B 9.4 A 29.9 C 11.7 B 1 The 2040 analysis assumes construction of the extensions of both Pacifica Avenue and Alves Lane LOS highlighted in grey does not meet County’s standard Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes154 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 8 Table 4 Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis Bay Point Area of Benefit Roadway From To 2013 20401 Comments Lanes Daily Volume LOS Lanes Daily Volume LOS Evora Road Willow Pass Rd Driftwood Dr 2 8,100 A 2 13,400 C Driftwood Dr Pomo St 4 3,800 A 4 9,700 A Pomo St Willow Pass Rd 2 5,100 A 2 12,100 B Willow Pass Rd SR 4 Port Chicago Hwy 6 21,500 A 6 38,900 C Port Chicago Hwy Alves Ln 4 15,500 A 4 25,800 C Alves Ln Bailey Rd 4 15,500 A 4 28,800 C Bailey Rd Pittsburg Limits 2 15,100 D 2 27,500 F Can be restriped to four lanes Port Chicago Hwy Driftwood Dr McAvoy Rd 2 5,000 A 2 8,000 B McAvoy Rd Pacifica Ave 2 5,200 A 2 10,000 B Pacifica Ave Willow Pass Rd 3 13,200 C 3 19,400 F LOS based on northbound direction Bailey Rd SR 4 Willow Pass Rd 4 17,800 A 4 26,400 C Driftwood Drive Evora Rd Pacifica Ave 2 4,500 A 2 4,800 A Pacifica Ave Port Chicago Hwy 2 500 A 2 2,500 A Pacifica Ave Driftwood Dr Port Chicago Hwy 2 2,700 A 2 5,000 A Loftus Rd Canal Rd Willow Pass Rd 2 2,900 A 2 3,100 A Alves Lane Willow Pass Rd Canal Rd 2 2,600 A 2 3,600 A Canal Road Alves Ln Bailey Rd 2 4,100 A 2 5,800 A Bailey Rd Pittsburg Limits 2 12,100 B 2 16,000 D 1 The 2040 analysis assumes construction of the extensions of both Pacifica Avenue and Alves Lane LOS highlighted in bold does not meet County’s standard Traffic volumes on roadway segments highlighted in grey warrant shoulder or sidewalk improvements to meet County standards Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes155 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C I T Y O F C I T Y O F P I T T S B U R GP I T T S B U R GC I T Y O F C I T Y O F C O N C O R DC O N C O R DStonemanParkDiabloCreekGolf CourseUS NavalStation PortChicagoContraCostaCanalMountDiabloCreekContraCosta CanalMcAvoy BoatHarborContraCosta CanalMallardSloughWillowCreekContraCosta CanalKirkerCreekSacramentoRiverSuisunBayBailey RdEvoraRdChicago HwyDriftwood DrEvora RdALVESCANAL!LOS A-C!LOS D-E!LOS FLOS A-CLOS D-EBay Point AOBCities of Pittsburg, ConcordFIGURE 2EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICESeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes156 !!!!!!!!!!!C I T Y O F C I T Y O F P I T T S B U R GP I T T S B U R GC I T Y O F C I T Y O F C O N C O R DC O N C O R DStonemanParkDiabloCreekGolf CourseUS NavalStation PortChicagoContraCostaCanalMountDiabloCreekContraCosta CanalMcAvoy BoatHarborContraCosta CanalMallardSloughWillowCreekContraCosta CanalKirkerCreekSacramentoRiverSuisunBayBailey RdEvoraRdChicago HwyDriftwood DrEvora RdALVESCANAL!LOS A-C!LOS D-E!LOS FLOS A-CLOS D-ELOS FBay Point AOBCities of Pittsburg, ConcordFIGURE 32040 LEVELS OF SERVICESeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes157 Nexus Study- Bay Point AOB Program 11 Roadway Pavement Width Standards Many of the County’s two-lane roads within the Bay Point AOB will not have LOS problems but volume increases on narrow roads within the AOB is a safety issue that should be addressed in the AOB Program. Providing adequate roadway width, including adding shoulders to two-lane roadways, would increase safety as traffic increases and shoulders would provide a bicycle lane/walkway. FHWA recommends that rural roadways that carry more than 2,000 average daily vehicles (ADT) should have 5 to 6 foot wide shoulders. Contra Costa County’s standards for two-lane roadways, shown in Table 5, call for shoulders on roadways with more than 1,000 ADT. Table 5 Two Lane Rural Shoulder/Lane Widths Contra Costa County Public Works Department Standard Plans Average Daily Traffic Shoulder Backing (ft.) Shoulder (ft.) Lane (ft.) < 250 0 1 11 < 400 2 1 11 < 1,000 2 4 12 < 3,000 2 5 12 < 6,000 2 6 12 > 6,000 0 8 12 Source: Contra Costa County Public Works Department Standard Plans, 2008 4.5 Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs Analysis New development also necessitates changes to roadway design that are not geared toward increases in vehicle capacity or improvements to vehicle safety. New development generates non-vehicular trips (bicycle and pedestrian) that will need to be accommodated by improving roadway shoulders to provide bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways. On roadways that require improvements based on the roadway/intersection analysis described above, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be implemented to the extent that they are represented in the County’s current standard roadway designs. Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements may also reduce vehicular congestion by shifting trips from autos to these alternative modes. The County’s General Plan has goals to encourage the use of transit (Goal 5-I) and to reduce single-occupant auto commuting and encourage walking and bicycling (Goal 5-J). The General Plan also has policies to encourage all efforts to develop alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion (Policy 5-23) and to encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation, such as transit, bike and pedestrian modes in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. 4.6 Draft AOB Project List A draft list of capital improvements to the transportation system in the AOB Program was prepared. The project list is focused on the major transportation in the County’s General Plan (see Sections 5.6 and 5.8 of the General Plan, which describe the major roadway, transit, bikeway and pedestrian facilities) This list generally consists of the following types of projects: 1. Installing traffic signals at intersections that meet warrants for their installation 2. Adding turn lanes at intersections to meet LOS standards 3. Adding lanes on roadway segments to meet LOS standards 4. Upgrading roadways to be consistent with County design standards 5. Providing appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 158 Nexus Study- Bay Point AOB Program 12 4.7 Presenting Findings at MAC Meetings The draft project list (see Table 6) was presented to the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), which supported the list as shown in Table 6 and Figure 4. 4.8 Finalize AOB Project List The MAC did not request changes in the draft project list and thus it represents the final AOB project list. Table 6 Selected Bay Point AOB Project List Roadway # Location Existing Conditions 2040 Conditions Recommended Project2 Daily Volume LOS Deficiency Daily Volume LOS1 Willow  Pass Rd  1.1 West interchange at  SR 4 NA F LOS/  Warrants   F Signalize EB and  WB off‐ramps  1.2 Evora Rd at Willow  Pass Ct 8,100 B  None 13,400 D Intersection  improvements  2.1 Bailey Rd to  Pittsburg City Limits 15,100 D  LOS 27,500 F Restripe to  improve capacity  2.1 Intersection at  Bailey Rd   D  LOS   F Intersection  improvements  Port  Chicago  Highway  3.1 Driftwood to West  of McAvoy Rd 5,000 A Design 8,000 B  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  3.2  West of McAvoy Rd  to Pacifica Ave 5,200 A Design 10,000 B  Re‐align  curve and  add pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  4 Port Chicago Hwy at  Willow Pass Rd  13,200  to  15,500  B  Design  19,400  to  28,800  D3 Multi‐modal safety  improvements  Driftwood  Dr  5 Port Chicago Hwy to  Pacifica Ave 500 A  Design 2,500 A  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  Pacifica  Ave  6 Port Chicago Hwy to  Alves Lane Ext NA NA   4,000  Extend roadway  Alves Lane  7 Willow Pass Rd to  Pacifica Ave Ext NA NA   4,000  Extend roadway  Loftus Rd  8 Canal Rd to Willow  Pass Rd 2,900 A Design 3,100 A  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  Bailey Rd  9 Willow Pass Rd to  Canal Rd 15,200 A  Design 16,000 A Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements 10 Canal Rd to BART 17,800 B  Design 26,400 F  Notes: 1. 2. 3. LOS without recommended improvement Project list approved by Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) LOS reflects conditions at Willow Pass Rd/Port Chicago Hwy intersection with Pacifica Avenue and Alves Lane extensions. Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 159 !(!(!(C I T Y O F C I T Y O F P I T T S B U R GP I T T S B U R GC I T Y O F C I T Y O F C O N C O R DC O N C O R DStonemanParkDiabloCreekGolf CourseUS NavalStation PortChicagoContraCostaCanalMountDiabloCreekContraCosta CanalMcAvoy BoatHarborContraCosta CanalMallardSloughWillowCreekContraCosta CanalKirkerCreekSacramentoRiverSuisunBayBailey RdEvoraRdChicago HwyDriftwood DrEvora RdALVESCANAL!(Install Traffic Signal!(Improve IntersectionImprove RoadwayExtend RoadwayBay Point AOBCities of Pittsburg, ConcordFIGURE 4SELECTED PROJECTSSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes160 Nexus Study- Bay Point AOB Program 14 5. Improvement Cost Estimates Planning-level cost estimates were prepared based on conceptual designs for each project (Table 6) and the design could change based on future studies. The estimates for roadway segment improvements are based on implementing the County’s design standards (for roadway cross-sections) by facility type and number of lanes. The cost estimates reflect the known issues, such as creek crossings, relocation of major known utilities, etc. Typical excavation quantities were used except in areas where significant excavation was identified. The cost estimating does not have geotechnical or survey support information. Thus unknowns (such as rock excavation, removal of unsuitable material, relocation of unseen utilities, etc.) were assumed in a project contingency percentage. The cost estimates include the following appropriate “soft costs” that are key elements in the implementation of each project:  Project contingencies,  Survey, design and construction management,  Environmental mitigation,  Right-of-way acquisition The cost estimates for each of the selected projects for funding by the Bay Point AOB, shown in Table 6 are provided in Appendix A. 6. Basis for Allocating Costs to New Development This section describes the process used to allocate transportation improvement costs to new development in the Bay Point AOB and the estimated transportation mitigation fees that result from this analysis. The allocation of costs of roadway and intersection improvements in the Bay Point AOB is based on answering the following questions:  Is there an existing deficiency?  Would the improvement project be required without new development?  Who uses the roadway/intersection? The allocation of costs is based on estimates of who will use the roadways or intersections that require improvements based on 2040 traffic forecasts. The allocation of improvement costs is based on the percentage of trips on the roadways and intersections from 1) existing development, 2) new development in the Bay Point AOB and 3) new development outside the AOB (referred to as through traffic). An increase in through traffic represents an increase in trips that both start and end outside the AOB and pass through the AOB. Table 7 summarizes the estimated percentages for the selected AOB project list. The methods used to allocate costs are described below. 6.1 Improvements to Meet County LOS Standards Costs for improvements needed to address LOS impacts (either intersection or roadway LOS) are allocated to new development in the Bay Point AOB using one of three methods: 1. For a roadway segment or intersection that is currently operating at an acceptable LOS but would operate at an unacceptable LOS in 2040, the entire cost of improving that segment or intersection is allocated to new development if there is no significant increase in through traffic. This method was used to allocate costs for improvements to Driftwood Drive (see Table 7). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 161 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 15 Table 7 Cost Allocation Analysis for Bay Point AOB Project List Roadway # Location Recommended Project Existing Conditions 2040 Conditions Percent of 2040 Total Volume Percent of 2013 to 2040 Growth Percent Allocated to AOB Daily Volume LOS Deficiency Daily Volume LOS1 Existing Growth Local Through Local Through Willow Pass Rd 1.1 West interchange at SR 4 Signalize EB & WB off‐ramps NA F LOS/ Warrants   F 58 12 30 29 71 12 1.2 Evora Rd at Willow Pass Ct Intersection improvements 8,100 B   13,400 D 60 28 12 70 30 70 2.1 Bailey Rd to Pittsburg Limits Restripe to  improve capacity 15,100 D   27,500 F 55 18 27 40 60 40 2.2 Intersection at Bailey Rd Intersection improvements   D      F 55 18 27 40 60 40 Port Chicago Highway 3.1 Driftwood to West of McAvoy Rd Pedestrian and bicycle improvements 5,000 A Standards 8,000 B 62 38 0 100 0 38 3.2 West of McAvoy Rd to Pacifica Ave Re‐align curve and add pedestrian and bicycle improvements 5,200 A Standards 10,000 B 52 48 0 100 0 48 4 NE quadrant of Intersection with Willow Pass Rd Multi‐modal safety improvements 13,200 to 15,500 B   19,400 to 28,800 D 60 32.8 7.2 82 18 32.8 Driftwood Dr 5 Port Chicago Hwy to Pacifica Ave Pedestrian and bicycle improvements 500 A   2,500 A 20 80 0 100 0 100 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes162 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 16 Table 7 Cost Allocation Analysis for Bay Point AOB Project List Roadway # Location Recommended Project Existing Conditions 2040 Conditions Percent of 2040 Total Volume Percent of 2013 to 2040 Growth Percent Allocated to AOB Daily Volume LOS Deficiency Daily Volume LOS1 Existing Growth Local Through Local Through Pacifica Ave 6 Port Chicago Hwy to Alves Lane Ext Extend roadway NA NA   4,000 A 68 32 0 100 0 100 Alves Lane 7 Willow Pass Rd to  Pacifica Ave Ext Extend roadway NA NA   4,000 A 68 32 0 100 0 100 Loftus Rd 8 Canal Rd to Willow Pass Rd Pedestrian and bicycle improvements  2,900 A Standards 3,100 A 94 6 0 100 0 6 Bailey Rd 9 Willow Pass Rd to Canal Rd Pedestrian and bicycle improvements 15,200 A   16,000 A 90 6 4 60 40 6 10 Canal Rd to BART 17,800 B   26,400 F 67 6 27 18 82 6 Percentages were estimated using Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) travel demand model with the growth estimates summarized in Table 2  LOS reflects conditions without improvement.  Percent allocated to AOB is based on percentage shaded in grey  Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes163 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 17 2. If the current and future LOS conditions are the same as described under #1 but a significant increase in through traffic is projected, then new development within the AOB is not allocated the full cost of the improvement. Instead, new development within the AOB is allocated a percentage of costs based the number of new trips on a roadway segment or intersection that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by the total amount of trips from new development. The remaining percent of costs, reflecting new trips that have neither their origin nor destination in the AOB, are not allocated to development in the AOB. This method was used to allocate costs of improvements along Willow Pass Road, except the cost of installing signals at the SR 4 interchange, since that is an existing deficiency (see Table 7). 3. For a roadway segment or intersection that currently does not meet the County’s LOS standards (an existing deficiency), the percent cost share for new development in the AOB is equal to the number of new trips on a roadway segment that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by all trips on that roadway, both from existing and new development (including through traffic). This method was used to allocate the costs of installing signals at the Willow Pass Road interchange with SR 4, as well as the cost of improvements along Port Chicago Highway, Bailey Road and Loftus Road (see Table 7). 6.2 Widening to meet Roadway Pavement Width Standards The allocation of costs to improve roadway to County cross-section standards is similar to the allocation of cost for improvements to address LOS impacts. For a roadway segment that is currently below the traffic volume thresholds shown in Table 5 but would exceed those thresholds by 2040, the entire cost of improving that segment to the County standard will be allocated to new development. This is the case for improvements to Driftwood Drive. If that roadway has an increase in the amount of through traffic then new development within the AOB is allocated a percentage of costs based on the number of trips associated with new development within the AOB. This method did not apply to any improvements on the Bay Point AOB project list. For a roadway segment that currently has a traffic volume above the volume thresholds in Table 5 and does not meet the County’s applicable cross-section standards (an existing deficiency), the percent cost share for new development in the AOB is equal to the number of new trips on a roadway segment that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by all trips on that roadway, both from existing and new development. This method applies to improvements along Port Chicago Highway, Bailey Road and Loftus Road (see Table 7) 6.3 Bikeway and Walkway Improvements On roadways that require improvements to meet the County’s LOS or pavement width standards, bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be incorporated and the costs will be allocated to new development by the methods described under improvements needed to meet LOS standards, in Section 6.1 above For projects that focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety, including Bailey Road and Loftus Road, the improvements would benefit both existing and future residents and the cost allocated to new development will equal new development’s proportional share of the total future traffic volumes on those roadways. 6.4 Summary of Cost Allocation Table 8 summarizes the allocation of the cost for each of the selected projects that will have funding from the Bay Point AOB Program. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 164 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 18 Table 8 Allocation of Project Costs to Bay Point AOB Program Roadway Location Estimated Total Cost Percent Allocated to AOB Cost Allocated to AOB Recommended Project Willow  Pass Rd  1.1 West interchange at SR  4  Signalize EB and WB  off‐ramps $1,088,000 12 $130,560  1.2 Evora Rd at   Willow Pass Ct  Intersection  improvements $803,000 70 $562,100  2.1 Bailey Rd to Pittsburg  City Limits  Restripe to improve  capacity $214,000 40 $85,600  2.2 Intersection at Bailey Rd Intersection  improvements $1,058,000 40 $423,200  Port  Chicago  Highway  3.1 Driftwood to   West of McAvoy Rd  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  $2,830,000 38 $1,075,400  3.2  West of McAvoy Rd to  Pacifica Ave  Re‐align curve and  add pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  $2,267,000  48 $1,088,160   4 NE quadrant of  Intersection with Willow  Pass Rd  Multi‐modal safety  improvements $1,784,000(1) 32.8 $585,152  Driftwood  Dr  5 Port Chicago Hwy to  Pacifica Ave  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements   $2,457,000 100 $2,457,000  Pacifica  Ave  6 Port Chicago Hwy to  Alves Lane Ext Extend roadway $4,773,000 100 $4,773,999  Alves Lane  7 Willow Pass Rd to   Pacifica Ave Ext Extend roadway $4,516,000 100 $4,516,000  Loftus Rd  8 Canal Rd to   Willow Pass Rd  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements   $1,873,000 6 $112,380  Bailey Rd  9 Willow Pass Rd to   Canal Rd  Pedestrian and  bicycle  improvements  $9,731,000(2) 6 $583,860  10 Canal Rd to BART $7,140,000(2) 6 $428,400  Total $40,534,000  41 $16,820,812  Sources: DKS Associates except (1) Contra Costa County Public Works and (2) BMS Design Group The County has various methods for funding transportation improvements within the Bay Point AOB boundary. While the Bay Point AOB fee program is one method, additional funding will need to be obtained from Federal, State and local grants (such as ATP, SRTS, BTA, etc.) or other sources to fund the cost of the improvements not allocated to new development in the Bay Point AOB. On an on-going basis, the County will assess the unconstructed projects on the AOB project list and determine project priorities. As enough funding becomes available from all sources to implement “priority” projects, the County will implement those projects. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 165 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 19 7. Method for Calculating Fees Land Use Categories The calculation of fees for the Bay Point AOB Program Update will be based on the general land use categories that can be derived for all areas of the County from CCTA’s travel demand model. These general categories are the following: __Land Use Type__ _____Units_____ Single-Family Dwelling units (DU) Multi-Family Dwelling units (DU) Commercial/Retail Sq. Ft. Office Sq. Ft Industrial Sq. Ft Dwelling Unit Equivalents In the allocation of costs to various types of development, each development type will be assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate. DUEs are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use compare to a typical single-family residential unit, which is assigned a DUE of 1. Land uses that have greater overall traffic impacts than a typical single-family residential unit are assigned values greater than 1, while land uses with lower overall traffic impacts than a typical single- family residential unit are assigned DUE values less than 1. DUEs are developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those same rates for a typical single-family residential unit. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the PM peak hour on an average weekday, the DUEs reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUEs are “percent new” trips, since some of the vehicles attracted to non-residential uses would have been on the roadway system regardless of the presence of the traffic generated by the new development. Average trip lengths for the remaining "primary" trips generated by a development are then utilized to better reflect overall impact of longer trips on the County’s roadway system. The DUE rates will thus be based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the PM peak hour for each general land use type. The DUE rates used to estimate the AOB fees are shown in Table 9. Table 9 Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) Rates Land Use Category PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per Unit1 Unit Trip Length (miles)2 Percent New trips2 VMT per Unit DUE per Unit Singe Family 1.01 Dwelling Unit 5.0 100 5.050 1.00 Multi-Family 0.62 5.0 100 3.100 0.61 Retail 4.10 Square Feet 2.3 76 7.167 0.00142 Office 1.40 4.5 92 5.796 0.00115 Industrial 0.98 5.1 92 4.598 0.00091 1 ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition 2 ITE Journal, May 1992 Source: DKS Associates, 2014 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 166 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 20 Fee Calculation The cost per DUE (i.e. cost for a typical single-family dwelling unit) is calculated by dividing the total costs allocated to new development in the AOB (methods described above) minus the current fund balance in the Bay Point AOB by the total growth in DUEs in the AOB by 2040 (see Table 10). The cost for each land use type is then based on its DUE rate. The nexus-based fee rates are shown in Table 11. Table 10 Growth in DUEs Land Use Category Unit Growth in Units1 DUE per Unit Growth in DUEs Singe Family Dwelling Unit 416 1.00 416 Multi-Family 1,014 0.61 619 Retail Square Feet 237,000 0.00142 337 Office 310,000 0.00115 357 Industrial 317,000 0.00091 288 2,017 1 See Table 2: “Summary of Estimated Development 2010 to 2040 Growth” Source: DKS Associates, 2014 Table 11 Nexus-Based Fee Rates for Bay Point AOB Cost of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth $16,820,812 Current AOB Fund Balance $946,311 Unfunded Costs of Improvements Allocated to AOB Growth $15,874,501 Growth in Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE's) 2,017 Cost per DUE $7,870 Land Use Units DUE per Unit Fee per Unit1 Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 $7,870 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 0.61 $4,801 Retail Square Foot 0.00142 $11.18 Office Square Foot 0.00115 $9.05 Industrial Square Foot 0.00091 $7.16 1 Fee per Unit = (Cost per DUE) x (DUE per Unit) Source: DKS Associates, 2015 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 167 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 21 8. Nexus Analysis A nexus analysis has been prepared on the Bay Point AOB Program in accordance with the procedural guidelines established in AB1600, which is codified in California Government Section 66000 et seq. These code sections set forth the procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that “a reasonable relationship or nexus must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.” Specifically, each local agency imposing a fee must:  Identify the purpose of the fee;  Identify how the fee is to be used;  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and,  Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public facility or the portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 8.1 Purpose of fee The purpose of the Bay Point AOB Program is to fund improvements to the County’s major roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities needed to accommodate travel demand generated by new land development in the unincorporated portion of Bay Point AOB over the next 27 years (through 2040). The Bay Point AOB Program will help meet the County’s General Plan policies, including maintenance of adequate levels of service and safety for roadway facilities. New development in the unincorporated portions of the Bay Point AOB will increase the demand for all modes of travel (including walking, biking, transit, automobile and truck/goods movement) and, thus, the need for improvements to transportation facilities. The Bay Point AOB Program will help fund transportation facilities necessary to accommodate new residential and non-residential development in the unincorporated portions of the Bay Point AOB. 8.2 Use of Fees The fees from new development in the Bay Point AOB Program will be used to fund additions and improvements to the transportation system needed to accommodate future travel demand resulting from residential and non-residential development within the Bay Point AOB. The Bay Point AOB Program will help fund improvements to roadways (include the widening or extensions of arterial and collector roadways, intersection improvements and provision of shoulders) bikeways and walkways plus fee program administration costs. The transportation improvements wholly or partially funded by the program are described in more detail in Section 4. 8.3 Relationship between use of Fees and Type of Development Fee revenues generated by the Bay Point AOB Program will be used to develop the transportation improvements described in Section 4. All of these improvements increase the capacity, improve the safety, or facilitate the use of alternative modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian) on those segments of the transportation system affected by new development. The results of the transportation modeling analysis September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 168 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 22 summarized in this report demonstrate that these improvements either mitigate impacts from and/or provide benefits to new development. 8.4 Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Development The projected residential and non-residential development described in Section 3 will add to the incremental need for transportation facilities by increasing the amount of demand on the transportation system. The transportation analysis presented in Section 4 demonstrates that improvements are required to minimize the negative impact on current levels of service caused by new development and/or accommodate the increased need for alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). 8.5 Relationship between Amount of Fees and the Cost of Facility Attributed to Development upon which Fee is Imposed The basis for allocating improvement costs to development is described in Section 6. Construction of necessary transportation improvements will directly serve residential and non-residential development within the unincorporated portions of the AOB and will directly benefit development in those areas. New development within the AOB is allocated a percentage of costs based on the number of new trips on a roadway segment or intersection that have either their origin or destination within the AOB divided by the total amount of trips from new development. The remaining percent of costs, reflecting new trips that have neither their origin nor destination in the AOB (through trips), are not allocated to development in the AOB. For facilities that have an “existing deficiency”, the cost of the improvement that is allocated to the Bay Point AOB Program is modified to account for that deficiency. The fee that a developer pays for a new residential unit or commercial building varies by the type of development based on its impact on the transportation system. Each development type is assigned a “dwelling unit equivalent” or “DUE” rate based on its estimated vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) per unit of development. DUE’s are numerical measures of how the trip-making characteristics of a land use compare to a single- family residential unit. DUE’s were developed by comparing both the trip generation and trip length characteristics of various land uses to those of the single-family residential units. Since roadway needs are primarily based on traffic flows and conditions during the peak hour on an average weekday, the DUE’s reflect the relative trip generation for the peak hour. Also considered in the calculation of DUE’s are “percent new” trips. The DUE rates were thus based on estimates of the average vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) generated during the peak hour for each general land use type. 8.6 Current AOB Fund Balance As of March 2015 the Bay Point AOB had a fund balance of $946,311. One of the projects on the 1998 list, Port Chicago Highway west of McAvoy Road to Pacifica Avenue, has not yet been completed and will carry over to the proposed project list as Project 3.2. The existing balance will be earmarked to fund this project. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 169 Nexus Study - Bay Point AOB Program 23 Appendix A Cost Estimates for Selected Projects in Bay Point AOB September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 170 Project Roadway Location Item Description Total Cost 1.1 Willow Pass  Road Willow Pass Road at SR‐4 EB  and WB off‐ramps Project work includes the installation of two new  traffic signals at the interchange of Willow Pass Rd  with both eastbound and westbound off ramps plus  the restriping of the intersection approaches.   $1,088,000 1.2 Willow Pass  Road Willow Pass Road between  Evora Road and SR‐4 Project work includes the widening of Willow Pass  Road.  Project also includes the the modification of  the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road traffic signal and  restriping of the intersection approaches. $803,000 2.1 Willow Pass  Road Willow Pass Road between  Bailey Road and Pittsburg  City Limits Project work includes the restriping of Willow Pass  Road to provide four travel lanes and application of  a slurry seal. $214,000 2.2 Willow Pass  Road Willow Pass Road at Bailey  Road Project work includes the widening of Willow Pass  Rd to accommodate an additional WBL and a new  EBR turn lane. Project also includes restriping Bailey  Rd to accommodate an additional NBR turn lane. $1,058,000 3.1 Port Chicago  Highway Port Chicago Hwy from  Driftwood Dr to west of  McAvoy Road Project work includes the addition of an 8' bike  lane/shoulder along both sides of Port Chicago  Highway, and a 6.5' sidewalk along on the south  side. $2,830,000 3.2 Port Chicago  Highway Port Chicago Hwy from  west of McAvoy Rd to  Pacifica Ave Project would realign the sharp horizontal curve in  Port Chicago Highway, add an EBL turn pocket at  McAvoy Road, and add sidewalks along both sides of  Port Chicago Highway. $2,267,000 4 Port Chicago  Highway (1) Port Chicago Highway at  Willow Pass Road Project would widen Port Chicago Highway to  provide two 4' bike lanes and a 6.5' sidewalk along  the east side of the roadway. Project would also add  a 6.5' sidewalk along the north side of Willow Pass  Road and a 5' bike lane in the westbound direction  of Willow Pass Road. Finally, project would demolish  the existing sweeping free right turn along  westbouind Willow Pass Road and replace with a  200' westbound right turn pocket. $1,784,000 5 Driftwood  Drive Driftwood Drive from Port  Chicago Highway to Pacifica  Avenue Project work includes the addition of 6' shoulders  and 6.5' sidewalk along both sides of Driftwood  Drive. $2,457,000 6 Pacifica  Avenue Port Chicago Highway to  Alves Lane Extension Project work includes the construction of a new  roadway (including bike lanes and sidewalk) and  modification of the existing traffic signal and Pacifica  Avenue and Port Chicago Highway. $4,773,000 7 Alves Lane Willow Pass Road to  Pacifica Avenue Extension Project work includes the construction of a new  roadway (including bike lanes and sidewalk) and  modification of the existing traffic signal and Alves  Lane and Willow Pass Road. $4,516,000 8 Loftus Road Loftus Road from Willow  Pass Road to Canal Road Project would add 5' bike lanes and 5' sidewalk on  both sides of Loftus Road.$1,873,000 Willow Pass Rd to Canal Rd Pedestrian & bike Improvments $9,731,000 Canal Rd to BART Pedestrian & bike Improvments $7,140,000 TOTAL $40,534,000 Bay Point Area of Benefit Engineers Estimate Summary Bailey Road  (2) Sources: DKS Associates except (1) Contra Costa County Public Works and (2) BMS Design Group  September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 171 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 1.1 Project Name:Signalization of Willow Pass Road & SR‐4 Ramp Intersections Project Location:Willow Pass Road at SR‐4 EB and WB off‐ramps Description Signalize EB and WB off‐ramps Project Length (ft):200 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Install traffic signal with safety lighting 6 EA 90,000.00$ 540,000$ 2 Temporary traffic control 1 LS 14,000.00$ 14,000$ 3 Removal of signs 1 LS 500.00$ 500$ 4 Removal of pavement legends 1 LS 1,000.00$ 1,000$ 5 Thermoplastic striping for crosswalks 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000$ 6 ADA curb ramps 15 EA 3,000.00$ 45,000$ 7 Mobilization 1 LS 59,000.00$ 59,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 603,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)66,200$ Contract Items 662,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON)100,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)30,000$ Contingency*100,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)862,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan) 66,200$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 160,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *100,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)326,200$ Grand Total 1,088,200$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)1,088,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 172 Project 1.1: Signalization of Willow Pass Road & SR‐4 Ramp IntersectionsSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes173 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 1.2 Project Name:Willow Pass Road Widening Project Location:Willow Pass Road between Evora Road and SR‐4 Description Intersection improvements Project Length (ft):340 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Construction Area Signs 2 EA $550.00 1,100$ 2Temporary traffic control 1 LS $20,000.00 20,000$ 3Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS $6,000.00 6,000$ 4 Remove Pavement 3450 SF $3.00 10,350$ 5 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $30,000.00 30,000$ 6Saw Cut Pavement Edges 680 LF $2.00 1,360$ 7Roadway Excavation 420 CY $45.00 18,900$ 8Imported Material (Shoulder Backing)10 TON $45.00 450$ 9Class 2 Aggregate Base 80 CY $65.00 5,200$ 10 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)80 TON $110.00 8,800$ 11 Curb and Gutter 490 LF $35.00 17,150$ 12 Roadside Sign - One Post 2 EA $350.00 700$ 13 Concrete Sidewalk 2535 SF $7.50 19,013$ 14 ADA Curb Ramps5EA$3,000.00 15,000$ 15 Misc. Drainage Modifications 1 LS $17,900.00 17,900$ 16 Sign Relocation 2 EA $300.00 600$ 17 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 21, No Passing Zones 825 LF $3.00 2,475$ 18 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe - Det. 27B, Right Edge Line 825 LF $2.00 1,650$ 19 Modify Traffic Signal Approach 3 EA 75,000.00$ 225,000$ 20 Mobilization 1 LS 40,200.00$ 40,200$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 402,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)45,000$ Contract Items 442,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON)89,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)30,000$ Contingency*67,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)598,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan) 45,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 160,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *89,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)294,000$ Grand Total 803,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)803,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 174 Project 1.2: Willow Pass Road WideningSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes175 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 2.1 Project Name:Willow Pass Road Restriping Project Location:Willow Pass Road between Bailey Road and Pittsburg City Limits Description Restripe to improve capacity Project Length (ft):2563 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Restriping lanes with thermoplastic 2563 LF $8.00 20,504$ 2 Asphaltic emulsion-slurry seal 17087 SY $1.00 17,087$ 3 Install new traffic signs 2563 LF $0.50 1,282$ 4 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $10,000.00 10,000$ 5 Mobilization 1 LS 4,900.00$ 4,900$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 49,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)30,000$ Contract Items 54,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON)20,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)-$ Contingency*10,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)-$ Subtotal (Contract Items) 84,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey) -$ Subtotal (Plan) 30,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 100,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W) -$ Construction Engineering *20,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL) 150,000$ Grand Total 214,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)214,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 176 Project 2.1: Willow Pass Road RestripingSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes177 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 2.2 Project Name:Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection Improvements Project Location:Willow Pass Road at Bailey Road Description Intersection improvements Project Length (ft):N/A Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Class 2 Aggregate Base 156 CY $65.00 10,200$ 2Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)116 Ton $110.00 12,800$ 3 Lane restriping 175 LF $8.00 1,400$ 4 Demolish existing S/W, landscaping, pavement 1 LS $20,000.00 20,000$ 5 Excavation 156 CY $65.00 10,200$ 6 Reconstruct Concrete Curb and Gutter 175 LF $35.00 6,200$ 7 Reconstruct Concrete Sidewalk 875 SF $7.50 6,600$ 8 Relocate traffic signal equipment (one quadrant)1 LS $75,000.00 75,000$ 9 Construct New Curb Ramp 1EA $3,000.00 3,000$ 10 Misc. Drainage Modifications 1 LS $28,900.00 28,900$ WB Left Turn Lane Subtotal (LS): 174,300$ 11 Class 2 Aggregate Base 89 CY $65.00 5,800$ 12 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)66 Ton $110.00 7,300$ 13 Lane restriping 100 LF $8.00 800$ 14 Demolish existing S/W and pavement 1 LS $11,500.00 11,500$ 15 Excavation 51 CY $65.00 3,400$ 16 Reconstruct Concrete Curb and Gutter 100 LF $35.00 3,500$ 17 Reconstruct Concrete Sidewalk 500 SF $7.50 3,800$ 18 Relocate traffic signal equipment (one quadrant)1 LS $75,000.00 75,000$ 19 Construct New Curb Ramp 1EA $3,000.00 3,000$ 20 Misc. Drainage Modifications 1 LS $22,700.00 22,700$ EB Right Turn Lane Subtotal (LS): 136,800$ 21 Lane restriping 210 LF $8.00 1,700$ Restriping Subtotal (LS):1,700$ 22 Modify traffic signal approach 2 EA $75,000.00 150,000$ Signal Modification Subtotal (LS): 150,000$ 23 Construction Area Signs 1 EA $550.00 550$ 24 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $46,300.00 46,300$ 25 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS $6,000.00 6,000$ 26 Surveying 1 LS $30,000.00 30,000$ 27 Mobilization 1 LS 54,600.00$ 54,600$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 546,000$ Widen Willow Pass Road to accommodate additional WBL turn lane Widen Willow Pass Road to accommodate exclusive EBR turn lane Restripe Bailey Road for second NBR turn lane Modify traffic signal Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 178 Project Number 2.2 Planning Engineering (TE)55,000$ Contract Items 600,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*100,000$ Other Costs (CON)90,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)30,000$ Contingency*90,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)30,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)780,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)30,000$ Subtotal (Plan) 55,000$ Real Property Labor 20,000$ Subtotal (PE) 160,000$ R/W Acquisition 12,600$ Subtotal (R/W)62,600$ Construction Engineering *90,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)367,600$ Grand Total 1,057,600$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)1,058,000$ S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 179 Project 2.2: Willow Pass Road & Bailey Road Intersection ImprovementsSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes180 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 3.1 Project Name:Port Chicago Highway Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Project Location:Port Chicago Hwy from Driftwood Dr to west of McAvoy Road Description Pedestrian and bicycle improvements Project Length (ft):4962 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 79392 SF $0.50 39,696$ 2 Earthwork 79392 SF $2.00 158,784$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 4416 CY $65.00 287,052$ 4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)3291 Ton $110.00 362,042$ 5Striping 4962 LF $3.00 14,886$ 6 Concrete Sidewalk 32253 SF $7.50 241,898$ 7 Curb & Gutter 9924 LF $35.00 347,340$ 8 ADA curb ramp 7 EA $3,000.00 21,000$ 9 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $73,600.00 73,600$ 10 Mobilization 1 LS 154,600.00$ 154,600$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,546,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)155,000$ Contract Items 1,701,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*256,000$ Other Costs (CON)256,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)147,000$ Contingency*256,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)59,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)2,213,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)-$ Subtotal (Plan) 155,000$ Real Property Labor -$ Subtotal (PE) 462,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ Subtotal (R/W)-$ Construction Engineering *256,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)873,000$ Grand Total 2,830,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)2,830,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 181 Project 3.1: Port Chicago Highway Sidewalk and Bike LanesSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes182 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 3.2 Project Name:Port Chicago Highway Realignment Project Location:Port Chicago Hwy from west of McAvoy Rd to Pacifica Ave Description Project would realign the sharp horizontal curve  in Port Chicago Highway, add an EBL turn pocket  at McAvoy Road, and add sidewalks along both  sides of Port Chicago Highway. Project Length (ft):1025 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No.1 Revision Date 8/1/2016 Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by J. Long No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1Roadway Excavation 3116 CY $70.00 218,200$ 2 Class 2 Aggregate Base 148 CY $65.00 9,700$ 3Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)83 Ton $110.00 9,100$ 4Striping 50 LF $3.00 200$ 5Curb & gutter 100 LF $35.00 3,500$ 6 Concrete sidewalk 650 SF $7.50 4,900$ Section 1 Subtotal (LS): 245,600$ 7Roadway Excavation 1704 CY $70.00 119,300$ 8 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1363 CY $65.00 88,600$ 9Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)501 Ton $110.00 55,200$ 10 Striping 400 LF $3.00 1,200$ 11 Curb & gutter 800 LF $35.00 28,000$ 12 Concrete sidewalk 5200 SF $7.50 39,000$ Section 2 Subtotal (LS): 331,300$ 13 Roadway Excavation 1458 CY $70.00 102,100$ 14 Class 2 Aggregate Base 1167 CY $65.00 75,900$ 15 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)780 Ton $110.00 85,800$ 16 Striping 350 LF $3.00 1,100$ 17 Curb & gutter 700 LF $35.00 24,500$ 18 Concrete sidewalk 4550 SF $7.50 34,200$ Section 3 Subtotal (LS): 323,600$ 19 Roadway Excavation 139 CY $70.00 9,800$ 20 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)62 Ton $110.00 6,900$ 21 Striping 100 LF $3.00 300$ 22 Curb & gutter 100 LF $35.00 3,500$ 23 Concrete sidewalk 650 SF $7.50 4,900$ 24 ADA Curb Ramp 2EA $3,000.00 6,000$ Section 4 Subtotal (LS): 31,400$ 25 Roadway Excavation 185 CY $70.00 13,000$ 26 Class 2 Aggregate Base 148 CY $65.00 9,700$ 27 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)99 Ton $110.00 10,900$ 28 Striping 125 LF $3.00 400$ 29 Curb & gutter 250 LF $35.00 8,800$ 30 Concrete sidewalk**6175 SF $7.50 46,400$ 31 ADA Curb Ramp 2EA $3,000.00 6,000$ Section 5 Subtotal (LS): 95,200$ Section 5 Realignment (125' length) Section 1 Realignment (50' length) Section 2 Realignment (400' length) Section 3 Realignment (350' length) Section 4 Realignment (100' length) Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bay Point AOB\Cost Estimates\Bay Point Cost Estimates 8-1-16 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 183 Project Number 3.2 32 Construction Area Signs 1 EA $550.00 550$ 33 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS $30,000.00 30,000$ 34 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $102,700.00 102,700$ 35 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan 1 LS $6,000.00 6,000$ 36 Surveying 1 LS $30,000.00 30,000$ 37 Mobilization 1 LS 119,600.00$ 119,600$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,196,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)120,000$ Contract Items 1,316,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*198,000$ Other Costs (CON)198,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)90,000$ Contingency*198,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)51,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)1,712,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)30,000$ Subtotal (Plan) 120,000$ Real Property Labor 30,000$ Subtotal (PE) 339,000$ R/W Acquisition 36,400$ Subtotal (R/W)96,400$ Construction Engineering *198,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)753,400$ Grand Total 2,267,400$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% ** Project includes additional 700 ft. of sidewalk between Skipper Rd and Pacifica Ave TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)2,267,000$ C:\Projects\Contra Costa AB Fee Update\Bay Point AOB\Cost Estimates\Bay Point Cost Estimates 8-1-16 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 184 Project 3.2: Port Chicago Highway Realignment Note: Project also includes 700 feet of sidewalk along Port Chicago Hwy between Skipper Rd and Pacifica Ave September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 185 Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate Contra Costa County Department of Public Works WO 4051 Project Name:Port Chicago HWY-Willow Pass Road Bike Lane and Pedestrian Improvements Alternative:Ultimate Alternative: Sidewalk/curb Improvements, revised bike lanes , signal modifications, and island modifications to T-Intx Project Location:Port Chicago HWY-Willow Pass Road Intersection from Lynbrook Drive to Weldon Street Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0 Project Length (ft):1400 Date of Estimate:Apr. 30, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:L. Leong Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS 57,000.00$ 57,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000$ 3 Construction Area Signs 6 EA 550.00$ 3,300$ 4 Pavement Striping Removal 870 LF 1.50$ 1,305$ 5 Pavement Marking Removal 126 SF 10.00$ 1,260$ 6 Saw Cut 1000 LF 3.25$ 3,250$ 7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 14,000.00$ 14,000$ 8 Remove AC Curb 617 LF 9.00$ 5,553$ 9 Roadway Excavation 640 CY 50.00$ 31,983$ 10 Minor Concrete Sidewalk 12520 SF 12.50$ 156,500$ 11 Curb and Gutter 1353 LF 35.00$ 47,355$ 12 ADA Curb Ramps 5 EA 3,500.00$ 17,500$ 13 Minor Utility Adjustment 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000$ 14 Driveway Conform 1 EA 5,000.00$ 5,000$ 15 Aggregate Base 1209 TON 40.00$ 48,359$ 16 Hot Mix Asphalt 307 TON 185.00$ 56,756$ 17 Traffic Sign Installation - Bike Lane 4 EA 350.00$ 1,400$ 18 Traffic Sign Replacement 6 EA 350.00$ 2,100$ 19 Island Modications (remove Curb, Landscape, Irr.)1 LS 210,900.00$ 210,900$ 20 Pavement Markings 1 LS 37,600.00$ 37,600$ 21 Traffic Signal Modifications 1 LS 60,000.00$ 60,000$ 22 Enhancement @ intx (comm. sign,wayfinding signage, etc.)1 LS 40,000.00$ 40,000$ 23 Slurry Seal + $10k add'l mobilization 13000 SY 1.75$ 32,750$ 24 Storm Drain Pipe, 18 in dia 80 LF 600.00$ 48,000$ 25 Type A DI 2 EA 5,000.00$ 10,000$ PLANNING Planning Engineering (TE)102,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 947,000$ PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 187,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)186,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)87,000$ CONTINGENCY*90,000$ Environmental 152,000$ SUBTOTAL (Pre-Con)561,000$ Survey Work 15,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)102,000$ R/W Real Property Labor (including TCE's)18,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)426,000$ R/W Acquisition -$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)33,000$ CON Construction Engineering 163,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 23,000$ GRAND TOTAL 1,784,000$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)747,000$ CURRENT YEAR 2013 * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2013 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5% * CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2013 dollars)1,784,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or Printed on 4/30/2014 G:\transeng\Projects\Port Chicago Hwy and Willow Pass Ave, Bay Point 2013\6- Cost-Qty\2014-04-30 Cost_Est_-_Willow Pass Rd- Port Chicago HWY_Bike & Ped.xlsx September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 186 Project 4: Port Chicago Highway Complete StreetSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes187 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 5 Project Name:Driftwood Drive Safety Improvements Project Location:Driftwood Drive from Port Chicago Highway to Pacifica Avenue Description Pedestrian and bicycle improvements Project Length (ft):2590 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 64750 SF $0.50 32,375$ 2 Earthwork 64750 SF $2.00 129,500$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 863 CY $65.00 56,117$ 4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)641 Ton $110.00 70,513$ 5Striping 2590 LF $3.00 7,770$ 6 Concrete sidewalk 33670 SF $7.50 252,525$ 7 Curb & Gutter 5180 LF $35.00 181,300$ 8Misc drainage modifications 1 LS $388,500.00 388,500$ 9 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $55,900.00 55,900$ 10 Mobilization 1 LS 117,400.00$ 117,400$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000)1,174,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)118,000$ Contract Items 1,292,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*194,000$ Other Costs (CON)194,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)56,000$ Contingency*194,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)45,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)1,680,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)59,000$ Subtotal (Plan)118,000$ Real Property Labor 59,000$ Subtotal (PE)295,000$ R/W Acquisition 246,000$ Subtotal (R/W)364,000$ Construction Engineering *194,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)971,000$ Grand Total 2,457,000$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)2,457,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 188 Project 5: Driftwood Drive Safety ImprovementsSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes189 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 6 Project Name:Pacifica Avenue Extension Project Location:Port Chicago Highway to Alves Lane Extension Description Extend roadway Project Length (ft):2660 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 148960 SF $0.50 74,480$ 2 Earthwork 148960 SF $2.00 297,920$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 5200 CY $65.00 337,968$ 4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)2560 Ton $110.00 281,628$ 5Striping 2660 LF $3.00 7,980$ 6 Concrete Sidewalk 34580 SF $7.50 259,350$ 7 Curb & Gutter 5320 LF $35.00 186,200$ 8 Utility pole relocation 1 LS $133,000.00 133,000$ 9 Install traffic signal per approach 1 EA $90,000.00 90,000$ 10 Modify traffic signal per approach 3 EA $75,000.00 225,000$ 11 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $94,700.00 94,700$ 12 Mobilization 1 LS 198,800.00$ 198,800$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,988,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)199,000$ Contract Items 2,187,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*329,000$ Other Costs (CON)329,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)76,000$ Contingency*329,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)61,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)2,845,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)110,000$ Subtotal (Plan)199,000$ Real Property Labor 110,000$ Subtotal (PE)466,000$ R/W Acquisition 1,042,720$ Subtotal (R/W)1,262,720$ Construction Engineering *329,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)2,256,720$ Grand Total 4,772,720$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)4,773,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 190 Project 6: Pacifica Avenue ExtensionSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes191 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 7 Project Name:Alves Lane Extension Project Location:Willow Pass Road to Pacifica Avenue Extension Description Extend roadway Project Length (ft):2575 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 144200 SF $0.50 72,100$ 2 Earthwork 144200 SF $2.00 288,400$ 3Class 2 Aggregate Base 5150 CY $65.00 334,750$ 4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)2889 Ton $110.00 317,807$ 5Striping 2575 LF $3.00 7,725$ 6 Concrete Sidewalk 33475 SF $7.50 251,063$ 7 Curb & Gutter 5150 LF $35.00 180,250$ 8 Install traffic signal per approach 1 EA $90,000.00 90,000$ 9Modify traffic signal per approach 3 EA $75,000.00 225,000$ 10 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $88,400.00 88,400$ 11 Mobilization 1 LS 185,500.00$ 185,500$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,855,000$ Planning Engineering (TE)186,000$ Contract Items 2,041,000$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*307,000$ Other Costs (CON)307,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)85,000$ Contingency*307,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)68,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)2,655,000$ R/W Engineering (Survey)103,000$ Subtotal (Plan) 186,000$ Real Property Labor 103,000$ Subtotal (PE) 460,000$ R/W Acquisition 1,009,400$ Subtotal (R/W)1,215,400$ Construction Engineering *307,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)2,168,400$ Grand Total 4,516,400$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)4,516,000$ Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 192 Project 7: Alves Lane Extension September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 193 DKS Associates Planning Cost Estimate 1970 Broadway Ste 740, Oakland CA 94612 Project Number 8 Project Name:Loftus Road Safety Improvements Project Location:Loftus Road from Willow Pass Road to Canal Road Description Pedestrian and bicycle improvements Project Length (ft):2535 Date of Estimate:Apr. 11, 2014 Revision No. Revision Date Prepared by:T. Krakow Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Clearing and grubbing 38040 SF $0.50 19,100$ 2Earthwork 38040 SF $2.00 76,100$ 3 Class 2 Aggregate Base 939 CY $65.00 61,100$ 4Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)348 Ton $110.00 38,400$ 5Striping 1268 LF $3.00 3,900$ 6Curb & gutter 2536 LF $35.00 88,800$ 7 Concrete sidewalk 12680 SF $7.50 95,100$ 8 ADA curb ramp 4EA $3,000.00 12,000$ 9Driveway cut 40 EA $1,400.00 56,000$ 10 Misc Drainage Modifications 1 LS $45,000.00 45,000$ Section 1 Subtotal (LS): 495,500$ 11 Clearing and grubbing 25360 SF $0.50 12,700$ 12 Earthwork 25360 SF $2.00 50,800$ 13 Class 2 Aggregate Base 939 CY $65.00 61,100$ 14 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)418 Ton $110.00 46,000$ 15 Striping 1267 LF $3.00 3,900$ 16 Curb & gutter 2534 LF $35.00 88,700$ 17 Concrete sidewalk 12670 SF $7.50 95,100$ 18 ADA curb ramp 4EA $3,000.00 12,000$ 19 Driveway cut 37 EA $1,400.00 51,800$ 20 Misc Drainage Modifications 1 LS $45,000.00 45,000$ Section 2 Subtotal (LS): 467,100$ 21 Temporary traffic control 1 LS $48,100.00 48,100$ 22 Mobilization 1 LS 101,070.00$ 101,070$ CONTRACT ITEMS LESS MOBILIZATION (TO NEAREST 1,000) 1,010,700$ Planning Engineering (TE)102,000$ Contract Items 1,111,770$ Preliminary Engineering (Design/Survey)*167,000$ Other Costs (CON)167,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)38,000$ Contingency*167,000$ Environmental (Environmental, Real Property)31,000$ Subtotal (Contract Items)1,445,770$ R/W Engineering (Survey)30,000$ Subtotal (Plan) 102,000$ Real Property Labor 30,000$ Subtotal (PE) 236,000$ R/W Acquisition 29,575$ Subtotal (R/W)89,575$ Construction Engineering *167,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees -$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)594,575$ Grand Total 1,873,345$ * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)Current Year 2014 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items. ($20,000 min.)Escalation Year 2014 * CONTINGENCY is 15% of contract items. ($10,000 min.)Escalation Rate 0.0% TOTAL (in 2014 dollars)1,873,000$ Section 2: Hanlon Way to Canal Road (1267' length) Section 1: Willow Pass Road to Hanlon Way (1268' length) Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also click here if this is a bridge project. S:\P\2012\12127-004 Bay Point\Cost Estimate\Bay Point Cost Estimates 2-11-2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 194 Project 8: Loftus Road Safety Improvements September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 195 Resolution No. 2016/545 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on September 27, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2016/545 IN THE MATTER OF the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-18, adjusting the fees for the Bay Point Area of Benefit. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2016, to consider the adoption of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 2016-18, to adjust transportation mitigation fees imposed on new development in the Bay Point Area of Benefit; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at said hearing reestablished the boundaries of the Bay Point Area of Benefit, the costs of the proposed improvements, and the method of fee apportionment, as set forth in the August 2016, Development Program Report for the Bay Point Area of Benefit (“Development Program Report”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66484 requires a resolution incorporating a description of the area of benefit boundaries, costs, and method of fee apportionment to be recorded by the governing body conducting the hearing; and WHEREAS, the August 2016, “Nexus Study, Bay Point Area of Benefit” (“Nexus Study”), which is attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report, sets forth the nexus findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code. § 66000 et seq.); NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby: 1. ADOPTS the Development Program Report attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. 2. INCORPORATES herein by reference the following, which were established at the hearing described above: A. The boundaries of the Bay Point Area of Benefit, as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A to the Development Program Report, and as depicted in the map attached as Exhibit B to the Development Program Report. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 196 Resolution No. 2016/545 B. The estimated costs of the thoroughfare improvements to be funded with revenue from the Bay Point Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly set forth in Exhibit C to the Development Program Report; and C. The method of apportionment of the Bay Point Area of Benefit fees, as more particularly described in the Development Program Report, and in the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit D to the Development Program Report. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 197 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes198 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes199 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 200 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 201 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 202 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 203 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 204 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 205 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 206 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 207 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 208 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 209 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 210 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 211 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 212 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 213 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 214 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 215 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 216 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 217 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 218 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 219 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 220 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 221 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 222 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/539 abolishing outstanding performance pay steps for the classification of Director of Human Resources - Exempt (AGA2) effective October 17, 2016; 2. APPOINT Dianne Dinsmore to the position of Director of Human Resources - Exempt at Step 3 of the salary range effective October 17, 2016 with the following additional terms of employment: a. One-time accrual of 80 hours of vacation time. b. All other benefits as provided in the current Management Resolution applicable to the position of Director of Human Resources - Exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated annual County cost for the Director of Human Resources - Exempt position is $317,654 of which $50,712 is pension costs. The estimated cost for the eight and one half months remaining in fiscal year 2016/2017 is $225,005, of which $35,539 is pension cost. All costs are budgeted in the General Fund within the Human Resources Department operating budget. BACKGROUND: In May of 2016, the County commenced its third recruitment to fill the Director of Human Resources – Exempt position which has been vacant since May of 2014. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Allison Picard 925-335-1096 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor D.6 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR - EXEMPT - Dianne Dinsmore September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 223 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > The County contracted with Teri Black & Company (TBC), LLC to conduct the recruitment to fill the vacancy. On June 14, 2016, the recruitment for a new Director of Human Resources commenced. TBC advertised the position nationwide but with particular emphasis on the west coast region. Ads were placed with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), California Public Employers Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA), Western City Magazine, California City/County News, International Public Management Association (IPMA), Northern California Human Resources Association (NCHRA), Jobs Available and the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). Invitations and recruitment brochures were sent via traditional and electronic mail to nearly 300 potential candidates targeted by executive search firm. The five (5) week recruitment garnered 67 applications. With the assistance of TBC, the applications were screened and four (4) semi-finalists were forwarded to the County Selection Committee on August 19, 2016. The County Selection Committee was composed of Delores Turner, Director of Human Resources (Retired), East Bay Municipal Utility District; Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director, Contra Costa County; Allison Picard, Chief Assistant County Administrator, Contra Costa County; and Kathy Ito, President, KMI Human Resources Consulting, Inc. Following a series of interviews and reference checks, I selected Dianne Dinsmore for the position. Ms. Dinsmore holds a Bachelor’s Degree in French and Spanish from Mankato State University and a Master of Public Administration from Golden Gate University. She currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the City of Petaluma, after holding a number of posts for the County of Monterey including Human Resources Director, Heath Department; Chief Negotiator, Supervising Human Resources Analyst, and Senior Human Resources Analyst, County Administrator’s Office; and Associate Personnel Analyst, Planning and Building Department. Prior to working for the County of Monterey, Ms. Dinsmore served as a Personnel Analyst II for the County of Kern. Dianne is an active member of the Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM), California Public Employment and Labor Relations Association (CALPELRA) and International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR). As a human resources professional serving in numerous capacities, both in central support and operating departments, Ms. Dinsmore brings with her 16 years of experience in public human resources administrative and management positions . Diane looks to bring her highly regarded technical expertise, valued problem solving abilities, and strong organizational team orientation to Costa County’s Human Resources Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Director of Human Resources-Exempt position will remain vacant and the outstanding performance pay steps will not be eliminated. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/539 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/53 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 224 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/539 In The Matter Of: Abolishing outstanding performance pay steps for the classifications of Director of Human Resources – Exempt WHEREAS, the County Administrator’s Office and the Human Resources Department recognized a need to abolish the outstanding performance steps and convert the performance pay steps to merit pay steps for the classification of Director of Human Resources - Exempt; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors will be considering the appointment of a new Director of Human Resources - Exempt on September 27, 2016 to be effective on her start date of October 17, 2016, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County: ABOLISH outstanding performance steps for the classification of Director of Human Resources - Exempt (AGB1) in Resolution No. 94/575; 1. RESCIND Performance Pay Plan Resolution No. 94/575 as it is now unnecessary and obsolete; and2. CONVERT the performance steps to merit steps.3. Contact: Allison Picard 925-335-1096 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 225 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 226 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/522 adopting the FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget as finally determined, including: Final changes to close out the 2015/2016 County Budget, including changes to revenues, appropriations, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make the necessary changes in the financial accounting system, as reflected in Attachment A; a. Final changes in the 2016/2017 County Budget, including changes to appropriations, revenues, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and Auditor-Controller to make technical adjustments to the budgets pursuant to Attachment B (County - Schedule A, B, and C); b. Final changes to close out the 2015/2016 Special Districts Budget, including changes to revenues, appropriations, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make the necessary changes in the financial accounting system, as reflected in Attachment C; and c. Final changes in the 2016/2017 Special Districts Budget, including changes to appropriations, revenues, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and Auditor-Controller to make technical adjustments to the budgets pursuant to Attachment D (Special Districts - Schedule A, B, and C). d. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator, Laura Strobel, Senior Deputy County Administrator D.7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution No. 2016/522 Adoption of the FY 2016/17 Budget As Finally Determined September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 227 FISCAL IMPACT: As described in the background information below, this action adjusts FY 2015/16 appropriations and revenues to balance budgeted figures to actual experience; and for FY 2016/17, includes fund balances, reserves, designations and all estimated revenue and appropriation line item changes to correspond to the latest information. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted the FY 2016/17 Recommended Budget for Countywide Funds and Special Districts. Also on April 19, the Board of Supervisors conducted public hearings on County and Special District budgets and directed the County Administrator to prepare for Board adoption the FY 2016/17 County and Special District Budgets, as modified, to incorporate any changes directed by the Board during the public hearings. On May 10, 2016, the Board of Supervisors requested that the Auditor-Controller make adjustments to the FY 2015/2016 appropriations and revenues by reallocating and balancing budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues as needed for various budget units and special districts, subject to Board approval in September. This request is pursuant to state law that requires each budget unit and expenditure object level within those units not exceed appropriations. Each year, this requirement generates a substantial number of adjustments to balance each budget unit and object. Attachments A and C (County and Special Districts respectively) contain the necessary appropriation adjustments to close out the 2015/2016 Budget. Also on May 10, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Auditor-Controller to make technical adjustments to the FY 2016/2017 County and Special District Budgets when actual amounts were known. This action is pursuant to state law that requires the Board of Supervisors adopt a budget which includes obligated fund balances and all estimated revenue and appropriation line item changes to the proposed Budget no later than October 2 of each year. Attachments B and D (County and Special Districts respectively) include changes to revenues, appropriations, and obligated fund balances in the 2016/2017 Budget to correspond with the latest fiscal and legal information and the necessity to re-budget appropriations for programs not fully utilizing Board authorized spending levels in 2015/2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in Final Budget Adoption. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/522 Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/522 Attach A Signed Appropriations Attach C Signed Appropriations September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 228 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/522 In The Matter Of: Adopting the FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget as finally determined and Closing-out the FY 2015/16 Budget. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting in its capacity as the Governing Board of the County of Contra Costa and all districts of which it is the ex-officio governing Board RESOLVES THAT: The Board ADOPT final materials including: Final changes to close out the 2015/2016 County Budget, including changes to revenues, appropriations, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make the necessary changes in the financial accounting system, as reflected in Attachment A; 1. Final changes in the 2016/2017 County Budget, including designations and changes to appropriations, revenues, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and Auditor-Controller to make technical adjustments to the budgets pursuant to Attachment B (County - Schedule A, B, and C); 2. Final changes to close out the 2015/2016 Special Districts Budget, including changes to revenues, appropriations, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make the necessary changes in the financial accounting system, as reflected in Attachment C; and 3. Final changes in the 2016/2017 Special Districts Budget, including designations and changes to appropriations, revenues, and obligated fund balances; and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator and Auditor-Controller to make technical adjustments to the budgets pursuant to Attachment D (Special Districts - Schedule A, B, and C); 4. 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller, Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator, Laura Strobel, Senior Deputy County Administrator 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 229 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 230 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes231 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes232 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes233 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes234 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes235 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes236 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes237 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes238 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes239 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes240 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes241 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes242 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes243 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes244 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes245 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes246 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes247 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes248 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes249 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes250 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes251 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes252 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes253 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes254 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes255 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes256 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes257 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes258 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes259 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes260 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes261 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes262 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes263 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes264 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes265 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes266 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes267 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes268 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes269 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes270 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes271 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes272 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes273 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes274 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes275 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes276 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes277 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes278 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes279 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 280 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 281 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 282 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 283 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 284 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 285 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 286 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 287 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 288 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 289 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 290 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 291 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 292 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 293 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 294 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 295 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 296 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 297 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 298 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 299 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 300 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 301 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 302 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 303 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 304 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 305 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 306 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 307 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 308 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 309 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 310 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 311 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 312 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 313 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 314 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 315 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 316 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 317 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 318 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 319 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 320 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 321 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 322 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 323 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 324 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 325 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 326 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 327 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 328 DETAIL OF PROVISIONS FOR OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESOBLIGATEDTOTALFUND BALANCEOBLIGATEDAS OFCANCELLATIONSINCREASESFUND BALANCE FUND6/30/2016RECOMMENDADOPTRECOMMENDADOPTFOR BUDGET YEAR1003 NONSPENDABLE -INVENTORIES1,666,8951,666,8951003 ASSIGNED -EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT4,114,3894,114,3891003 NONSPENDABLE -DEPARTMENTAL PETTY CASH 306,195306,1951003 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXPENSE7,830,7997,830,7991003 ASSIGNED -LITIGATION & AUDIT EXCEPTIONS5,000,0005,000,000 5,000,00010,000,0001003 RESTRICTED - EBRCS INVESTMENTS2,232,7572,232,7571003 ASSIGNED -GENERAL FUND CAPITAL RESERVE45,294,06014,097,327 14,097,32759,391,3871003 ASSIGNED -GENERAL FUND RESERVE148,038,67741,900,208 41,900,208189,938,885 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND214,483,77200 60,997,535 60,997,535275,481,3071041 ASSIGNED - CO SERVICE AREA REV RESERVE 100,000100,0001104 ASSIGNED -EQUIP REPL (CRIMINALISTICS LAB)14,29914,2991108 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (ROAD)3,5863,5861108 ASSIGNED -EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (ROAD)5,885,8415,885,8411111 ASSIGNED - PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND 3,845,891355,369 355,3693,490,5221111 NONSPENDABLE -ADVANCE (PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND)263,700263,7001113 ASSIGNED -AFFORDABLE HOUSING9,097,393430,632430,6329,528,0251115 ASSIGNED -TOSCO/SOLANO TRANS MITIGATION 5,273,43321,40921,4095,252,0241116 NONSPENDABLE- PREPAID EXP (CHILD DEVLPMT)290,880290,8801120 ASSIGNED -DEPT CONSERVATION & DEVLPMNT11,470,3865,541,313 5,541,31317,011,6991120 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (DCD)464,736464,7361120 ASSIGNED -EQUIP REPL (DCD)472,349472,3491126 ASSIGNED -DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROG84,02784,0271127 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (ZERO TOLERANCE)2,5392,5391129 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (DA REV NARCOTICS)19,32419,3241131 NONSPENDABLE -PETTY CASH (DA FORFEITURE-FED)3,5003,5001134 ASSIGNED -EQUIP REPLACEMENT (DCSS)66,03366,0331134 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXPENSE (DCSS)365,288365,2881146 ASSIGNED -PROP 6348,378,276 2,421,841 2,421,84145,956,4351150 ASSIGNED -AUTOMATED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT3,637,682176,433 176,4333,461,2491153 ASSIGNED -CTY LOCAL REV FUND 201136,401,48925,517,984 25,517,98461,919,4731155 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (IHSS PUBLIC AUTH)2,2532,2531157 ASSIGNED - COMM CORR PRFMC INCNTV RSRV7,275,7371,826,683 1,826,6839,102,420SCHEDULE ACONTRA COSTA COUNTYFOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGETSSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes329 DETAIL OF PROVISIONS FOR OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESOBLIGATEDTOTALFUND BALANCEOBLIGATEDAS OFCANCELLATIONSINCREASESFUND BALANCE FUND6/30/2016RECOMMENDADOPTRECOMMENDADOPTFOR BUDGET YEARSCHEDULE ACONTRA COSTA COUNTYFOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGETS1159 RESTRICTED - L/M HSG ASSET FD-LMIHAF16,815,706272,618272,61817,088,3241206 ASSIGNED -LIBRARY AUTOMATION 3,365,004250,000250,0003,615,0041206 ASSIGNED -LIBRARY FACILITIES2,703,003450,000450,0003,153,0031206 ASSIGNED -LIBRARY BRANCH OPERATIONS5,605,934645,821645,8216,251,7551206 ASSIGNED -EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (LIBRARY)134,921134,9211206 NONSPENDABLE -PETTY CASH (LIBRARY)2,7102,7101206 NONSPENDABLE -PREPAID EXP (LIBRARY)195,093195,0931231 ASSIGNED -HERCUL/RODEO/CROCK AREA OF BENEFIT42,90042,90042,90001232 ASSIGNED -WEST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT75,69114,30014,30061,3911234 ASSIGNED -NORTH RICHMOND AOB1,153,37835,64535,6451,117,7331240 ASSIGNED -MARTINEZ AREA OF BENEFIT2,519,678546,959 546,9591,972,7191241 ASSIGNED -BRIONES AREA OF BENEFIT510,99017,35417,354493,6361242 ASSIGNED -CENTRAL COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT2,774,2831,4861,4862,775,7691243 ASSIGNED -SO WC AREA OF BENEFIT163,845110,351110,351274,1961260 ASSIGNED -ALAMO AREA OF BENEFIT0417,797417,797417,7971270 ASSIGNED -SOUTH COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT3,032,19029,04329,0433,003,1471282 ASSIGNED -EAST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT3,594,7192,0252,0253,596,7441290 ASSIGNED -BETHEL ISLAND AREA OF BENEFIT344,1127,3267,326336,7861337 ASSIGNED -LIVABLE COMMUNITIES5,488,0161,760,527 1,760,5277,248,5431390 ASSIGNED -ROAD DEVLPMNT DISCOVERY BAY1,641,659504,463504,4632,146,1221392 ASSIGNED -ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEE18,273,4872,476,467 2,476,46720,749,9541394 ASSIGNED -ROAD DEVLPMNT RICH/EL SOBRANTE345,65797,60597,605248,0521395 ASSIGNED -ROAD DEVLPMNT BAY POINT AREA753,68958,16558,165695,5241399 ASSIGNED -ROAD DEVLPMNT PACHECO AREA386,06150,18050,180436,241 TOTAL GENERAL COUNTY FUNDS417,825,140 3,824,349 3,824,349 101,255,882 101,255,882515,256,674September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes330 FUND BALANCEPER AUDITORAS OFFUND BALANCEFUND6/30/2016 ENCUMBRANCESASSIGNED AVAILABLE1003 GENERAL369,773,768 51,203,563 12,036,646 263,444,66143,088,8981041 COUNTY SERVICE AREA ADVANCES100,000100,00001056 LAW ENFORCEMENT - EQUIP REPLACE2,331,5992,331,5991100 RECORDER MODERNIZATION8,865,95816,5038,849,4551101 COURT/CLERK AUTOMATION78781102 FISH & GAME334,602334,6021104 CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY143,64114,299129,3421105 SURVEY MONUMENT PRESERVATION633,090633,0901106 CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCTION001107 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION001108 ROAD5,180,574124,8763,5865,885,841(833,730)1109 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT3,3653,3651110 SAN CRAINTE DRAINAGE259,841259,8411111 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND3,754,222263,7003,490,52201113 AFFORDABLE HOUSING9,528,0259,528,02501114 NAVY TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION5,555,2645,555,2641115 TOSCO/SOLANO TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION5,279,0245,252,02427,0001116 CHILD DEVELOPMENT592,6178,173290,880293,5651118 HUD NSP174,042174,0421120 CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT18,206,327257,543464,73617,484,04801121 CDD/PWD JOINT REVIEW FEE654,671654,6711122 DRAINAGE DEFICIENCY2,269,0162,269,0161123 PUBLIC WORKS TRUST2,218,5962,218,5961124 D.A. CONSUMER PROTECTION4,378,3653,8404,374,5251125 DOM. VIOLENCE VICTIM ASSIST.25,95325,9531126 DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROG.281,26284,027197,2351127 ZERO TOLERANCE-DOM VIOLENCE347,0132,539344,4741129 D.A. REVENUE NARCOTICS403,71119,324384,3871130 D.A. ENVIRON/OSHA2,182,0233,8402,178,1831131 D.A. FORFEITURE-FED-DOJ217,0366,8983,500206,6381132 WALDEN GREEN MAINTENANCE339,063339,0631133 R/ESTATE FRAUD PROSECUTE530,634530,6341134 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES438,302365,28866,0336,981NONSPENDABLE, RESTRICTED & COMMITTEDSCHEDULE BCONTRA COSTA COUNTYFUND BALANCE AVAILABLELESS: OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes331 FUND BALANCEPER AUDITORAS OFFUND BALANCEFUND6/30/2016 ENCUMBRANCESASSIGNED AVAILABLENONSPENDABLE, RESTRICTED & COMMITTEDSCHEDULE BCONTRA COSTA COUNTYFUND BALANCE AVAILABLELESS: OBLIGATED FUND BALANCES1135 EMERGENCY MED SVCS FUND422,846422,8461137 HLT SVC - CHIP/AB75 TOBACCO 50501139 TRAFFIC SAFETY345,817345,8171140 PUB PROTECT-SPEC REV FND 2,426,6482,426,6481141 SHERIFF NARCOTICS FORFEIT-ST/LOCAL 182,032182,0321142 SHERIFF NARCOTICS FORFEIT-FEDERAL 496,406496,4061143 SUP LAW ENFORCEMENT SVCS 721,592721,5921145 SHERIFF FORFEIT-FEDERAL DEPT OF TREASURY 222,660222,6601146 PROP 63 MH SVCS ACT45,956,43545,956,435 01147 PRISONERS WELFARE FUND1,653,3911,653,3911149 PROBATION OFFICERS SPEC219,610219,6101150 AUTOMATED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 3,646,2493,461,249 185,0001151 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN PROGRAM 2,945,0122,945,0121153 CTY LOCAL REV FUND 201155,095,88561,919,473 (6,823,588)1154 OBSCENE MATTER-MINORS1801801155 IHSS PUBLIC AUTHORITY99,8842,25397,6311156 DNA IDENTIFICATION268,931268,9311157 COMM CORR PRFMC INCNTV FD 8,983,1419,102,420 (119,279)1158 NO RICH WST&RCVY MTGN FD297,871297,8711159 L/M HSG ASSET FD-LMIHAF17,088,32417,088,32401160 BAILEY RD MNTC SURCHARGE 1,820,8281,820,8281161 HOME INVSTMT PRTNRSHP ACT1151151206 LIBRARY20,373,035 843,365 197,80313,154,6836,177,1841207 CASEY LIBRARY GIFT TRUST253,798253,7981231 HERCUL/RODEO/CROCK AREA OF BENEFIT45,000045,0001232 WEST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT76,39161,39115,0001234 NORTH RICHMOND AREA OF BENEFIT1,152,2331,117,73334,5001240 MARTINEZ AREA OF BENEFIT2,503,2191,972,719530,5001241 BRIONES AREA OF BENEFIT511,336493,63617,7001242 CENTRAL COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT2,775,7692,775,76901243 SOUTH WALNUT CREEK AREA OF BENEFIT274,196274,19601260 ALAMO AREA OF BENEFIT417,797417,79701270 SOUTH COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT3,303,6473,003,147300,5001282 EAST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT3,596,7443,596,7440September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes332 FUND BALANCEPER AUDITORAS OFFUND BALANCEFUND6/30/2016 ENCUMBRANCESASSIGNED AVAILABLENONSPENDABLE, RESTRICTED & COMMITTEDSCHEDULE BCONTRA COSTA COUNTYFUND BALANCE AVAILABLELESS: OBLIGATED FUND BALANCES1290 BETHEL ISLAND AREA OF BENEFIT345,286336,7868,5001328 COUNTY CHILDRENS218,673218,6731332 ANIMAL BENEFIT904,427904,4271334 CO-WIDE GANG & DRUG 1,208,2681,208,2681337 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES FUND7,248,5437,248,54301349 HUD BLDG INSP NPP123,476123,4761350 RETIREMENT UAAL BOND FUND3,084,1233,084,1231354 FAMILY LAW CTR DEBT SVC2,129,1422,129,1421360 CENTRAL IDENTIFY BUREAU2,700,6302,700,6301388 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY3,680,7833,680,7831390 ROAD DEVELOPMENT DISCOVERY BAY2,146,1222,146,12201392 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEE22,800,95420,749,9542,051,0001394 ROAD DEVELOPMENT RICHMOND/EL SOBRANTE338,052248,05290,0001395 ROAD DEVELOPMENT BAY POINT AREA756,924695,52461,4001399 ROAD DEVELOPMENT PACHECO AREA444,641436,2418,400 TOTAL GENERAL COUNTY FUNDS671,308,79852,468,60030,738,579484,518,094103,583,524September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes333 2016-2017 2016-2017RECOMMENDED FINALFINALBUDGETBUDGET YEAR-ENDFUNDFUNDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCEBALANCECHANGEAMOUNTB/U ACCT1003 GENERAL FUND(2,500,001) (2,500,001) 43,088,898 45,588,8997,984 0001-2479222,490 0001-3580230,000 0003-23105,438,483 0003-24791,000,000 0003-2313180,000 0004-24791,879,452 0007-247950,000 0010-247922,000 0015-213120,000 0015-213210,000 0015-228425,000 0015-231050,000 0025-2132220,000 0025-23101,544,444 0025-2479600,000 0030-2479110,108 0038-24791,203,298 0043-2479100,000 0043-2132861,797 0043-4951268,500 0080-22841,182,862 0085-447048,558 0111-4265400,568 0111-4106990,000 0111-443730,000 0111-418425,697 0111-44181,644,780 0111-4470100,000 0135-3580149,828 0135-36112,858,552 0145-231012,873,526 0145-2479116,870 0202-35806,700,000 0235-2310LINE ITEMCHANGESSCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-17 FINAL BUDGETRECOMMENDEDSeptember 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes334 2016-2017 2016-2017RECOMMENDED FINALFINALBUDGETBUDGET YEAR-ENDFUNDFUNDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCEBALANCECHANGEAMOUNTB/U ACCTLINE ITEMCHANGESSCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-17 FINAL BUDGETRECOMMENDED400,000 0248-2313260,000 0255-2479961,849 0265-2479159,529 0308-231042,000 0335-2281156,315 0355-2479259,000 0362-2479806,828 0452-2479123,910 0501-213250,000 0579-2479594,683 0580-2479253,807 0590-2479100,000 0591-2310256,181 0650-24791056 CO LAW ENF CMPTR CAP PROJ1,320,356 1,320,356 2,331,599 1,011,2434,347 0126-5011897,275 0129-5011109,621 0131-50111100 RECORDER MODERNIZATION7,376,516 7,376,516 8,849,455 1,472,939 1,472,939 0353-24791101 COURT/CLERK AUTOMATION0787878 0236-24791102 FISH & GAME00334,602 334,602 334,602 0367-24791104 CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY116,741116,741129,34212,601 12,601 0256-24791105 SURVEY MONUMENT PRESERVATION557,985557,985633,09075,105 75,105 0161-24791106 CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSTRUCTION(614,100) (614,100)0 614,100 614,100 0119-50161107 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION(753,800) (753,800)0 753,800 753,800 0122-36191108 ROAD00 (833,730) (833,730) (833,730) 0662-24791109 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT003,3653,3653,365 0663-36111110 SANS CRAINTE DRAINAGE0259,841 259,841 259,841 0120-50111114 NAVY TRANS MITIGATION5,569,819 5,569,819 5,555,264(14,555) (14,555) 0697-50111115 TOSCO/SOLANO TRANS MTGTN027,00027,000 27,000 0699-50111116 CHILD DEVELOPMENT0293,565 293,565 293,565 0589-36111118 HUD NSP0174,042 174,042 174,042 0380-50111121 CDD/PWD JOINT REVIEW FEE656,285656,285654,671(1,614) (1,614) 0350-50111122 DRAINAGE DEFICIENCY0 2,269,016 2,269,016 2,269,016 0648-2479September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes335 2016-2017 2016-2017RECOMMENDED FINALFINALBUDGETBUDGET YEAR-ENDFUNDFUNDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCEBALANCECHANGEAMOUNTB/U ACCTLINE ITEMCHANGESSCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-17 FINAL BUDGETRECOMMENDED1123 PUBLIC WORKS TRUST1,764,826 1,764,826 2,218,596 453,770 453,770 0649-50111124 DA CONSUMER PROTECTION4,474,404 4,474,404 4,374,525(99,879) (99,879) 0247-24791125 DOM. VIOLENCE VICTIM ASSIST025,95325,953 25,953 0585-24791126 DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM0197,235 197,235 197,235 0246-24791127 ZERO TOLERANCE-DOM VIOLENCE0344,474 344,474 344,474 0586-24791129 D.A. REVENUE NARCOTICS248,433248,433384,387 135,954 135,954 0244-36261130 D.A. ENVIRON/OSHA2,349,712 2,349,712 2,178,183 (171,529) (171,529) 0251-24791131 D.A. FORFEITURE-FED-DOJ226,792226,792206,638(20,154) (20,154) 0234-24791132 PH BART GREENSPACE MTCE0339,063 339,063 339,063 0664-50111133 RE FRAUD PROSECUTE150,000150,000530,634 380,634 380,634 0233-50111134 CCC DEPT CHILD SUPPORT SVCS06,9816,9816,981 0249-10111135 EMERGENCY MED SVCS FUND0422,846 422,846 422,846 0471-36111137 HLTH SVC-CHIP/AB75 TOBACCO 0505050 0468-23101139 TRAFFIC SAFETY370,291370,291345,817(24,474) (24,474) 0368-24791140 PUBLIC PROTECTION-SPEC, REV2,437,024 2,437,024 2,426,648(10,376) (10,376) 0260-24791141 SHER NARC FORFEIT-ST/LOCAL164,102164,102182,03217,930 17,930 0253-50111142 SHER NARC FORFEIT-FEDERAL476,836476,836496,40619,570 19,570 0252-50111143 SUP LAW ENFORCEMENT SVCS0721,592 721,592(2,337) 0241-5011(30,041) 0262-50111,695 0263-5011752,275 0311-50111145 SHERIFF FORFEIT-FED TREASURY194,262194,262222,66028,398 28,398 0268-50111147 PRISONERS WELFARE FUND257,205257,205 1,653,391 1,396,186 1,396,186 0273-24791149 PROBATION OFFICERS SPEC199,308199,308219,61020,302 20,302 0313-24791150 AUTOMATED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT185,000185,000185,000(0)1151 PROPERTY TAX ADMIN PROGRAM2,926,780 2,926,780 2,945,01218,232 18,232 0017-50161153 CTY LOCAL REV FUND 2011(6,823,588) (6,823,588) (6,823,588)01154 OBSCENE MATTER-MINORS 0180180180 0254-50111155 IHSS PUBLIC AUTHORITY097,63197,631 97,631 0508-50111156 DNA IDENTIFICATION FUND0268,931 268,931 268,931 0275-50111157 COMM CORR PRFMC INCNTV FD(119,279) (119,279) (119,279)(0)1158 NO RICH WST&RCVY MTGN FD0297,871 297,871 297,871 0478-50111160 BAILEY RD MNTC SURCHARGE1,191,964 1,191,964 1,820,828 628,864 628,864 0660-36111161 HOME INVSTMT PRTNRSHP ACT0115115115 0561-2479September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes336 2016-2017 2016-2017RECOMMENDED FINALFINALBUDGETBUDGET YEAR-ENDFUNDFUNDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCEBALANCECHANGEAMOUNTB/U ACCTLINE ITEMCHANGESSCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-17 FINAL BUDGETRECOMMENDED1206 LIBRARY0 6,177,184 6,177,184 200,000 0620-10112,879,539 0620-2479638,000 0620-3620350,000 0620-4951918,307 0621-1011768,098 0621-2479321,000 0621-3620102,240 0621-49511207 CASEY LIBRARY GIFT TRUST0 253,798 253,798 253,798 0622-36111231 HERCUL/RODEO/CROCK AREA OF BEN17,10017,10045,00027,900 27,900 0631-50111232 WEST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT15,00015,00015,00001234 NORTH RICHMOND AREA OF BENEFIT34,50034,50034,50001240 MARTINEZ AREA OF BENEFIT530,500530,500530,50001241 BRIONES AREA OF BENEFIT17,70017,70017,70001260 ALAMO AREA OF BENEFIT(99,800) (99,800)099,800 99,800 0641-50111270 SOUTH CO AREA OF BENEFIT300,500300,500300,50001282 EAST COUNTY AREA OF BENEFIT(369,000) (369,000)0 369,000 369,000 0645-50111290 BETHEL ISL AREA OF BENEFIT8,5008,5008,50000 0653-50111328 COUNTY CHILDRENS0218,673 218,673 218,673 0505-36111332 ANIMAL BENEFIT0904,427 904,427 904,427 0369-50111334 CO-WIDE GANG & DRUG 1,246,271 1,246,271 1,208,268(38,003) (38,003) 0271-24791349 HUD BLDG INSP NPP0123,476 123,476 123,476 0597-36111350 RETIREMENT UAAL BOND FUND0 3,084,123 3,084,123 3,084,123 0791-35101354 FAMILY LAW CTR DEBT SVC0 2,129,142 2,129,142 2,129,142 0794-24791360 CENTRAL IDENTIFY BUREAU2,796,436 2,796,436 2,700,630(95,806) (95,806) 0270-50111388 SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT OF WAY3,891,968 3,891,968 3,680,783 (211,185) (211,185) 0678-24791390 ROAD DEVELOPMENT DISCOVERY BAY(200,200) (200,200)0 200,200 200,200 0680-50111392 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEE2,051,000 2,051,000 2,051,00001394 RD DEVELOPMENT RICH/EL SOBRANTE90,00090,00090,00001395 RD DEVELOPMENT BAY POINT61,40061,40061,40001399 ROAD DEVELOPMENT PACHECO AREA8,4008,4008,4000 TOTAL GENERAL COUNTY FUNDS32,804,148 32,804,148 103,583,524 70,779,376 70,779,376September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes337 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes338 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes339 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes340 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes341 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes342 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes343 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes344 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes345 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes346 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes347 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes348 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes349 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes350 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes351 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes352 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes353 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes354 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes355 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes356 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 357 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 358 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 359 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 360 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 361 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 362 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 363 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 364 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 365 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 366 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 367 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 368 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 369 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 370 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 371 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 372 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 373 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 374 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 375 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 376 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 377 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 378 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 379 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 380 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 381 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 382 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 383 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 384 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 385 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 386 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 387 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 388 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 389 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 390 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 391 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 392 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 393 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 394 SCHEDULE ADETAIL OF PROVISIONS FOR OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESFOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGETSCounty Special DistrictsOBLIGATEDAMOUNT MADE AVAILABLEINC. OR NEW OBLIG. FUND BALTOTALFUNDFUND BALBY CANCELLATIONTO BE PROVIDEDOBLIGATEDDESCRIPTION - PURPOSEBALANCEFUND BALAS OFFOR6/30/2016RECOMMENDEDADOPTEDRECOMMENDEDADOPTEDBUDGET YEARPUBLIC PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTIONCCC FIRE DISTRICT CONSOLIDATED202000NONSPENDABLE-PETTY CASH500500202000ASSIGNED-GENERAL FUND RESERVE17,548,7462,593,5682,593,56820,142,314202000NONSPENDABLE-INVENTORIES704,333704,333202000NONSPENDABLE-PREPAID EXPENSE1,215,8061,215,806TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION19,469,385002,593,5682,593,56822,062,953FLOOD CONTROLCCC FLOOD CTL WTR CONS250500ASSIGNED-EQUIP REPLACEMENT736,581736,581250500NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS3,013,5003,013,500FLOOD CONTROL ZONE 3B252000NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS2,404,4852,404,485FLOOD CNTL Z 1 MARSH CR252100NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS70,00070,000FLD CONTROL DRAINAGE 33A253500NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS108,000108,000FLD CNTRL DRNG AREA 67253900NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS70,00070,000FLOOD CONTROL DRNG 10255400NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS225,000225,000FLOOD CONTROL DRNG 29C255500NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS77,00077,000FLOOD CTL DRAINAGE 15A255900NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS25,00025,000FLD CONTROL DRNG 910256000NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS30,00030,000FLD CNTRL DRNG AREA 56256600NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS879,000879,000FLOOD CONTROL DRNG 55September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes395 SCHEDULE ADETAIL OF PROVISIONS FOR OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESFOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGETSCounty Special DistrictsOBLIGATEDAMOUNT MADE AVAILABLEINC. OR NEW OBLIG. FUND BALTOTALFUNDFUND BALBY CANCELLATIONTO BE PROVIDEDOBLIGATEDDESCRIPTION - PURPOSEBALANCEFUND BALAS OFFOR6/30/2016RECOMMENDEDADOPTEDRECOMMENDEDADOPTEDBUDGET YEAR257900NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS125,000125,000FLD CNTRL DRNGE 1010258000NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS106,000106,000FLD CNTRL DRNG 101A258100NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS96,00096,000FLOOD CONTROL DRAINAGE 16258300NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS155,000155,000FLOOD CONTROL DRNG 22258800NONSPENDABLE-ADV TO OTHER FUNDS80,00080,000TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL8,200,56600008,200,566SERVICE AREA POLICEP-6 CENTRAL ADMIN BASE262900ASSIGNED-EQUIP REPLACEMENT23,94523,945SERV AREA P-2 ZONE A265300ASSIGNED-EQUIP REPLACEMENT56,28856,288POLICE AREA 5 RND HILL265500ASSIGNED-GENERAL RESERVE179,900179,900265500ASSIGNED-EQUIP REPLACEMENT13,57113,571SERV AREA P-2 ZONE B265700NONSPENDABLE-PREPAID EXPENSE7,6257,625265700ASSIGNED-EQUIP REPLACEMENT27,83227,832TOTAL SERVICE AREA POLICE309,1610000309,161TOTAL PUBLIC PROTECTION27,979,112002,593,5682,593,56830,572,680HEALTH AND SANITATION EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICESSERV AREA EM-1 ZONE B240600NONSPENDABLE-PREPAID EXPENSE19,30319,303TOTAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SRVCES19,303000019,303September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes396 SCHEDULE ADETAIL OF PROVISIONS FOR OBLIGATED FUND BALANCESFOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGETSCounty Special DistrictsOBLIGATEDAMOUNT MADE AVAILABLEINC. OR NEW OBLIG. FUND BALTOTALFUNDFUND BALBY CANCELLATIONTO BE PROVIDEDOBLIGATEDDESCRIPTION - PURPOSEBALANCEFUND BALAS OFFOR6/30/2016RECOMMENDEDADOPTEDRECOMMENDEDADOPTEDBUDGET YEARTOTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION19,3030 000 19,303PUBLIC WAYS & FACILITIESSERVICE AREA MISCELLANEOUSSERV AREA M-17 MONTALVIN248900NONSPENDABLE-PETTY CASH5,0005,000TOTAL SERVICE AREA MISCELLANEOUS5,00000005,000TOTAL PUBLIC WAYS & FACILITIES5,0000 000 5,000SERVICE AREA RECREATIONSERV AREA R-7 ZONE A275800NONSPENDABLE-PETTY CASH5,0005,000SERV AREA R-10 RODEO276000NONSPENDABLE-PETTY CASH3,0003,000TOTAL SERVICE AREA RECREATION8,00000008,000TOTAL RECREATION & CULTURAL SVC8,0000 000 8,000TOTAL OBLIGATED FUND BALANCES28,011,415002,593,5682,593,56830,604,983September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes397 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailablePUBLIC PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION2020007300 CCCFPD-Consolidated Fire25,431,843973,1321,920,63920,142,3142,395,7572022007022 CCCFPD POB Debt Svc Fund11,270,02811,270,0282024007024 CCCFPD POB Stabilization Fund9,161,5949,161,5942028007028 Crockett-Carquinez Fire Dist468,637468,6372031007031 CCCFPD-Cap Outlay-Consolidated2,972,520200,1792,772,3402033007033 CCCFPD Developer Fee8948942034007034 Riverview Fire Developer Fee33,7237,46726,2562035007035 CCCFPD Fire Prevention-Consolidated2142142036007036 CCCFPD New Devlpmt Pmt Fee FD178,34249,572128,7692038007038 CCCFPD Pittsburg Special863,456863,4562040007040 CCCFPD EMS Transport Fund286,944286,944TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION50,668,1941,230,3511,920,63920,142,31427,374,890FLOOD CONTROL2505007505 Flood Control & Wtr Conserv8,045,922186,4243,013,500736,5814,109,4172520007520 Flood Control Zone #3B25,292,9452,404,48522,888,4602521007521 Flood Control Zone #11,007,47270,000937,4722522007522 Flood Control Zone #25645642526007526 Flood Control Zone #6A17,90917,9092527007527 Flood Control Zone #7799,522799,5222530007530 Flood Control Zone #8114,769114,7692531007531 Flood Control Zone #8A344,170344,1702532007532 Flood Control Zone #9112,927112,9272534007534 Flood Control Drainage 37A9,8279,8272535007535 Flood Control Drainage 33A201,423108,00093,4232536007536 Flood Control Drainage 75A325,506325,5062537007537 Flood Control Drainage 128151,948151,9482538007538 Flood Control Drainage 5744,45544,4552539007539 Flood Control Drainage 6797,03670,00027,0362540007540 Flood Control Drainage 19A35,48035,4802541007541 Flood Control Drainage 33B8,5478,5472542007542 Flood Control Drainage 76280,585280,5852543007543 Flood Control Drainage 62104,532104,5322544007544 Flood Control Drainage 7225,83125,8312545007545 Flood Control Drainage 789,2309,2302546007546 Flood Control Drainage 30B352,792352,7922547007547 Flood Control Drainage 44B322,926322,9262548007548 Flood Control Drainage 29E28,02528,0252549007549 Flood Control Drainage 52B33,67433,6742550007550 Flood Control Drainage 29019,24019,2402551007551 Flood Control Drainage 30064,56564,565September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes398 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableFLOOD CONTROL CONT.2552007552 Flood Control Drainage 13A3,683,5623,683,5622553007553 Flood Control Drainage 52A458,201458,2012554007554 Flood Control Drainage 103,608,725225,0003,383,7252555007555 Flood Control Drainage 29C267,64677,000190,6462556007556 Flood Control Drainage 29D217,324217,3242557007557 Flood Control Drainage 30A92,60792,6072558007558 Flood Control Drainage 30C1,922,7521,922,7522559007559 Flood Control Drainage 15A144,71025,000119,7102560007560 Flood Control Drainage 910222,95730,000192,9572561007561 Flood Control Drainage 33C4744742562007562 Flood Control Drainage 130626,891626,8912563007563 Flood Control Drainage 1275,1545,1542565007565 Flood Control Drainage 40A361,719361,7192566007566 Flood Control Drainage 568,028,440879,0007,149,4402567007567 Flood Control Drainage 73222,844222,8442568007568 Flood Control Drainage 29G71,45171,4512569007569 Flood Control Drainage 29H19,53619,5362570007570 Flood Control Drainage 29J8,1378,1372571007571 Flood Control Drainage 52C2,000,2112,000,2112572007572 Flood Control Drainage 48C540,991540,9912573007573 Flood Control Drainage 48D16,49216,4922574007574 Flood Control Drainage 48B459,747459,7472575007575 Flood Control Drainage 67A298,541298,5412576007576 Flood Control Drainage 76A194,236194,2362577007577 Flood Control Drainage 52098,10398,1032578007578 Flood Control Drainage 461,201,78801,201,7882579007579 Flood Control Drainage 552,289,172750,000125,0001,414,1722580007580 Flood Control Drainage 1010898,911106,000792,9112581007581 Flood Control Drainage 101A898,10596,000802,1052582007582 Flood Control Drainage 1010A255,714255,7142583007583 Flood Control Drainage 161,185,157155,0001,030,1572584007584 Flood Control Drainage 52D18,43918,4392585007585 Flood Control Drainage 8732,92632,9262586007586 Flood Control Drainage 8822,13622,1362587007587 Flood Control Drainage 8919,74019,7402588007588 Flood Control Drainage 22194,76580,000114,7652595007595 Flood Control Drainage 1096,3656,3652597007597 Flood Control Drainage 47145,701145,701TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL68,592,188936,4247,463,985736,58159,455,197September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes399 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableSTORM DRAINAGE DISTRICTS2594007594 Storm Drainage Zone #191,8591,859TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE DISTRICTS1,8590001,859STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICTS2484007484 CCC CFD 2007-1 Stormwater24,88224,8822501007501 Stormwater Util A-1 Ant 114,173114,1732502007502 Stormwater Util A-2 Clyn9,1459,1452503007503 Stormwater Util A-3 Conc73,71273,7122504007504 Stormwater Util A-4 Danv23,21123,2112507007507 Stormwater Util A-7 Laf20,49520,4952508007508 Stormwater Util A-8 Mrtz25,51425,5142509007509 Stormwater Util A-9 Mrga25,55325,5532510007510 Stormwater Util A-10 Orin24,23724,2372511007511 Stormwater Util A-11 Pinl38,20438,2042512007512 Stormwater Util A-12 Pitt89,29389,2932513007513 Stormwater Util A-13 Pl H21,81921,8192514007514 Stormwater Util A-14 S Pb40,53840,5382515007515 Stormwater Util A-15 S Rm36,15436,1542516007516 Stormwater Util A-16 W Ck21,60621,6062517007517 Stormwater Util A-17 Co293,484293,4842518007518 Stormwater Util A-18 Okly25,88825,8882519007519 Stormwater Util Admin3,067,53016,1553,051,3762523007523 Stormwater Util A-19 Rich80,37380,3732525007525 Stormwater Util A-5 El C47,63647,6362533007533 Stormwater Util A-20 Brnt138,591138,5912524007596 Stormwater Util A-6 Herc39,39239,392TOTAL STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICTS4,281,43216,155004,265,277SERVICE AREA-POLICE2603007603 Area P-6 Zone 5021,0001,0002605007605 Area P-6 Zone 15085,8015,8012606007606 Area P-6 Zone 16141,5061,5062607007607 Area P-6 Zone 18047007002608007608 Area P-6 Zone 22017007002609007609 Area P-6 Zone 5011,0001,0002610007610 Area P-6 Zone 16137007002611007611 Area P-6 Zone 22007007002612007612 Area P-6 Zone 25021,5061,5062613007613 Area P-6 Zone 28017007002614007614 Area P-6 Zone 1609700700261500 7615 Area P-6 Zone 16101,5651,5652616007616 Area P-6 Zone 1611700700September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes400 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T.2617007617 Area P-6 Zone 16127007002618007618 Area P-6 Zone 25017007002619007619 Area P-6 Zone 28007007002620007620 Area P-6 Zone 15141581582621007621 Area P-6 Zone 11017007002622007622 Area P-6 Zone 18037007002623007623 Area P-6 Zone 17001,0001,0002625007625 Area P-6 Zone 29039299292624007624 Area P-6 Zone 20002,1012,1012626007626 Area P-6 Zone 15051,9421,9422627007627 Area P-6 Zone 15067007002628007628 Area P-6 Zone 10017007002629007629 P-6 Central Admin Base8,849,62123,9458,825,6762630007630 Area P-6 Zone 16071,9421,9422631007631 Area P-6 Zone 15047007002632007632 Area P-6 Zone 27022,0912,0912633007633 Area P-6 Zone 16061,2281,2282634007634 Area P-6 Zone 16057007002636007636 Area P-6 Zone 15039559552637007637 Area P-6 Zone 4001,2521,2522638007638 Area P-6 Zone 7027007002639007639 Area P-6 Zone 15021,4091,4092640007640 Area P-6 Zone 31007007002641007641 Area P-6 Zone 25002,3162,3162642007642 Area P-6 Zone 7011,0941,0942643007643 Area P-6 Zone 2027007002644007644 Area P-6 Zone 15017007002645007645 Area P-6 Zone 16041,4451,4452646007646 Area P-6 Zone 18011,4451,4452647007647 Area P-6 Zone 29017007002648007648 Area P-6 Zone 16037007002649007649 Area P-6 Zone 12007007002650007650 Police SVC-Crockett Cogen826,4170826,4172652007652 Police Area 2 Danville6,8246,8242653007653 Area P-2 Zone A, Blackhawk762,670056,288706,3822654007654 Area P-6 Zone 29021,5731,5732655007655 Area P-5, Roundhill Area207,274193,47113,8022656007656 Service Area PL62,320,4832,320,4832657007657 Area P-2 Zone B, Alamo210,99311,1077,62527,832164,4292658007658 Area P-6 Zone 2067007002659007659 Area P-6 Zone 2077007002661007661 Area P-6 Zone 2007007002671007671 Area P-6 Zone 2092,2502,250September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes401 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T.2672007372 Area P-6 Zone 2112,4972,4972673007673 Area P-6 Zone 10057007002674007674 Area P-6 Zone 2011,0001,0002675007675 Area P-6 Zone 27001,4721,4722680007680 Area P-6 Zone 7001,1291,1292681007681 Area P-6 Zone 11007007002682007682 Area P-6 Zone 16001,4721,4722683007683 Area P-6 Zone 26011,4611,4612684007684 Area P-6 Zone 5001,0001,0002685007685 Area P-6 Zone 10007007002687007687 Area P-6 Zone 29007007002688007688 Area P-6 Zone 10067007002689007689 Area P-6 Zone 16011,5021,5022690007690 Area P-6 Zone 23001,4611,4612693007693 Area P-6 Zone 16027007002694007694 Area P-6 Zone 18007007002695007695 Area P-6 Zone 26001,4681,4682696007696 Area P-6 Zone 27011,3701,3702697007697 Area P-6 Zone 15003073072699007699 Area P-6 Zone 30007007002715007735 Area P-6 Zone 15127007002716007736 Area P-6 Zone 16087417412717007737 Area P-6 Zone 16167007002718007738 Area P-6 Zone 180226,35626,3562720007700 Area P-6 Zone 5031,0001,0002721007701 Area P-6 Zone 31037007002722007703 Area P-6 Zone 9002,0272,0272723007704 Area P-6 Zone 15091,7541,7542724007705 Area P-6 Zone 31012,0192,0192725007706 Area P-6 Zone 16151,4911,4912726007707 Area P-6 Zone 15112,2792,2792727007708 Area P-6 Zone 15107007002728007709 Area P-6 Zone 2037007002730007714 Area P-6 Zone 10027007002731007715 Area P-6 Zone 26021,8951,8952732007716 Area P-6 Zone 2042,7942,7942733007717 Area P-6 Zone 10037017012734007718 Area P-6 Zone 12012,2252,2252735007719 Area P-6 Zone 22031,0001,0002736007720 Area P-6 Zone 30011,0001,0002737007723 Area P-6 Zone 5041,0001,000September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes402 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T.2738007721 Area P-6 Zone 31021,3661,3662739007722 Area P-6 Zone 31047007002740007724 Area P-6 Zone 22021,0001,0002741007725 Area P-6 Zone 2058938932742007726 Area P-6 Zone 3011,0001,0002743007727 Area P-6 Zone 10047007002744007728 Area P-6 Zone 26032,4152,4152746007746 Area P-6 Zone 30027007002747007747 Area P-6 Zone 31057007002748007748 Area P-6 Zone 31062,1792,1792749007749 Area P-6 Zone 31071,2851,2852775007745 Area P-6 Zone 02103,1863,1862776007734 Area P-6 Zone 15137007002777007741 Area P-6 Zone 26042,1442,1442778007742 Area P-6 Zone 26051,0001,0002779007743 Area P-6 Zone 30032,7252,7252781007731 Area P-6 Zone 31081,0181,0182782007732 Area P-6 Zone 31091,6421,6422783007733 Area P-6 Zone 31101,1221,1222785007730 Area P-6 Zone 3112700700TOTAL SERVICE AREA-POLICE13,341,38411,1077,625301,53613,021,117SERVICE AREA-DRAINAGE2602007602 Area D-2,Walnut Creek329,729329,729TOTAL SERVICE AREA-DRAINAGE329,729000329,729MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS2771007771 Discovery Bay West Parking23,97623,9762825007825 Contra Costa Water Agency1,027,4081,027,408TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS1,051,3830001,051,383TOTAL PUBLIC PROTECTION138,266,1692,194,0369,392,24921,180,430105,499,453HEALTH AND SANITATIONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES2406007406 Area EM-1, Zone B4,735,642019,3034,716,339TOTAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES4,735,642019,30304,716,339SANITATION DISTRICTS2365007365 District #6(7,844)0(7,844)TOTAL SANITATION DISTRICTS(7,844)000(7,844)TOTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION4,727,798019,30304,708,495September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes403 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableEDUCATIONSERVICE AREA-LIBRARY2702007702 Area LIB-2,El Sobrante157,451157,4512710007710 Area LIB-10,Pinole2,7082,7082712007712 Area LIB-12,Moraga20,55520,5552713007713 Area LIB-13,Ygnacio212,123212,123TOTAL SERVICE AREA-LIBRARY392,837000392,837TOTAL EDUCATION392,837000392,837PUBLIC WAYS AND FACILITIESSERVICE AREA-LIGHTING2401007394 Area L-100, Countywide5,393,9335,393,9332487007487 CCC CFD 2010-1 St Lightng32,76932,769TOTAL SERVICE AREA-LIGHTING5,426,7020005,426,702SERVICE AREA-MISCELLANEOUS2470007470 Area M-1, Delta Ferry3,1843,1842475007475 Area M-29, Dougherty Valley4,813,6954,813,6952476007476 Area M-31 PH BART54,42854,4282480007480 CSA T-1 Danville2,219,2512,219,2512485007485 No Rchmd Mtce CFD 2006-1111,202111,2022486007486 Bart Trnsit VLG CFD 2008-1219,508219,5082488007488 Area M-16, Clyde10,07810,0782489007489 Area M-17, Montalvin Manor190,3515,000185,3512492007492 Area M-20, Rodeo23,06323,0632496007496 Area M-23, Blackhawk144,569144,5692499007499 Area M-30, Danville7,1547,154TOTAL SERVICE AREA-MISCELLANEOUS7,796,48205,00007,791,482SERVICE AREA-ROAD MAINTENANCE2494007494 Area RD-4, Bethel Island98,02298,022TOTAL SERVICE AREA-ROAD MAINTENANCE98,02200098,022TOTAL PUBLIC WAYS AND FACILITIES13,321,20705,000013,316,207RECREATION/CULTURAL SVCSSERVICE AREA-RECREATION2757007757 Service Area R-9, El Sobrante27,10927,1092758007758 Service Area R-7,Zone A Alamo3,466,3584,1045,0003,457,254September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes404 SCHEDULE B2016- 2017CONTRA COSTA COUNTYSPECIAL DISTRICTSFUND BALANCE AVAILABLEFundBalancePer AuditorFundas ofLess Obligated Fund BalancesBalanceDistrict6/30/2016 EncumbrancesNonspendable, Restricted & CommittedAssignedAvailableSERVICE AREA-RECREATION CONT.2760007770 Service Area R-10, Rodeo27,4373,00024,437TOTAL SERVICE AREA-RECREATION3,520,9054,1048,00003,508,801TOTAL RECREATION/CULTURAL SVCS3,520,9054,1048,00003,508,801TOTAL COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS160,228,9162,198,1419,424,55321,180,430127,425,793September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes405 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTPUBLIC PROTECTIONFIRE PROTECTION7300 CCCFPD-Consolidated Fire2,395,7572,395,7572,395,757007300-24797022 CCCFPD POB Debt Svc Fund0011,270,02811,270,02811,270,0287022-35017024 CCCFPD POB Stabilization Fund009,161,5949,161,5949,161,5947024-10447028 Crockett-Carquinez Fire Dist18,06318,063468,637450,574450,5747028-24797031 CCCFPD-Cap Outlay-Consolidated2,998,2792,998,2792,772,340(225,939)(225,939)7031-47957033 CCCFPD Developer Fee990990894(96)(96)7033-21307034 Riverview Fire Developer Fee56,11556,11526,256(29,859)(29,859)7034-49547035 CCCFPD Fire Prevention-Consolidated2142142147035-21907036 CCCFPD New Devlpmt Pmt Fee FD88,40188,401128,76940,36840,3687036-22817038 CCCFPD Pittsburg Special865,227865,227863,456(1,771)(1,771)7038-22817040 CCCFPD EMS Transport Fund00286,944286,944286,9447040-2479TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION6,422,8326,422,83227,374,89020,952,05820,952,058FLOOD CONTROL7505 Flood Control & Wtr Conserv964,000964,0004,109,4173,145,4173,145,4177505-23407520 Flood Control Zone #3B(1,736,550)(1,736,550)22,888,46024,625,01024,625,0107520-23407521 Flood Control Zone #1(904,500)(904,500)937,4721,841,9721,841,9727521-23407522 Flood Control Zone #205645645647522-50117526 Flood Control Zone #6A017,90917,90917,9097526-36117527 Flood Control Zone #7(54,985)(54,985)799,522854,507854,5077527-23107530 Flood Control Zone #8(18,851)(18,851)114,769133,620133,6207530-23107531 Flood Control Zone #8A(25,391)(25,391)344,170369,561369,5617531-23107532 Flood Control Zone #926,80026,800112,92786,12786,1277532-23407534 Flood Control Drainage 37A(1,000)(1,000)9,82710,82710,8277534-50117535 Flood Control Drainage 33A6,1006,10093,42387,32387,3237535-23407536 Flood Control Drainage 75A(14,500)(14,500)325,506340,006340,0067536-23107537 Flood Control Drainage 128(84,250)(84,250)151,948236,198236,1987537-23407538 Flood Control Drainage 57(1,600)(1,600)44,45546,05546,0557538-23407539 Flood Control Drainage 6740040027,03626,63626,6367539-23407540 Flood Control Drainage 19A1,4001,40035,48034,08034,0807540-23107541 Flood Control Drainage 33B1,5001,5008,5477,0477,0477541-23407542 Flood Control Drainage 76(8,800)(8,800)280,585289,385289,3857542-23107543 Flood Control Drainage 62(9,100)(9,100)104,532113,632113,6327543-23107544 Flood Control Drainage 72(5,000)(5,000)25,83130,83130,8317544-23107545 Flood Control Drainage 78(5,000)(5,000)9,23014,23014,2307545-50117546 Flood Control Drainage 30B(3,300)(3,300)352,792356,092356,0927546-23107547 Flood Control Drainage 44B2,7002,700322,926320,226320,2267547-23107548 Flood Control Drainage 29E4,4004,40028,02523,62523,6257548-23107549 Flood Control Drainage 52B(8,500)(8,500)33,67442,17442,1747549-36117550 Flood Control Drainage 290(1,937)(1,937)19,24021,17721,1777550-23107551 Flood Control Drainage 300(4,633)(4,633)64,56569,19869,1987551-23107552 Flood Control Drainage 13A(246,025)(246,025)3,683,5623,929,5873,929,5877552-23107553 Flood Control Drainage 52A(226,800)(226,800)458,201685,001685,0017553-2310September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes406 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTFLOOD CONTROL CON'T7554 Flood Control Drainage 10(344,175)(344,175)3,383,7253,727,9003,727,9007554-23407555 Flood Control Drainage 29C(5,800)(5,800)190,646196,446196,4467555-23407556 Flood Control Drainage 29D(5,500)(5,500)217,324222,824222,8247556-23407557 Flood Control Drainage 30A(76,000)(76,000)92,607168,607168,6077557-36117558 Flood Control Drainage 30C(290,500)(290,500)1,922,7522,213,2522,213,2527558-23107559 Flood Control Drainage 15A200200119,710119,510119,5107559-23407560 Flood Control Drainage 910(800)(800)192,957193,757193,7577560-50117561 Flood Control Drainage 33C500500474(26)(26)7561-50117562 Flood Control Drainage 130(989,000)(989,000)626,8911,615,8911,615,8917562-50117563 Flood Control Drainage 1278,1008,1005,154(2,946)(2,946)7563-50117565 Flood Control Drainage 40A(3,800)(3,800)361,719365,519365,5197565-50117566 Flood Control Drainage 5657,50057,5007,149,4407,091,9407,091,9407566-23407567 Flood Control Drainage 73(3,800)(3,800)222,844226,644226,6447567-23107568 Flood Control Drainage 29G4,4504,45071,45167,00167,0017568-23107569 Flood Control Drainage 29H(3,550)(3,550)19,53623,08623,0867569-23107570 Flood Control Drainage 29J6,5006,5008,1371,6371,6377570-23107571 Flood Control Drainage 52C(179,000)(179,000)2,000,2112,179,2112,179,2117571-23107572 Flood Control Drainage 48C3,0003,000540,991537,991537,9917572-23407573 Flood Control Drainage 48D(550)(550)16,49217,04217,0427573-23407574 Flood Control Drainage 48B(88,650)(88,650)459,747548,397548,3977574-23107575 Flood Control Drainage 67A(12,100)(12,100)298,541310,641310,6417575-23107576 Flood Control Drainage 76A(51,600)(51,600)194,236245,836245,8367576-23107577 Flood Control Drainage 5207,5007,50098,10390,60390,6037577-23107578 Flood Control Drainage 46(21,000)(21,000)1,201,7881,222,7881,222,7887578-36117579 Flood Control Drainage 55153,070153,0701,414,1721,261,1021,261,1027579-23407580 Flood Control Drainage 1010(76,300)(76,300)792,911869,211869,2117580-23107581 Flood Control Drainage 101A(500)(500)802,105802,605802,6057581-23407582 Flood Control Drainage 1010A8,7508,750255,714246,964246,9647582-23107583 Flood Control Drainage 16(114,183)(114,183)1,030,1571,144,3401,144,3407583-23407584 Flood Control Drainage 52D2,5002,50018,43915,93915,9397584-23407585 Flood Control Drainage 8750050032,92632,42632,4267585-23107586 Flood Control Drainage 880022,13622,13622,1367586-23107587 Flood Control Drainage 890019,74019,74019,7407587-23107588 Flood Control Drainage 221,2001,200114,765113,565113,5657588-23407595 Flood Control Drainage 109(500)(500)6,3656,8656,8657595-23407597 Flood Control Drainage 47(4,750)(4,750)145,701150,451150,4517597-2310TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL(4,371,710)(4,371,710)59,455,19763,826,90763,826,907STORM DRAINAGE DISTRICTS7594 Zone #19001,8591,8591,8597594-2340TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE DISTRICTS001,8591,8591,859September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes407 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTSTORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICTS7484 CCC CFD 2007-1 Stormwater6,5006,50024,88218,38218,3827484-23407501 Stormwater Util A-1 Ant 102,617102,617114,17311,55611,5567501-23107502 Stormwater Util A-2 Clyn4,4314,4319,1454,7144,7147502-23107503 Stormwater Util A-3 Conc41,21641,21673,71232,49632,4967503-23107504 Stormwater Util A-4 Danv13,07113,07123,21110,14010,1407504-23107507 Stormwater Util A-7 Laf12,04712,04720,4958,4488,4487507-23107508 Stormwater Util A-8 Mrtz10,70610,70625,51414,80814,8087508-23107509 Stormwater Util A-9 Mrga14,37114,37125,55311,18211,1827509-23107510 Stormwater Util A-10 Orin15,90215,90224,2378,3358,3357510-23107511 Stormwater Util A-11 Pinl37,12837,12838,2041,0761,0767511-23107512 Stormwater Util A-12 Pitt76,64076,64089,29312,65312,6537512-23107513 Stormwater Util A-13 Pl H15,29715,29721,8196,5226,5227513-23107514 Stormwater Util A-14 S Pb24,24024,24040,53816,29816,2987514-23107515 Stormwater Util A-15 S Rm31,58331,58336,1544,5714,5717515-23107516 Stormwater Util A-16 W Ck12,06812,06821,6069,5389,5387516-23107517 Stormwater Util A-17 Co49,15049,150293,484244,334244,3347517-23107518 Stormwater Util A-18 Okly19,88819,88825,8886,0006,0007518-23107519 Stormwater Util Admin2,767,1352,767,1353,051,376284,241284,2417519-23107523 Stormwater Util A-19 Rich33,34733,34780,37347,02647,0267523-36117525 Stormwater Util A-5 El C42,15642,15647,6365,4805,4807525-23107533 Stormwater Util A-20 Brnt26,71926,719138,591111,872111,8727533-36117596 Stormwater Util A-6 Herc16,07916,07939,39223,31323,3137596-2310TOTAL STORMWATER UTILITY DISTRICTS3,372,2913,372,2914,265,277892,986892,986SERVICE AREA-POLICE7603 Area P-6 Zone 502001,0001,0001,0007603-35307605 Area P-6 Zone 1508005,8015,8015,8017605-35307606 Area P-6 Zone 1614001,5061,5061,5067606-35307607 Area P-6 Zone 1804007007007007607-35307608 Area P-6 Zone 2201007007007007608-35307609 Area P-6 Zone 501001,0001,0001,0007609-35307610 Area P-6 Zone 1613 007007007007610-35307611 Area P-6 Zone 2200007007007007611-35307612 Area P-6 Zone 2502001,5061,5061,5067612-35307613 Area P-6 Zone 2801007007007007613-35307614 Area P-6 Zone 1609007007007007614-35307615 Area P-6 Zone 1610001,5651,5651,5657615-35307616 Area P-6 Zone 1611007007007007616-35307617 Area P-6 Zone 1612007007007007617-35307618 Area P-6 Zone 2501007007007007618-35307619 Area P-6 Zone 2800007007007007619-35307620 Area P-6 Zone 1514001581581587620-35307621 Area P-6 Zone 1101007007007007621-35307622 Area P-6 Zone 1803007007007007622-35307623 Area P-6 Zone 1700001,0001,0001,0007623-3530September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes408 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T7625 Area P-6 Zone 2903009299299297625-35307624 Area P-6 Zone 2000 002,1012,1012,1017624-35307626 Area P-6 Zone 1505001,9421,9421,9427626-35307627 Area P-6 Zone 1506007007007007627-35307628 Area P-6 Zone 1001007007007007628-35307629 P-6 Central Admin Base008,825,6768,825,6768,825,6767629-24797630 Area P-6 Zone 1607001,9421,9421,9427630-35307631 Area P-6 Zone 1504007007007007631-35307632 Area P-6 Zone 2702002,0912,0912,0917632-35307633 Area P-6 Zone 1606001,2281,2281,2287633-35307634 Area P-6 Zone 1605007007007007634-35307636 Area P-6 Zone 1503009559559557636-35307637 Area P-6 Zone 400001,2521,2521,2527637-35307638 Area P-6 Zone 702007007007007638-35307639 Area P-6 Zone 1502001,4091,4091,4097639-35307640 Area P-6 Zone 3100007007007007640-35307641 Area P-6 Zone 2500002,3162,3162,3167641-35307642 Area P-6 Zone 701001,0941,0941,0947642-35307643 Area P-6 Zone 202007007007007643-35307644 Area P-6 Zone 1501007007007007644-35307645 Area P-6 Zone 1604001,4451,4451,4457645-35307646 Area P-6 Zone 1801001,4451,4451,4457646-35307647 Area P-6 Zone 2901007007007007647-35307648 Area P-6 Zone 1603007007007007648-35307649 Area P-6 Zone 1200007007007007649-35307650 Police SVC- Crockett Cogen48,07948,079826,417778,338778,3387650-21607652 Police Area 2 Danville 006,8246,8246,8247652-23107653 Area P-2 Zone A, Blackhawk66,55566,555706,382639,827639,8277653-24797654 Area P-6 Zone 2902001,5731,5731,5737654-35307655 Area P-5, Roundhill Area45,18045,18013,802(31,378)(31,378)7655-36117656 Service Area PL6178,990178,9902,320,4832,141,4932,141,4937656-50117657 Area P-2 Zone B, Alamo67,18767,187164,42997,24297,2427657-24797658 Area P-6 Zone 206007007007007658-35307659 Area P-6 Zone 207007007007007659-35307661 Area P-6 Zone 200007007007007661-35307372 Area P-6 Zone 211002,4972,4972,4977372-35307671 Area P-6 Zone 209002,2502,2502,2507671-24797673 Area P-6 Zone 1005007007007007673-35307674 Area P-6 Zone P-7 201001,0001,0001,0007674-50167675 Area P-6 Zone 2700001,4721,4721,4727675-35307680 Area P-6 Zone 700001,1291,1291,1297680-35307681 Area P-6 Zone 1100007007007007681-35307682 Area P-6 Zone 1600001,4721,4721,4727682-35307683 Area P-6 Zone 2601001,4611,4611,4617683-3530September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes409 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T7684 Area P-6 Zone 500001,0001,0001,0007684-35307685 Area P-6 Zone 1000007007007007685-35307687 Area P-6 Zone 2900007007007007687-35307688 Area P-6 Zone 1006007007007007688-35307689 Area P-6 Zone 1601001,5021,5021,5027689-35307690 Area P-6 Zone 2300001,4611,4611,4617690-35307693 Area P-6 Zone 1602007007007007693-35307694 Area P-6 Zone 1800007007007007694-35307695 Area P-6 Zone 2600001,4681,4681,4687695-35307696 Area P-6 Zone 2701001,3701,3701,3707696-35307697 Area P-6 Zone 1500003073073077697-35307699 Area P-6 Zone 3000007007007007699-35307700 Area P-6 Zone 503001,0001,0001,0007700-35307701 Area P-6 Zone 3103007007007007701-35307703 Area P-6 Zone 900002,0272,0272,0277703-35307704 Area P-6 Zone 1509001,7541,7541,7547704-35307705 Area P-6 Zone 3101002,0192,0192,0197705-35307706 Area P-6 Zone 1615001,4911,4911,4917706-35307707 Area P-6 Zone 1511002,2792,2792,2797707-35307708 Area P-6 Zone 1510007007007007708-35307709 Area P-6 Zone 203007007007007709-35307714 Area P-6 Zone 1002007007007007714-35307715 Area P-6 Zone 2602001,8951,8951,8957715-35307716 Area P-6 Zone 204002,7942,7942,7947716-35307717 Area P-6 Zone 1003007017017017717-35307718 Area P-6 Zone 1201002,2252,2252,2257718-35307719 Area P-6 Zone 2203001,0001,0001,0007719-35307720 Area P-6 Zone 3001001,0001,0001,0007720-35307721 Area P-6 Zone 3102001,3661,3661,3667721-35307722 Area P-6 Zone 3104007007007007722-35307723 Area P-6 Zone 504001,0001,0001,0007723-35307724 Area P-6 Zone 2202001,0001,0001,0007724-35307725 Area P-6 Zone 205008938938937725-35307726 Area P-6 Zone 301001,0001,0001,0007726-35307727 Area P-6 Zone 1004007007007007727-35307728 Area P-6 Zone 2603002,4152,4152,4157728-35307746 Area P-6 Zone 3002007007007007746-35307747 Area P-6 Zone 3105007007007007747-35307748 Area P-6 Zone 3106002,1792,1792,1797748-35307749 Area P-6 Zone 3107001,2851,2851,2857749-35307745 Area P-6 Zone 0210003,1863,1863,1867745-35307734 Area P-6 Zone 1513007007007007734-35307741 Area P-6 Zone 2604002,1442,1442,1447741-3530September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes410 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTSERVICE AREA-POLICE CON'T7742 Area P-6 Zone 2605001,0001,0001,0007742-35307743 Area P-6 Zone 3003002,7252,7252,7257743-35307731 Area P-6 Zone 3108001,0181,0181,0187731-35307732 Area P-6 Zone 3109001,6421,6421,6427732-35307733 Area P-6 Zone 3110001,1221,1221,1227733-35307730 Area P-6 Zone 3112007007007007730-35307735 Area P-6 Zone 1512007007007007735-35307736 Area P-6 Zone 1608007417417417736-35307737 Area P-6 Zone 1616007007007007737-35307738 Area P-6 Zone 18020026,35626,35626,3567738-3530TOTAL SERVICE AREA-POLICE405,991405,99113,021,11712,615,12612,615,126SERVICE AREA-DRAINAGE7602 Area D-2,Walnut Creek(9,000)(9,000)329,729338,729338,7297602-2310TOTAL SERVICE AREA-DRAINAGE(9,000)(9,000)329,729338,729338,729MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS7771 Discovery Bay West Parking23,93723,93723,97639397771-24797825 Contra Costa Water Agency775,544775,5441,027,408251,864251,8647825-2479TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS799,481799,4811,051,383251,902251,902TOTAL PUBLIC PROTECTION6,619,8856,619,885105,499,45398,879,56898,879,568HEALTH AND SANITATIONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES7405 Area EM-1, Zone A(25,978)(25,978)(0)25,97825,9787405-24797406 Area EM-1, Zone B241,969241,9694,716,3394,474,3704,474,3707406-2479TOTAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES215,991215,9914,716,3394,500,3484,500,348SANITATION DISTRICTS7365 District #6(7,844)(7,844)(7,844)7365-2479TOTAL SANITATION DISTRICTS00(7,844)(7,844)(7,844)TOTAL HEALTH AND SANITATION215,991215,9914,708,4954,492,5044,492,504EDUCATIONSERVICE AREA-LIBRARY7702 Area LIB-2,El Sobrante00157,451157,451157,4517702-36117710 Area LIB-10,Pinole002,7082,7082,7087710-36117712 Area LIB-12,Moraga0020,55520,55520,5557712-36117713 Area LIB-13,Ygnacio00212,123212,123212,1237713-3611TOTAL SERVICE AREA-LIBRARY00392,837392,837392,837TOTAL EDUCATION00392,837392,837392,837September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes411 SCHEDULE CRECOMMENDED VS. FINAL BUDGETFUND BALANCE CHANGESAPPROPRIATION AND ESTIMATED REVENUE RECOMMENDATIONSFOR 2016-2017 FINAL BUDGET2016-20172016-2017FINALRECOMMENDEDFINALYEAR-ENDBUDGETBUDGETFUNDFUNDRECOMMENDEDFUNDFUNDBALANCEBALANCELINE ITEM CHANGESDISTRICTBALANCEBALANCEAVAILABLECHANGEAMOUNTB/U-ACCTPUBLIC WAYS AND FACILITIESSERVICE AREA-LIGHTING7394 Area L-100, Countywide4,801,7474,801,7475,393,933592,186592,1867394-24797487 CCC CFD 2010-1 St Lightng32,01232,01232,7697577577487-5011TOTAL SERVICE AREA-LIGHTING4,833,7594,833,7595,426,702592,943592,943SERVICE AREA-MISCELLANEOUS7470 Area M-1, Delta Ferry1971973,1842,9872,9877470-24797475 Area M-29, Dougherty Valley5,665,3655,665,3654,813,695(851,670)(851,670)7475-24797476 Area M-31, PH BART17,62517,62554,42836,80336,8037476-23107480 CSA T-1 Danville2,049,6102,049,6102,219,251169,641169,6417480-24797485 No Rchmd Mtce CFD 2006-175,80375,803111,20235,39935,3997485-24797486 Bart Trnsit VLG CFD 2008-1209,439209,439219,50810,06910,0697486-24797488 Area M-16, Clyde11,69611,69610,078(1,619)(1,619)7488-50117489 Area M-17, Montalvin Manor150,791150,791185,35134,56034,5607489-23107492 Area M-20, Rodeo19,74919,74923,0633,3143,3147492-24797496 Area M-23, Blackhawk156,708156,708144,569(12,139)(12,139)7496-35807499 Area M-30 Danville3,8443,8447,1543,3103,3107499-2479TOTAL SERVICE AREA-MISCELLANEOUS8,360,8278,360,8277,791,482(569,345)(569,345)SERVICE AREA-ROAD MAINTENANCE7494 Area RD-4, Bethel Island93,00493,00498,0225,0185,0187494-2479TOTAL SERVICE AREA-ROAD MAINTENANCE93,00493,00498,0225,0185,018TOTAL PUBLIC WAYS AND FACILITIES13,287,59013,287,59013,316,20728,61728,617RECREATION/CULTURAL SVCSSERVICE AREA-RECREATION7757 Area R-9, El Sobrante22,41722,41727,1094,6924,6927757-24797758 Area R-7,Zone A Alamo3,780,5513,780,5513,457,254(323,297)(323,297)7758-47557770 Area R-10, Rodeo58458424,43723,85323,8537770-2479TOTAL SERVICE AREA-RECREATION3,803,5523,803,5523,508,801(294,751)(294,751)TOTAL RECREATION/CULTURAL SVCS3,803,5523,803,5523,508,801(294,751)(294,751)TOTAL COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS23,927,018 23,927,018 127,425,793 103,498,775 103,498,775September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes412 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution 2016/546 approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD06-09131, for a project being developed by Jasraj Sing & Tomas Baluyut, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement needs to be extended. The developer has not completed the required improvements and has requested more time. (Approximately 90% of the work has been completed to date.) By granting an extension, the County will give the developer more time to complete his improvements and keeps the bond current. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The terminal date of the Subdivision Agreement will not be extended and the developer will be in default of the agreement, requiring the County to take legal action against the developer and surety to get the improvements installed, or revert the development to acreage. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: J. LaRocque, Engineering Services, S. Reed, Design/Construction C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD06-09131, Bay Point area. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 413 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/546 SD06-09131 Subdivision Agreement MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/546 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 414 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/546 IN THE MATTER OF approving the seventh extension of the Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD06-09131, for a project being developed by Jasraj Sing & Tomas Baluyut, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Bay Point area. (District V) WHEREAS the Public Works Director, having recommended that she be authorized to execute the seventh agreement extension which extends the subdivision agreement between Jasraj Sing & Tomas Baluyut and the County for construction of certain improvements in subdivision SD06-09131, Bay Point area, through May 15, 2017. APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETE: 90% ANTICIPATED DATE OF COMPLETION: May 2017 BOND NO.: 761783S Date: April 9, 2007 REASON FOR EXTENSION: Due to construction finances, subdivider needs more time to complete work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Public Works Director is APPROVED. Contact: Jocelyn LaRocque, (925) 313-2315 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: J. LaRocque, Engineering Services, S. Reed, Design/Construction 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 415 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 416 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 417 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 418 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 419 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 420 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 421 RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (Project) together with any comments received during the public review process. 2. FIND on the basis of the whole record, including the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and any comments received and staff responses thereto, 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 independent judgment and analysis of the lead agency, Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District). 3. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. 4. SPECIFY that the Contra Costa County Conservation and Development Director is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board’s decision is based, and that the record of proceedings is located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Claudia Gemberling (925) 313-2192 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 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:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPTION OF Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (CEQA) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 422 FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the environmental review of this Project totaled approximately $80,000, to be funded by the District with Flood Control Zone 1 funds (50 percent) and American Rivers, Inc. (American Rivers) State Grant Funds and other private funds (50 percent). BACKGROUND: During the 1960s and early 1970s, approximately 7.9 miles of Marsh Creek from the mouth of the creek near Big Break in Oakley to the Dry Creek confluence in Brentwood were channelized into steep earthen and armored trapezoidal flood control channels to provide conveyance capacity and riparian vegetation was removed. The channel was designed for a 50-year flood event in an agricultural setting. Over the last 25 years, the population of the lower Marsh Creek watershed has increased dramatically, transforming the watershed into a dense residential and commercial area, covering open space with impervious surfaces, substantially increasing runoff volume and degrading water quality. The District has constructed detention basins on each of Marsh Creek’s three tributaries (Dry, Deer, and Sand Creeks) to accommodate increased run-off associated with urban development and impervious surfaces; however, urban and agricultural runoff remain issues. The Three Creeks Parkway Project described in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) combines two separate projects. The first is the Three Creeks Restoration Project on Marsh Creek, in which the District partnered with American Rivers to apply for and receive $744,404 in DWR Urban Streams Grant Funding. The project limits of that project are from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks crossing of Marsh Creek to its confluence with Sand Creek (identified as the Lower Reach in the IS/MND). The second project is Phase 2 of the Marsh Creek Widening Project. The District is the sponsor of that project, and American Rivers is providing the District with State grant funds and other private funds to provide a multi-benefit flood control project. The project limits of the second project are from Sand Creek to just upstream of Dainty Avenue (identified as the Middle and Upper Reaches in the IS/MND). The two projects were addressed together because they are adjacent and cumulative impacts needed to be considered. The objective of the Project would be to improve the ecological functions of Marsh Creek by reducing flow velocities, creating wetlands, and restoring riparian habitat. Although much of the watershed has been constrained by urbanization, the Project site is the longest remaining stretch of undeveloped land along the creek where there is still an opportunity to widen the channel and provide a more natural creek system that is connected to the historic floodplain that can be enjoyed by trail users. The District, in partnership with American Rivers, developed the proposal to widen and restore approximately 4,000 linear feet of the Marsh Creek channel identified in three reaches (Upper, Middle, Lower) from Dainty Avenue downstream to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks with a floodplain (or in sections where more constrained, floodplain benches) that will meet the District’s standards for 100-year flood protection and restore native riparian vegetation and enhance habitats and recreation. The segment just upstream of Dainty Avenue was widened in 2000 by the District. Native riparian vegetation may also be planted in this segment as part of the Project to provide a continuous riparian corridor with the existing riparian vegetation upstream of this segment. The Project calls for widening the creek above the low-flow channel, but some areas will require work within the low-flow channel in order to create in-stream habitat using boulders and large woody debris, and to place rock slope protection. The Project would also include slight relocation of the existing East Bay Regional Park District Marsh Creek trail along the top of the eastern bank to the new top of grade from Dainty Avenue to Sand Creek (in the Upper and Middle Reaches). The trail from Sand Creek to the railroad tracks (in the Lower Reach) is to be relocated by the adjacent subdivision developer (Pulte) separately from the Project; however, the Project would reduce the gradient of the steep slope between the creek and the trail in this reach and would provide a new unpaved foot trail within the floodplain benches. The relocated trail section within the Upper Reach would be routed to pass under the Central Boulevard bridge. Approval of the Project is not recommended at this time because the District and American Rivers have not yet completed their negotiation of a separate agreement that outlines their respective obligations under the DWR September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 423 completed their negotiation of a separate agreement that outlines their respective obligations under the DWR Urban Streams grant agreement (for the Three Creeks Restoration Project) and terms and conditions that will apply to the work that American Rivers plans to perform. Without this agreement, the District would become obligated to perform the obligations of both parties under the grant agreement upon approval of the Project. District staff also anticipates the need for an agreement that sets forth the District’s and American Rivers’ roles under the Marsh Creek Widening Phase 2 Project. District staff anticipates returning to the Board in February 2017 to seek Board approval of the agreement(s) and the Project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are not adopted before October 1, 2016, American Rivers may lose conditionally-approved grant funding for the Project. ATTACHMENTS CEQA September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 424 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 425 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 426 S P R a i l r o a d Sa n d C r e e k Dry CreekMarsh CreekDeer C r e e k Trib of San d Trib of DryMarsh CreekTr ib o f SandSellers AveBalfour Rd Lone Tree Way Sunset Rd Walnut BlvdSt a t e H w y 4 B y pFairview AveChestnut StOak StDeer Valley RdDainty AveCentral Blvd Concord Ave1 StJohn Mu i r P kwyJeffery WayBrentwood Antioch 4 Project Location Ü Document Path: P:\GIS USERS - Projects\FC_Zone\Zone 1\Three Creeks Parkway.mxd Drawn By: R. Sanders Date: 8/19/2015 Three Creeks Parkway ^ Location Map !""#$%&'(")*)+),-$#".-()/#0) Project Location FIGURE 1 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-06/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 427 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 LOWER REACH (UPRR to Sand Creek) MIDDLE REACH (Deer Creek to Sand Creek)Dainty AveCentral BlvdUPPER REACH (Deer Creek to Dainty Avenue) MARSH C R E E K M A R S H C R EE K MARSH C R E E KSAND CREEKDEER CREEKTHREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT 08.02.16 Summer Circle 52+243 00+743 serutneV TLD )lecraP htiffirG( gninediW I esahP DCF )0002 detcurtsnoC( tnempoleveD etluP )allimlaP ylremroF( setatsE lemraC 00+253 00+853 05+563 llaW gniniateR 00+963 00+173 UPRR Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank[’061’08’08-0’ n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 250 0 500 Site Plan FIGURE 2 1273.001-08/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes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roject Area Photographs FIGURE 3 SOURCE: American Rivers, 2016 1273.001-07/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 429 THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration The following Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Prepared By: Impact Sciences 505 14th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared For: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Contact: Claudia Gemberling (925) 313-2192 and American Rivers 2150 Allston Way, Suite 320 Berkeley, CA 94704 Contact: Sarah Beamish (415) 203-3766 County Project No.: 16-39 August 2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 430                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 431 CCCFDWCD i Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Initial Study ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Public and Agency Review ......................................................................................................................... 1 Organization of the Initial Study ................................................................................................................ 2 1. PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................... 4 2.4 Project Components ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Project Construction Activities and Schedule .......................................................................... 18 2.6 Long Term Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 19 2.7 Permits and Approvals Required .............................................................................................. 19 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................................................... 20 4. DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................................... 21 5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................................................. 22 5.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 25 5.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 27 5.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 48 5.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 52 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 55 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 58 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 61 5.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 65 5.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................ 66 5.12 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 67 5.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 71 5.14 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 72 5.15 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 74 5.16 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................................................... 75 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 77 5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................................................... 79 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 81 7. REPORT PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................... 82 8. TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................................ 82 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 432 CCCFDWCD ii Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 3 Project Area Photographs ............................................................................................................................ 7 4 Upper Reach Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 11 5 Upper Reach Cross-Sections ..................................................................................................................... 13 6 Middle Reach Improvements .................................................................................................................. 14 7 Middle and Lower Reach Cross-Sections ................................................................................................ 15 8 Lower Reach Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Project Data ................................................................................................................................................. 10 2 Estimated Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................... 30 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 433 CCCFDWCD 1 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 INTRODUCTION Initial Study The Three Creeks Parkway Restoration project is a proposal put forth by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and American Rivers to widen and improve an approximately 4,000-foot section of Marsh Creek in the City of Brentwood to provide additional flood conveyance capacity and restore riparian habitat along the creek. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency (the public agency principally responsible for approving or carrying out the proposed project) as a basis for determining what level of environmental review is appropriate (Environmental Impact Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration) for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistenc y with existing, applicable land use controls, and the name of persons who prepared the study. As shown in the Determination in Section IV of this document, and based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore, preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. Public and Agency Review This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for public and agency review from August 3, 2016 to September 2, 2016. Copies of this document are available for review at the Contra Costa County Public Works Department at the address below and the County’s webpage: http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4629/Public-Notices. Comments on this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by 5:00 PM on September 2, 2016 and can be sent by regular mail or emailed to: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Claudia Gemberling claudia.gemberling@pw.cccounty.us September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 434                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 435 CCCFDWCD 2 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Organization of the Initial Study This Initial Study is organized into the following sections. Section 1 – Project Information: provides summary background information about the proposed project, including project location, lead agency, and contact information. Section 2 – Project Description: includes a description of the proposed project, including the need for the project, the project’s objectives, and the elements included in the project. Section 3 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies what environmental resources, if any, would involve at least one significant or potentially significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Section 4 – Determination: indicates whether impacts associated with the proposed project would be significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required. Section 5 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: contains the Environmental Checklist form for each resource and presents an explanation of all checklist answers. The checklist is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and determining which impacts, if any, need to be further evaluated in an EIR. Section 6 – References: lists documents used in the preparation of this document. Section 7 – Initial Study Preparers: lists the names of individuals involved in the preparation of this document. Technical studies prepared for this Initial Study are available at Contra Costa County Public Works Department at the address noted above. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 436                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 437 CCCFDWCD 3 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Project title: Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Lead agency name and address: Contra Costa County Department of Development and Conservation 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Contact person and phone number: Claudia Gemberling (925) 313-2192 Claudia.Gemberling@pw.cccounty.us Project location: Marsh Creek between just north of Dainty Avenue bridge and south of Union Pacific Railroad bridge in the City of Brentwood Project sponsor’s name and address: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 438                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 439 CCCFDWCD 4 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Introduction The Three Creeks Parkway Restoration project is a multi-benefit flood control and creek restoration project proposed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District” or “CCCFCD”) and American Rivers, a non-profit organization that protects wild rivers and restores damaged rivers. It proposes to improve flood conveyance capacity and restore native vegetation along an approximately 4,000 linear feet section of Marsh Creek located in Brentwood by widening the channel with a floodplain (or sections where more constrained, floodplain benches) and planting with native vegetation. When implementation is complete, the project site will include up to 1.0 acres of frequently inundated floodplain (seasonal wetland), 1.87 acres of woody riparian vegetation, and 1.87 acres of grasslands and native scrub. The project will also enhance habitat and recreation within the watershed. In addition to the District and American Rivers, other project partners include the City of Brentwood, the Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed (FOMCW), East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC), and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). 2.2 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses Marsh Creek watershed, located about 35 miles east of San Francisco, is uniquely situated between the Bay-Delta and the Diablo Range, providing an important ecological corridor in a burgeoning urban area. Marsh Creek flows 30 river miles from the eastern slope of Mount Diablo State Park in central Contra Costa County to the San Joaquin Delta at Big Break in Oakley. Major tributaries to Marsh Creek include Dry, Deer, and Sand Creeks. Through the existing EBRPD park facilities and trails, Marsh Creek also provides a cultural and physical connection to the Delta, allowing East County residents to walk and bike from Big Break and its aquatic recreation facilities, through Oakley to downtown Brentwood. Thus, Marsh Creek provides one of the longest, non-motorized pathways in Contra Costa County. The project site is located along Marsh Creek in the City of Brentwood (Figure 1). The upper/southern limit of the project is just north of Dainty Avenue Bridge while the lower/northern limit is the pedestrian bridge across Marsh Creek about 175 feet south of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. Marsh Creek trail, a regional trail owned by EBRPD is located on the east bank of Marsh Creek within the project area. As shown in Figure 2, the project is divided into three reaches: Upper Reach Upper Reach is the upper 1,600 linear-foot section of the creek from near Dainty Avenue Bridge up to Deer Creek confluence. The area to the east and west of the Upper Reach is developed with residential neighborhoods (Figure 3).1 A vacant 0.4-acre City-owned parcel is located on the east side of the Upper Reach just 1 Future parks shown in Figure 3 are not part of the proposed project and will not be analyzed in this Initial Study. CEQA analysis of the future City parks were conducted by adjacent development properties. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 440                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 441 S P R a i l r o a d Sa n d C r e e k Dry CreekMarsh CreekDeer C r e e k Trib of San d Trib of DryMarsh CreekTr ib o f SandSellers AveBalfour Rd Lone Tree Way Sunset Rd Walnut BlvdSt a t e H w y 4 B y pFairview AveChestnut StOak StDeer Valley RdDainty AveCentral Blvd Concord Ave1 StJohn Mu i r P kwyJeffery WayBrentwood Antioch 4 Project Location Ü Document Path: P:\GIS USERS - Projects\FC_Zone\Zone 1\Three Creeks Parkway.mxd Drawn By: R. Sanders Date: 8/19/2015 Three Creeks Parkway ^ Location Map !""#$%&'(")*)+),-$#".-()/#0) Project Location FIGURE 1 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-06/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 442                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 443 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 LOWER REACH (UPRR to Sand Creek) MIDDLE REACH (Deer Creek to Sand Creek)Dainty AveCentral BlvdUPPER REACH (Deer Creek to Dainty Avenue) MARSH C R E E K M A R S H C R EE K MARSH C R E E KSAND CREEKDEER CREEKTHREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT 08.02.16 Summer Circle 52+243 00+743 serutneV TLD )lecraP htiffirG( gninediW I esahP DCF )0002 detcurtsnoC( tnempoleveD etluP )allimlaP ylremroF( setatsE lemraC 00+253 00+853 05+563 llaW gniniateR 00+963 00+173 UPRR Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank[’061’08’08-0’ n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 250 0 500 Site Plan FIGURE 2 1273.001-08/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 444                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 445 !"#$%&'()*+',*$%-".'()*+'/$#0$'1"2#32'4"#.'40"5'6/1447'8 " $ 5 ' , - * * 9 '!**- ', -** 9 ' :"-;<',-**9' ,,,=,!' 4 > ?' =@%@-*' ,#%&'1"-9' 61@.%*7' ' ,#%&' A"$5' ' ,#%&' A"$5' !AB' C*$%@-*;' 6D-#E%<7'=@%@-*' ,#%&'1"-9' 61@.%*7' =@%@-*',*$% - " . ' ( ) * + ' F G H " $ ; # 0 $ ' ,,,=,!'4>?' ' 8@$I0.5'1"-9' 1*5*;%-#"$'J-#5I*' !"#"$%& FJ41!'4*I#0$".'B-"#.' A0K*-'1"-9K"&' /HH*-'1"-9K"&' ,#%&'A"$5L1"-9;' M'N**%' OMM' PMM' A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'%0',*$%-".'()*+'J-#5I*'A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'%0'!**-',-**9'#$'R005'A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'"%'8"$5',-**9' 20$R@*$2*' A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'%0'!**-',-**9'#$' 5-0@I<%' A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'N-0Q'/144'%-"29;' A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'N-0Q',*$%-".'()*+' S-#5I*' A009#$I'@H;%-*"Q'N-0Q'1*5*;%-#"$' S-#5I*' A009#$I'@H'N-0Q'8"$5',-**9'20$R@*$2*'A009#$I'50K$'N-0Q'8"$5',-**9'20$R@*$2*' '()""&*)""+,&-.)+/.0&1",23).43$&-)35"62&3$&7.),(&*)""+&8$&9)"$2/33%& B<*'B<-**',-**9;'1"-9K"&'4*;%0-"T0$'1-0U*2%'K#..'-*;%0-*'$"T)*')*I*%"T0$'"$5'N@$2T0$".'R005H."#$;'".0$I'PVMMM'.#$*"-'N**%'0N':"-;<',-**9+''(Q*-#2"$'4#)*-;'"$5' %<*'=-#*$5;'0N':"-;<',-**9'?"%*-;<*5'"-*'K0-9#$I'K#%<'%<*',0$%-"',0;%"',0@$%&'=.005',0$%-0.'!#;%-#2%'6,,,=,!7'%0'#$%*I-"%*'%<*'H-0U*2%'#$%0'"5U"2*$%'2#%&'H"-9;V'%<*' 1@.%*'5*)*.0HQ*$%'6N0-Q*-.&'1".Q#.."7'"$5'H0%*$T"..&'!AB'C*$%@-*;'6D-#E%<7+' N 1@S.#2'(22*;;'10#$%;' (HH-0)*5'1@.%*'' !*)*.0HQ*$%'' 6N0-Q*-.&'1".Q#.."7' Project Area Photographs FIGURE 3 SOURCE: American Rivers, 2016 1273.001-07/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 446                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 447 CCCFDWCD 8 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 south of Central Boulevard. Willow Wood School/Dainty Center (Preschool-7th grade/infant care) is located to the east of the Upper Reach between Central Boulevard and Dainty Avenue. There is a vacant strip of land to the west between the creek and Central Boulevard owned by the District and City of Brentwood. Residential neighborhoods are present to the west of Central Boulevard and Marsh Creek up to Deer Creek (Figure 3). Middle Reach Middle Reach is the 800 linear-foot section of the creek between Deer Creek confluence and just south of Sand Creek confluence. Lands to the east of the Middle Reach are developed with residential subdivisions whereas the land to the west (Griffith parcel) is undeveloped at this time (Figure 3). Lower Reach Lower Reach is the 1,600 linear-foot section of the creek from just south of the Sand Creek confluence to the pedestrian bridge (Figure 3). Lands to the east of the Lower Reach are undeveloped at this time although a linear city park is planned adjacent to the creek and the remaining area is the site of the approved Pulte residential subdivision (formally known as Palmilla subdivision). Single-family homes (Carmel Estates) and a city park (Sungold Park) are located to the west of the Lower Reach. 2.3 Project Need and Objectives During the 1960s and early 1970s, approximately 7.9 miles of Marsh Creek from the mouth of the creek near Big Break on San Joaquin Delta in Oakley to the Dry Creek confluence in Brentwood were channelized into earthen and armored trapezoidal flood control channels. To provide conveyance capacity, the flood control channel was designed with steep banks, all riparian vegetation along the channel was removed, and the earthen channel was vegetated with non-native grasses. The channel was designed for a 50-year flood event in an agricultural setting. Since the flood control channel was constructed, the upper watershed has remained mostly protected parklands and open space, but the lower watershed has urbanized rapidly. Over the last 25 years, the population of the Marsh Creek watershed has increased six fold. This development has transformed the watershed into a dense residential and commercial area, covering open space with impervious surfaces, substantially increasing runoff volume and degrading water quality. The District has constructed detention basins on each of Marsh Creek’s three tributaries (Dry, Deer, and Sand Creeks) to accommodate increased run-off associated with urban development and impervious surfaces; however, urban and agricultural runoff remain issues. An Engineer’s Report prepared by the District in January 1990 identified the need to widen 7,000 feet of Marsh Creek to reduce flooding in the lower portion of the watershed. Based on the report, the District prepared a plan to widen the creek in three phases, with Phase I involving creek widening from Summer Circle to near Dainty Avenue Bridge, Phase II (” Upper Reach”) involving widening from near Dainty Avenue Bridge to Deer Creek confluence, and Phase III (“Middle Reach”) widening the creek between Deer Creek and Sand Creek. In March 1990 the “Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marsh Creek September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 448 CCCFDWCD 9 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Watershed, Regional Drainage Plan” was published and a Final EIR was subsequently approved. Following this approval, Phase I was completed in 2000, which included the installation of a new concrete culvert at Dainty Avenue and creek widening that was almost entirely on the east bank. Downstream of Phase I, Marsh Creek does not meet the District’s standards for flood protection, exposing adjacent homes and businesses to flood risk. When looking at the capacity within the channel the District requirement for containment is controlled by the 50-year water surface elevation level (WSEL) plus freeboard or the 100-year WSEL, whichever one is higher. District analysis indicates that for the channel downstream of Phase I project, the 50-year WSEL plus freeboard will be greater than the 100-year WSEL and dictates the channel design. The project will widen the downstream sections of the creek so that the 100-year storm water surface elevation level and the 50-year storm plus WSEL would be contained within the creek channel. Both the channelization that was implemented in the 1960s and early 1970s and the removal of riparian vegetation for flood management have limited the ecological functions of the creek. These factors have severely limited habitat complexity, structure, shade, riparian inputs, and floodplain wetlands. High velocities during annual peak flow events, which are exacerbated by increased peak run-off from newly urbanized surfaces, presumably flush most of the egg and larval stages of aquatic species downstream. Poor water quality from urban run-off is made worse by the lack of wetlands, shade, and microbial activity. Relatively high temperatures combined with low dissolved oxygen levels have caused four major fish kills on Marsh Creek over the last nine years. The combination of fish kills and poor habitat complexity limits the productivity, diversity, and resilience of the creek ecosystem. The project proposes to improve the ecological functions of the creek by reducing flow velocities, creating wetlands, and restoring riparian habitat. Although much of the watershed has been constrained by urbanization, the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration project site is the longest remaining stretch of undeveloped land along the creek where there is still an opportunity to widen the channel and provide a more natural creek system that is connected to the historic floodplain. Lastly, the project would improve recreational amenities. Currently the Marsh Creek Trail located along the east bank of Marsh Creek passes through a primarily treeless stretch of land. With the restoration of riparian vegetation along the creek banks, the project would provide areas where trail users can stop in the shade and enjoy the beauty of the creek which will improve the experience of the trail users. 2.4 Project Components This project is an innovative non-structural approach to flood management and habitat restoration. Instead of trying to control the creek in a narrow zone with levees and floodwalls, it focuses on giving the creek more room to safely convey flood waters while also providing habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species. Table 1 below presents basic information about the project. Details of the project components follow the table. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 449 CCCFDWCD 10 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Table 1 Project Data Element Upper Reach Middle Reach Lower Reach Length 1,600 feet 800 feet 1,600 feet Total Area Disturbed 2.1 acres 1.0 acre 4.25 acres Soil Excavation 5,500 cu yards 3,500 cu yards 15,000 cu yards Floodplain or bench width 3-15 feet 3-15 feet 10-30 feet Bench slopes to top of bank 2:1 or 3:1 2:1 or 3:1 3:1 or less typical, 2:1 max. Temporary Staging/Access Areas1 Within creek parcels (017- 17C-004, 017-20C-XXX) or adjacent City-owned parcel (017-210-004, 017- 201-038, 017-260-080, 017- 280-113)2 Within creek parcel (017- 17C-004) or adjacent parcel (017-110-011)2 Within creek parcels (017- 17C-004) or adjacent private parcels (017-170- 008, 017-170-007) Permanent Access/Maintenance Easements1 017-260-080 017-280-113 017-201-038 017-210-029 017-110-011 017-170-007 017-170-008 1 Some or all of the non-County-owned parcels would potentially require a temporary construction easement for access and staging and/or permanent easement for access and/or maintenance. 2 Parcel numbers and ownership information shown on Figures 4, 6, and 8. 2.4.1 Channel Widening The main function of expanding the channel is to create enough conveyance capacity to allow for the planting of woody riparian vegetation (trees) while also safely conveying large flood flows. The project would increase the cross-sectional area of the stream channel by excavating 24,000 cubic yards (5,500 for upper, 3,500 for middle, and 15,000 for lower reach,) of earth along approximately 4,000 linear feet of both banks of Marsh Creek to create new floodplain. Upper Reach As noted earlier, the Upper Reach is approximately 1,600 feet of the channel between just north of Dainty Avenue bridge and Deer Creek confluence. The reach is constrained by development on both sides and channel widening in this section would include excavation of both banks to construct a number of floodplain benches on both sides of the creek of varying widths with slopes ranging from 2:1 to 3:1 (Figure 4). The benches would be located above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The construction of the floodplain benches would satisfy the District’s freeboard requirements for an earthen September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 450                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 451 Dainty AveCentral BlvdMDEER CREEK358+00 365+50 Retaining Wall 369+00 371+00 Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank Upper Reach Improvements FIGURE 4 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-08/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 452 CCCFDWCD 12 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 channel. Figure 5 presents existing and modified creek cross-sections for this reach. Once the benches are constructed, permanent slope protection such as erosion control matting or other biotechnical methods would be installed on all benches and slopes for slope stabilization and to prevent long-term effects of erosion. The selected erosion control material would provide soil stabilization and promote vegetation growth. Widening the channel cross-section is expected to decrease velocities and erosion potential. However, detailed hydraulic modeling that will be completed to inform the final design may indicate that some bank armoring is necessary where the expanded channel will taper down to the existing channel at the downstream project boundary. In one location along the Upper Reach, the project would require a retaining wall along approximately 250 feet on the left (west) bank due to the presence of Central Boulevard in Brentwood that will extend approximately 5 feet above ground. The retaining wall would rise from the back of the floodplain and would not touch the low flow channel. The project also includes replacement and repair of grouted rock at the Deer Creek confluence. Middle Reach The Middle Reach, which is about 800 feet in length, would be widened along the west bank as part of the proposed project. As the Middle Reach is also constrained, channel widening would involve excavation of both banks to construct a number of floodplain benches of varying widths as shown in Figure 6, with slopes ranging from 2:1 to 3:1. The benches would be located above the OHWM. The construction of the floodplain benches would satisfy the District’s freeboard requirements for an earthen channel. Figure 7 presents existing and modified creek cross-sections for this reach. Lower Reach The Lower Reach, which is about 1,600 feet in length, is less constrained, and more substantial widening of the channel is planned for this area. The project would excavate the east bank of the creek down to the OHWM to create a 10 to 40-foot wide floodplain with slopes typically 3:1 or less, but never more than 2:1 (Figure 8). Figure 7 presents existing and modified creek cross-sections for this reach. If bank protection is necessary at some locations, the project would use biotechnical methods or large rocks to create an aesthetically pleasing bank. Although erosion is currently not a problem, the project would reduce the potential for erosion by lowering water stage, reducing the velocity by widening the cross-sectional velocity of the channel, and establishing native riparian vegetation where compatible with the flood management objectives. To prevent weathering and erosion of slopes, permanent slope protection in the form of erosion control matting, armor, biotechnical methods, or appropriate ground cover would be installed, and the material would provide soil stabilization and promote vegetation growth. 2.4.2 Low-Flow Channel The existing low-flow channel within project limits is engineered with rock grade control structures and banks. The existing, engineered channel has proven stable over the last 40 years and the rock grade September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 453 358+00 365+50 369+00 Sewer lecraP doowtnerB fo ytiClecraP tcirtsiD lortnoC doolF Flood Control District ParcelCentral Blvd ROW City of Brentwood Parcel City of Brent- wood Parcel Flood Control District ParcelCentral Blvd ROW Sewer TrailWall Trail Trail 60 70 80 60 70 80 60 70 80 002051001050 002051001050 002051001050 THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT - Cross Sections 07.11.16 Existing Ground Proposed Ground Proposed Ground FCD Alternative Property Line Upper Reach Cross-Sections FIGURE 5 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-07/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 454                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 455 M A R S H C R E E KSAND CREEKDEER CREEKDLT Ventures (Griffith Parcel) 352+00 Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank Middle Reach Improvements FIGURE 6 1273.001-06/16 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 456                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 457 342+25 347+00 352+00 75-ft HCP Riparian Buffer 75-ft HCP Riparian Buffer 75-ft HCP Riparian Buffer Proposed 55-ft ROW Extension* Manhole Sewer Sewer * Blue denotes FCD Phase II Design Alternative Trail Bioretention Trail TrailTrailTrail* tnempoleveD etluPlecraP tcirtsiD lortnoC doolF Flood Control District Parcel Flood Control District ParcelGriffith Parcel 60 70 80 60 70 80 60 70 80 002051001050 002051001050 002051001050 THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT - Cross Sections 07.11.16 Existing Ground Proposed Ground Proposed Ground FCD Alternative Property Line Lower Reach Middle Reach Middle and Lower Reach Cross-Sections FIGURE 7 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-07/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 458                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 459 MARSH C R E E K SAND CREEK342+25 347+00 Pulte Development (Formerly Palmilla) Carmel Estates UPRR Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank Lower Reach Improvements FIGURE 8 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-08/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 460                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 461 control structures create a sequence of pools and riffles that provide some habitat for aquatic species. The excavation for floodplain widening typically will not touch the low-flow channel below the OHWM. The new floodplain would be graded to inundate during the storm events with the low-flow channel continuing to function much as it does today. Some work in the low-flow channel may be performed and would include creation of instream habitat in the low-flow channel by placing boulders and large woody debris, and the placement of rock slope protection in some portions of the low-flow channel in the Upper and Middle Reaches. 2.4.3 Sewer Line Relocation A City of Brentwood sewer main is located on the west side of the Upper Reach (as shown in Figures 4 and 5). For most of the length, the sewer is within the Central Boulevard right of way. However, a portion of this sewer is located within one of the District’s parcels where flood control improvements would be constructed. The sewer line is over 15 feet deep, at least 4 feet below the flow line of the creek. As the sewer line is below the maximum depth of excavation, it would not be relocated. Near Sand Creek confluence in the Middle and Lower Reach, the sewer main crosses under the creek and continues north along the east bank of the Lower Reach. In the Lower Reach, the sewer line is located within the area that would be excavated to create the right (east) bank floodplain. The sewer line would most likely not be relocated to the east on the Pulte residential subdivision project site. The City of Brentwood has requested that the floodplain widening be stopped short of the existing sewer alignment so it does not need to be relocated. Throughout the project reach, minor modifications to sewer manholes may be required to accommodate changes in ground elevation. In all cases, grading will be performed around manholes so that potential spills from manholes would initially drain away from Marsh Creek. 2.4.4 Establishment of Wetlands The newly created flood benches and floodplain would be inundated when flows in the creek rise during typical storm events that recur nearly annually. The floodplain and benches would be expected to be inundated frequently enough that they will support wetlands. The project would create approximately 3.6 acres of frequently inundated floodplain (seasonal wetland). However, to minimize mosquito breeding in the aquatic environment, floodplain and benches would be sloped at two percent to drain flood flows back to the creek and prevent ponding that would allow mosquitos to breed. 2.4.5 Revegetation Activities Where possible, existing trees along the creek would be protected and retained. Following the construction of channel widening activities, depending on location, the project area would be planted with native wetland forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees. Riparian trees would be planted along the banks and would include valley oak, sycamore, live oak, blue oak, box elder, buckeye, cottonwood, and willow. Slopes and banks would be planted with grassland and scrub species, which would include creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), California brome (Bromus carinatus), purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra, deawned), dense-flowered lupine (Lupinus microcarpus var. densiflorus), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), common fiddleneck (Amsinchkia menziesii var.intermedia), elegant clarkia (Clarkia unguiculata), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). Areas of the floodplain would be planted with seasonal wetland species that will include, but not be limited to, creek clover (Trifolium obtusiflorum), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and deer sedge (Carex praegracilis). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 462 CCCFDWCD 18 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 In 2000, the District completed Phase I widening of Marsh Creek from Dainty Avenue upstream to approximately Summer Circle (Figure 2). While additional widening of this segment is not proposed for this project due to constraints from the adjacent subdivisions, native shrubs and trees may be planted to provide a continuous riparian corridor with the existing riparian vegetation upstream of this segment and the proposed restoration of the project. 2.4.6 Recreational Improvements The project would enhance opportunities for strolling, hiking, and biking along Marsh Creek. Marsh Creek trail would be relocated to the new top of the eastern bank along Upper and Middle Reach as part of the proposed project. The relocated trail section within the Upper Reach would be routed to pass under the Central Avenue road bridge. The trail section along the eastern bank of the Lower Reach would be relocated by the Pulte developer and this trail relocation is not within the scope of this project. However, the project would reduce the gradient of the steep slope between the creek and the trail and would provide a new unpaved foot trail within the created floodplain. Pervious pavement is being considered for use on the relocated trail. The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan (2002) shows a future pedestrian bridge connecting the current Marsh Creek Regional Trail to the Griffith (DLT Ventures) property in the Middle Reach that would allow people to safely access and cross the creek as well as access possible future trails along Sand Creek and/or Deer Creek. These components are not part of this project. The City of Brentwood will be updating its Master Plan and the location of these features may be adjusted appropriately. The lower 1,600 feet of the project would be integrated into a new linear city park, which would provide passive recreation amenities and native landscaping consistent with creek restoration. Consistent with the standards of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), native trees would be planted within a 60-linear foot band of two city parks, along the west side of Pulte development within the HCP/NCCP required setback to provide a natural buffer adjacent to the creek. The project would also include interpretive signs along Marsh Creek. 2.5 Project Construction Activities and Schedule The proposed project has most of the permanent right of way required for construction. However, as indicated in Table 1, temporary construction easements or small permanent takes may be needed from the City of Brentwood and other property owners in order to access adjacent parcels during construction. Construction is anticipated to begin summer 2017. Excavation and grading activities would occur during the dry season (July to October) with plant restoration occurring afterwards (November to December) and may take up to two construction seasons to complete. 2.5.1 Upper Reach Grading and earthmoving activities along the Upper Reach would take place over a period of approximately 2 weeks during the dry season. Construction equipment to be used would include tractors, backhoes, excavators, graders, and dump trucks. Staging for the Upper Reach portion of the project would be within the District-owned parcels or on a City-owned parcel to the east of the creek south of Central Boulevard. Approximately 5,500 cubic yards of soil excavated for channel expansion would require disposal. The excavated materials would be temporarily stored in the staging area and later removed for use on other nearby land development projects or would be off-hauled to the Dutch September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 463 CCCFDWCD 19 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Slough project site in Oakley where it would be used as fill. Other construction activities along this reach would include revegetation and planting, as well as the relocation of the regional trail. 2.5.2 Middle Reach Grading and earthmoving activities along the Middle Reach would also take place over a period of approximately 1 to 2 weeks during the dry season. Construction equipment to be used would include tractors, backhoes, excavators, graders, and dump trucks. Staging for the Middle Reach portion of the project would take place on the District-owned parcels that contain the Middle Reach of the creek. Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of spoils excavated for channel expansion would require disposal. Similar to the Upper Reach, the excavated materials would be temporarily stored in the staging area and later removed for use on other nearby land development projects or would be off-hauled to the Dutch Slough project site where it would be used as fill. Other construction activities along this reach would include revegetation and planting, as well as the relocation of the regional trail. 2.5.3 Lower Reach Construction of the Lower Reach improvements would take place over a period of approximately 4 weeks during the dry season. Staging for the Lower Reach portion of the project would take place on the District-owned parcels containing the creek or the adjacent vacant private land parcel . Construction equipment to be used would include tractors, backhoes, excavators, graders, and dump trucks. Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of spoils excavated for channel expansion would require disposal, with the remainder of the excavated materials (4,000 cubic yards) used on site. Similar to the other two reaches, the excavated materials would be temporarily stored in the staging area and later removed for use on other nearby land development projects or would be off-hauled to the Dutch Slough project site where it would be used as fill. Other construction activities along this reach would include revegetation and planting. 2.6 Long Term Maintenance Following the construction of the proposed improvements, the project area would be maintained by the District, with EBRPD responsible for continued maintenance of the regional trail. 2.7 Permits and Approvals Required In addition to review and approval of the proposed project by the District pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project will also require the following permits and approvals for implementation:  Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction in the Waters of the U.S.  CWA Section 401 Certification from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board  Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife  EBRPD Encroachment Permit  District Encroachment Permit  City of Brentwood Grading Permit September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 464                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 465 CCCFDWCD 20 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources, including Tribal Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 466                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 467 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 468                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 469 CCCFDWCD 22 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS All items on the Initial Study Checklist that have been checked “Less Than Significant Impact” or “No Impact” indicate that, upon evaluation, the District on behalf of the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse environmental effect relating to that issue. For items that have been checked “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” the District has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse environmental effect as the mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study would be implemented as part of the project. For each checklist item, the evaluation has considered the impacts of the project both individually and cumulatively. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 470                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 471 CCCFDWCD 23 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.1 Aesthetics 5.1.1 Background The project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of eastern Contra Costa County, in the City of Brentwood. At the present time, the creek is a trapezoidal flood control channel with practically no riparian vegetation. The earthen channel is steep sloped and planted with non-native grasses. A narrow band of ruderal freshwater marsh habitat is present along the base of the channel banks. Marsh Creek Trail is located on top of the eastern bank of the creek. Residential subdivisions are present on both sides of the creek for most of the project’s length. A vacant City- owned parcel is located on the east side of the Upper Reach just south of Central Boulevard and another city park (Sungold Park) is present on the west side of the Lower Reach. A linear park is planned adjacent to the east side of the Lower Reach. A residential subdivision project (Pulte) is approved for the area east of the Lower Reach. 5.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion AESTHETICS Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Project- level Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 within a state 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: Project a. A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape. Although public views of the Upper Reach are available from Dainty Avenue and Central Boulevard, the views are generally not expansive and would not be considered a scenic vista. Expansive views of the creek and the broader landscape are available from Sungold Park to the west of the Lower Reach and from the EBPRD regional trail, especially in the area of the Middle and Lower Reaches. The implementation of the proposed project would change these views by widening the floodplain and planting riparian vegetation along the creek. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 472 CCCFDWCD 24 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 However, this change would not adversely affect the scenic views in the area but would in fact enhance the views by adding trees and other riparian vegetation along the creek banks. The impact would be less than significant. b. There is no state designated scenic route in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, some trees will be removed but the project will be restored with native riparian trees and understory vegetation. Therefore, the project impact would be less than significant. c. The proposed project would excavate both banks of the creek, widen the channel, and restore the area by planting native plant species and riparian trees. During construction, the project area would appear disturbed and a small number of existing trees would be removed when the creek banks are excavated. However the duration of construction would be short and once the construction is completed, new trees and other native plants appropriate to the project area would be planted. Once the new plantings are established, the visual character and quality of the creek corridor would improve relative to current conditions. Impacts of the proposed project on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings would be less than significant. d. The project does not include the installation of any temporary or permanent lighting. Construction work would be completed during daytime hours and no lighting would be required. Therefore implementation of the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 473 CCCFDWCD 25 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources 5.2.1 Background The project is located in Contra Costa County. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) identifies the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land2 (California Department of Conservation 2014). The project site is bordered on the east by residential subdivisions, a vacant City-owned parcel, two planned parks, Willow Wood School/Dainty Center, and an approved residential subdivision. To the west, the project site is bordered by residential subdivisions and a city park. The land between Deer Creek and Sand Creek to the west of the Middle Reach is presently undeveloped land planned for future residential subdivision development (City of Brentwood General Plan 2014). All lands adjacent to the creek are designated Urban and Built-Up land by the FMMP. 5.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2 Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 474 CCCFDWCD 26 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, 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? DISCUSSION: a. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the FMMP. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of land designated either as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. There would be no impact. b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zone for agricultural use. There would be no impact from the implementation of the project on land under a Williamson Act contract and/or zoned for agricultural use. c., d. Timberland is defined in PRC Section 4526 as “land designated by the board3 as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.” The project site contains no mapped timberland, and there would be no impact from implementation of the proposed project. Forest land is defined in PRC Section 12220(g) as “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” The project site does not contain any forest lands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. e. The project would not involve any land use changes that could indirectly lead to the conversion of Important Farmland or forest lands to other uses. Furthermore, as discussed above, most of the parcels near the project site are developed with residential subdivisions, and those properties that are currently undeveloped are designated Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. There would be no impact. 3 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 475 CCCFDWCD 27 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.3 Air Quality 5.3.1 Background The project area is subject to air quality planning programs developed in response to both the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). Within the San Francisco Bay Area, air quality is monitored, evaluated, and regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The project is located in eastern Contra Costa County, which, along with eight other counties, is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin). Air pollutants are emitted by a variety of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles; stationary sources such as manufacturing facilities, power plants, and laboratories; and area sources such as homes and commercial buildings. While some of the air pollutants that are emitted need to be examined at the local level, others are predominantly an issue at the regional level. For instance, ozone (O3) is formed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight by a series of chemical reactions involving oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Because these reactions are broad-scale in effects, the effects of ozone typically are analyzed at the regional level (i.e., in the Air Basin) rather than the local level. On the other hand, other air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a potential concern in the immediate vicinity of the pollutant source because the pollutants are emitted directly or are formed close to the source. TACs are also known as hazardous air pollutants. Therefore, the study area for emissions of SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, Pb, and TAC is the local area nearest the source, such as in the vicinity of construction sites, whereas the study area for regional pollutants such as NOx and ROG is the entire Air Basin. Air pollutants typically are categorized as criteria pollutants or TACs. The criteria pollutants are those regulated at the federal level by U.S. EPA and at the state and regional level by CARB and BAAQMD, respectively. These include O3, PM10, PM2.5, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), SO2, and Pb. O3 is a secondary pollutant formed during photochemical reactions with precursor pollutants. As such, O3 is measured by assessing emissions of its precursors, ROG and NO2. TACs are airborne pollutants for which there are no air quality standards, but are known to have adverse human health effects and therefore are regulated. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, mobile sources such as automobiles and heavy-duty construction equipment, particularly diesel-fueled vehicles. Air quality in the Air Basin is monitored by the BAAQMD and CARB. Based on pollutant concentrations measured at monitoring stations within the Air Basin, the SFBAAB is classified as being either in attainment or non-attainment of federal and state air quality standards. The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal O3 8-hour standard, the state O3 1-hour standard, the state PM10 standard, and the state and federal PM2.5 standards. For all other federal and state standards, the Air Basin is in attainment or unclassified. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 476 CCCFDWCD 28 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Some groups of people are considered more sensitive to adverse effects from air pollution than the general population. These groups are termed “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, and people with existing health problems, who are more often susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems. Locations where these groups of people are found, such as schools, childcare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, are all considered sensitive receptors. Air pollution impacts are assessed, in part, based on potential effects on sensitive receptors. Several sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, single-family homes are located adjacent to the work areas on the east side of the creek between Dainty Avenue and Central Boulevard; on the west side of the creek between Central Boulevard and Deer Creek; and along the east side of the Middle Reach. Willow Wood School/Dainty Center is also located adjacent to the east side of the creek at the corner of Dainty Avenue and Central Boulevard. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (“BAAQMD Guidelines”) set forth methodologies and quantitative significance thresholds that a lead agency may use to estimate and evaluate the significance of a project’s air emissions. The BAAQMD Guidelines present thresholds for evaluating both construction-phase and operational emissions, and include numeric thresholds for criteria pollutants and health-based evaluation criteria for TACs. The BAAQMD Guidelines do not recommend quantification of fugitive dust emissions but note that the impact from a project’s fugitive dust emissions during construction would be significant unless dust control measures and other best management practices are implemented. Although due to litigation related to the BAAQMD Guidelines, the BAAQMD is not recommending the use of the thresholds in its Guidelines, the thresholds are used by most Bay Area lead agencies, and have been used in this Initial Study to evaluate the project’s air quality impacts. 5.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion AIR QUALITY Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 477 CCCFDWCD 29 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: a. A project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plans if it would be inconsistent with the emissions inventories contained in the regional air quality plans. Emission inventories are developed based on projected increases in population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the region. Project-generated increases in population or VMT could, therefore, potentially conflict with regional air quality attainment plans. Due to the nature of the creek restoration activities, implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased population or related increases in vehicle miles traveled within the region. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to conflict with existing or future air quality planning efforts. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact. b. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term emissions associated with ground disturbance and use of construction equipment and vehicles. Minimal emissions are anticipated after the activities are completed, for reasons presented below. Construction Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to result in a significant air quality impact. The channel widening and restoration activities would result in temporary emissions associated with excavation and motor-vehicle exhaust from construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions of criteria pollutants from mainly excavation activities, grading and off-hauling were estimated using the CalEEMod model. A conservative scenario was modeled that assumed that the Upper Reach and Lower Reach improvements would be under construction at the same time and the Middle Reach improvements would be constructed shortly thereafter. Therefore all of the construction activities would take place over a 37-day period. The estimated construction emissions are provided below in Table 2, Estimated Construction Emissions. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 478 CCCFDWCD 30 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Table 2 Estimated Construction Emissions (lbs per day) CO NOx ROG PM (fugitive dust) PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) Project 24.4 20.9 2.4 138.7 0.81 0.74 Significance Thresholds None 54 54 None 82 54 Exceedance? No No No No No No Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 2016. As shown in Table 2, if the Upper Reach and Lower Reach are concurrently under construction and the Middle Reach is constructed shortly after, the proposed project would result in emissions that would not exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants. The impact from air pollutant emissions during the construction-phase of the project would be less than significant. Fugitive Dust As mentioned above, movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces, during construction activities and off-hauling excavated materials could temporarily generate fugitive dust, including PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local roadways, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. Fugitive dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. The BAAQMD Guidelines consider the impact from a project’s construction-phase dust emissions to be less than significant if best management practices listed in the guidelines are implemented. Without these BMPs, the impact from fugitive dust emissions would be potentially significant. Thus, to ensure that construction-phase emissions are controlled and minimized, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is included which requires that dust control and other BMPs put forth by the BAAQMD are implemented by the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following BMPs during project construction:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil stockpiles, 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. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 479 CCCFDWCD 31 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible and feasible.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Community Health Risk In addition to an evaluation of the potential impacts from a project’s construction -phase emissions of criteria pollutant and fugitive dust, the BAAQMD Guidelines recommend an evaluation of potential community health risk and hazards from a project’s construction emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs). For assessing community risks and hazards, a 1,000 foot radius around the project boundary is recommended in the BAAQMD Guidelines. The proposed project would involve the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment which would result in diesel particulate emissions which are considered a TAC in the vicinity of the work areas. Due to the nature of the proposed project, the fact that only a few pieces of equipment would be used on each reach (no more than 3 pieces of equipment), and the short duration of work, the potential for a significant impact is low. However, sensitive receptors such as residences and a daycare center are located less than 50 feet from where project construction activities would occur and could be potentially affected. The impact would be potentially significant. To avoid impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, the project will be required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2 which will ensure that cleaner engines are utilized for construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-2: All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously during the duration of construction shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 480 CCCFDWCD 32 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Operation Operational air emission impacts are associated with any change in permanent use of the project site as a land use change can add new on-site stationary or area sources to the project site or increase the number of vehicles trips to and from the project site. No change in land use is proposed as part of the channel widening and restoration activities. Although restoration activities may attract more people to utilize the Marsh Creek Trail, no significant permanent increase in vehicle trips to the creek would result due to the proposed project. The small number of vehicle trips associated with the monitoring and maintenance activities would not significantly increase VMT. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not change substantially from existing conditions, and would not exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance for operational emissions. The impact from air pollutant emissions during operation would be less than significant. c. As described above in Response b, the proposed project would not result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions that would exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction emissions of criteria pollutants. In addition, BMPs would be implemented to control fugitive dust and other construction-phase emissions. The proposed project would also not result in a substantial amount of air pollutant emissions during operation. As a result, increases of temporary and long-term air pollutant emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any of the pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment status for federal or state ambient air quality standards. This impact would be less than significant. d. The potential for project construction activities to affect sensitive receptors is analyzed above under Response b. As noted there, although TAC emissions during construction could result in a potentially significant community health impact, it would be reduced to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure AIR-2 set forth above. e. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of diesel-fueled equipment, which has an associated odor. However, odors would be short term and temporary and would disperse rapidly. They would not be pervasive enough to affect a substantial number of people or to be objectionable. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not cause or be affected by odors, and the impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures AIR- 1 and AIR-2 would be implemented to minimize diesel exhaust emissions emitted on the project site during construction. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 481 CCCFDWCD 33 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.4 Biological Resources 5.4.1 Background The project site is situated in a rapidly developing part of eastern Contra Costa County. Adjacent land uses include single-family residential neighborhoods to the north, west and south, and vacant lands zoned for residential development to the east and west. A section of the Marsh Creek Regional Trail follows the top of Marsh Creek’s eastern bank. The entire study area, which encompasses both banks of Marsh Creek over a section approximately 4,000 feet long, has been highly modified historically by flood control and agricultural activities. The upland portions of the study area were dryland farmed as recently as 2003 and were under cultivation at least as long ago as 1938; Marsh Creek has had much the same alignment going back at least as long ago as then. Although most of the Marsh Creek channel on site is lined with earthen banks, portions have been armored with grouted riprap. Multiple storm drains outfall into the channel. The left (western) bank is topped with a gravel access roadbed and backs up onto fenced back yards or adjacent residences, and a vacant field. The right (east) bank is topped with the paved Marsh Creek Regional Trail and bordered with an old barbed wire fence in the Lower Reach. The upland fields within and adjacent to the project site is former agricultural land that has gone fallow but is routinely disked for weed and fire control (Wood 2016). No natural, unaltered plant communities are present onsite or the project vicinity. Although native plant species are present, none of the habitats present are considered indigenous and natural; each is characterized as a product of post-disturbance recolonization. The predominant vegetation type is ruderal. Anthropogenic habitat, consisting of plantings, is present along the Marsh Creek Regional Trail and on adjacent properties. A narrow band of ruderal freshwater marsh habitat is present along the base of each channel bank (Wood 2016). Reconnaissance-level surveys were performed on May 12, 2015 and November 17, 2015 by Wood Biological Consulting. During both surveys, all habitat types at and adjacent to the study area were surveyed and classified, and plant and wildlife species observed were recorded. Special-status Plants Special-status plants include plant species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California”(California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B and 2). A total of 61 special-status plant species have been recorded in the nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles surrounding the project site and were evaluated in the February 2016 Biological Resource Assessment. Of the 61 species, eight special-status plant species are mapped by the 2015 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as having been recorded from within 3.0 miles of the project site. These include brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquiniana), stinkbells (Fritillaria agrestis), Brewer’s western flax (Hesperolinon breweri), Antioch Dunes evening primrose (Oenothera deltoides ssp. howelliii), and showy golden madia (Madia radiata). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 482 CCCFDWCD 34 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 No federally or State-listed plant species or California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B and 2 species were detected within the study area and none is expected to occur within the project disturbance areas due to level of historical disturbance and lack of appropriate habitat. Special-status Wildlife Species Special-status wildlife species include animal taxa listed or proposed for listing under the FESA or CESA; taxa considered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to be a Species of Special Concern (SSC); and taxa which meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described under CEQA Section 15380. In addition, many wildlife species receive protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA). The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) provides specific language protecting birds and raptors, “fully protected birds,” “fully protected mammals,” “fully protected reptiles and amphibians,” and “fully protected fish.” The California Code of Regulations (CCR) prohibits the take of fully protected fish, certain fur‐bearing mammals, and restricts the taking of amphibians and reptiles (Wood 2016). The potential for a total of 78 special-status wildlife species to occur in the area to be disturbed by the project was evaluated in the February 2016 Biological Resource Assessment. Based on the availability of suitable habitat, there is potential for nine special-status wildlife species to occur on site. These include silvery legless lizard, California red-legged frog, Pacific pond turtle, Chinook salmon, steelhead (Central Valley distinct population segment (DPS)), burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and Swainson’s hawk. Of the nine species, two of these species were observed on site during surveys: burrowing owl was observed nesting within the study area and Swainson’s hawk was observed hunting on site. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The proposed project site is located within the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”) inventory area. The Plan is intended to provide a comprehensive framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts of new development on Endangered and Threatened species, and other species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The permit area for the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP generally includes land within the urban limit lines in the cities of Clayton, Pittsburg, Oakley, and Brentwood and Contra Costa County. The local jurisdictions who are permittees under the HCP/NCCP include the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, and the Conservancy. Currently, all participating jurisdictions have approved the HCP/NCCP and have adopted implementing ordinances and the fee structures set forth in the HCP/NCCP. As required by the FESA, the HCP/NCCP includes measures to avoid and minimize take of covered species, which would be included as conditions on development for applicable projects. It is the responsibility of project proponents to design and implement their projects in compliance with listed measures in the HCP/NCCP. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 483 CCCFDWCD 35 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 The proposed project’s participation in the HCP/NCCP would provide a mechanism to adequately mitigate impacts to all potentially occurring covered sensitive species and habitats on the project site. 5.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 Wildlife 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 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? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 484 CCCFDWCD 36 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 DISCUSSION: a. Special-status Plants As stated above, 61 special-status plant species have been recorded within the nine USGS quad area inclusive of the project site and were evaluated in the February 2016 Biological Resource Assessment. However, none of the special-status plant species were observed during site reconnaissance surveys and are not expected to occur on the project site due to the level of disturbance, soils, lack of suitable habitat or substrate, and geographic isolation from known populations. Therefore, no impacts to special-status plant species would occur. Special-status Wildlife Species As noted above, the potential exists for nine special-status wildlife species to occur on site: silvery legless lizard, California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, Chinook salmon, steelhead (Central Valley DPS), burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and Swainson’s hawk. The potential also exists for numerous other bird species that are protected under the MBTA and CFGC to be present in the area. The potential for the project to affect these species is evaluated below. Reptiles and Amphibians Populations of California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard have been recorded from the project region. Although the occurrence of these species on the project site is considered unlikely, the lack of significant barriers to movement between known source populations and the project site means that the potential exists for these species to move into harm’s way during project construction and direct mortalities could result. Direct and indirect impacts to California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to these species to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: To avoid and minimize impacts to California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard during construction activities, the project will implement the following measures: 1. Coverage under the HCP/NCCP. The project proponent shall apply for coverage under the HCP/NCCP. Participation in the HCP/NCCP, including implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and payment of applicable fees September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 485 CCCFDWCD 37 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 would provide the project proponent with incidental take coverage for California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard.4 2. Seasonal Avoidance. If required by the Streambed Alteration Agreement or Water Quality Certification, work shall be limited to the dry season, from April 15 to October 15. 3. Minimize Nighttime Work. If required by the Streambed Alteration Agreement or Water Quality Certification, nighttime construction shall be restricted to avoid effects on nocturnally active species such as California red-legged frog. 4. Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program to all construction personnel working on site. At a minimum the training should include a description of special-status species that could be encountered, their habitats, regulatory status, protective measures, work boundaries, lines of communication, reporting requirements, and the implications of violations of applicable laws. 5. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing. Prior to the start of construction, wildlife exclusion fencing (WEF)5 shall be installed as warranted and consistent with the HCP/NCCP to isolate the work area from any habitats potentially supporting special-status animals or through which such species may move. The final project plans shall indicate where and how the WEF is to be installed. The bid solicitation package special provisions shall provide further instructions to the contractor about acceptable fencing locations and materials. The fencing shall remain throughout the duration of the work activities, be regularly inspected and properly maintained by the contractor. Fencing and stakes shall be completely removed following project completion. 6. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Prior to the initiation of work, BMPs shall be in place to prevent the release of any pollutants or sediment into the creek, storm drains, or tributaries; all BMPs shall be properly maintained. Leaks, drips, and spills of hydraulic fluid, oil, or fuel from construction equipment shall be promptly cleaned up to prevent contamination of water ways. All workers shall be properly trained regarding the importance of preventing and cleaning up spills of contaminants. Protective measures should include, at a minimum: 4 The HCP/NCCP requires written notification to the USFWS, CDFW, and the Habitat Conservancy prior to disturbance of any suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frog. However, the project area does not contain any suitable breeding habitat for this species. Because the project will receive take coverage under the HCP/NCCP, preconstruction surveys are not required for California red-legged frog (non-breeding), Pacific (Western) pond turtle and silver legless lizard. 5 Wildlife Exclusion Fencing should provide a barrier for terrestrial wildlife gaining access to the project work areas. The fencing may vary to meet the needs of a particular species, but should be buried and/or backfilled to prevent animals passing under the fence and should be high enough to deter reptiles and amphibian or small mammals from climbing or jumping over the fence. Acceptable fencing materials including ERTEC E-Fence® (Ertec Environmental Systems LLC), plywood, corrugated metal, silt fencing or other suitable materials. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 486 CCCFDWCD 38 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 a. No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning should be allowed into any storm drains or watercourses. b. Spill containment kits should be maintained onsite at all times during construction operations and/or staging or fueling of equipment. c. Coir rolls or straw wattles should be installed along or at the base of slopes during construction to capture sediment. 7. Erosion Control. Graded areas shall be protected from erosion using a combination of silt fences, fiber rolls along toes of slopes or along edges of designated staging areas, and erosion control netting (such as jute or coir) as appropriate on sloped areas. 8. Construction Site Restrictions. The following site restrictions shall be implemented to avoid adversely affecting sensitive habitats and harm or harassment to listed species: a. Any fill material shall be certified to be non-toxic and weed free. b. All food and food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed trash containers and removed completely from the site at the end of each day. c. No pets from project personnel shall be allowed anywhere in the project site during construction. d. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site except for those carried by authorized security personnel, or local, State or Federal law enforcement officials. e. All equipment shall be maintained such that there are no leaks of automotive fluids such as gasoline, oils or solvents and a Spill Response Plan shall be prepared. Hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, etc. shall be stored in sealable containers in a designated location that is isolated from wetlands and aquatic habitats. f. Servicing of vehicles and construction equipment including fueling, cleaning, and maintenance should occur only at sites isolated from any aquatic habitat unless separated by topographic or drainage barrier or unless it is an already existing gas station. Staging areas may occur closer to the project activities as required. 9. Proper Use of Erosion Control Devices. Plastic mono-filament netting (e.g., that used with erosion control matting) or similar material shall not be used within the project area; wildlife can become entangled or trapped in such non-biodegradable materials. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting, tackified hydroseeding, blown straw, or other organic mulching material. 10. Protocol for Species Observation – Pacific (Western) pond turtle and silvery legless lizard. If a Pacific (Western) pond turtle or silvery legless lizard is encountered in the project site, work in the area of the finding must cease immediately until the animal either moves out of harm’s way of its own accord or is safely relocated well upstream or downstream of the project site. Only a qualified biologist with a scientific collection permit issued by the CDFW may handle and relocate Pacific (Western) pond turtle or silvery legless lizard. Any sightings and relocation of Pacific (Western) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 487 CCCFDWCD 39 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 pond turtle and silvery legless lizard should be reported to the CDFW and the CNDDB. Fish Species Although there are no records for steelhead or Chinook salmon occurring in Marsh Creek in the 2015 CNDDB and occurrence on site for both species is considered unlikely, recent sightings of fall-run Chinook have been reported within Marsh Creek and suitable habitat for steelhead is present in the project area. Populations of listed salmonids have not been regularly observed in Marsh Creek; any present would be considered stray migrants. Listed salmonids have the greatest potential to occur within the project area between November and June based on the timing of adult and juvenile migrations in and through the waterways of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (National Marine Fisheries Service 2012). Although the vast majority of construction activities would occur above the OHWM and during the dry season, some limited work such as restoration of habitat or site-specific armoring could occur in the low-flow channel. To the extent that this work in the low-flow channel requires either dewatering or excavation, take of steelhead or Chinook could occur. Neither of these species is covered under the HCP/NCCP and direct and indirect impacts to either steelhead or Chinook would be considered significant. To ensure there is no take of either of these species if work in the low-flow channel becomes necessary, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. In addition, consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will confirm these measures are sufficient; otherwise, additional measures may be implemented as appropriate. Once the proposed improvements are constructed, the project would not impede or interfere with fish movement. In fact the project would improve conditions for movement of fish species in this area. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October31. 2. In-Stream Activities: If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A preconstruction survey of the aquatic environment shall be performed by a qualified biologist. b. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. c. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. d. If dewatering is proposed, a qualified biologist should monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 488 CCCFDWCD 40 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 e. Native species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a permitted biologist. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure conformance with ESA. Migratory and Special-status Birds The project site trees, shrubs, vines, and grasslands provide suitable nesting habitat for four special-status bird species (Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike) as well as many other migratory bird species. As noted earlier, during site reconnaissance surveys, an occupied nesting burrow of burrowing owl was observed in the study area, and a foraging Swainson’s hawk was observed on the ground, perching and directly overhead during the survey. Ground disturbing activities such as grubbing, grading, trenching, and tree removal or pruning could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests and mortality of young. In addition, noise from construction activities could disrupt active nests. Any direct or indirect impact on an active nest of the special- status bird species or species protected by the MBTA and CFGC would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: In order to avoid impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and other bird species protected under the MBTA and CFGC during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. 1) Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program to all construction personnel working on site. At a minimum the training shall include a description of special-status species that could be encountered, their habitats, regulatory status, protective measures, work boundaries, lines of communication, reporting requirements, and the implications of violations of applicable laws. 2) Swainson’s hawk is a federally listed threatened species and is covered under the HCP/NCCP. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to ensure that no take of Swainson’s hawk occurs. Therefore, the measures outlined below should be implemented. a) The project proponent should apply for coverage under the HCP/NCCP. Participation in the HCP/NCCP would provide the applicant with incidental take coverage for Swainson’s hawk and satisfy any requirements for mitigation for loss of habitat. b) Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (March 15- September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to determine if there are any September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 489 CCCFDWCD 41 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 active Swainson’s hawk nests within 305 meters (1,000 feet) of the project site. c) If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d) If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be followed.  Construction activities are not permitted within 305 meters (1,000 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a small buffer, a qualified biologist should coordinate with CDFW and USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.  Construction activities may proceed prior to September 15 if the young Swainson’s hawks have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 3) White-tailed kite is a state-listed fully protected species; it is not covered under the HCP/NCCP and incidental take of the species is not allowed. To ensure that no take of white-tailed kite or other migratory raptors occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a) Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1- August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of white-tailed kite or other migratory raptors within 76 meters (250 feet) of the project site. b) Prior to the removal or significant pruning of any trees, they shall be inspected by a qualified biologist for the presence of raptor nests. This is required during both the breeding season and non-breeding season. If a suspected raptor nest is discovered, the CDFW shall be notified. Pursuant to CFGC Section 3503.5, raptor nests, whether or not they are occupied, may not be removed until approval is granted by the CDFW. c) If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d) If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be implemented.  Construction activities are not permitted within 76 meter (250 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a small buffer, a qualified biologist should coordinate with the CDFW and/or USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. Nest monitoring may be warranted for activities that would occur within a smaller buffer.  Construction activities may proceed prior to August 31 if the young white-tailed kites or other raptor species have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 4) Burrowing owl is a State species of special concern and a covered species under the HCP/NCCP. To ensure that no take of burrowing owl occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 490 CCCFDWCD 42 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 a) Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1- August 31), a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of all suitable burrowing owl habitat that would be affected by the project. The survey shall be performed no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of burrowing owl within 153 m (500 ft) of the project site, access permitting. b) If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. c) If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be implemented.  If an occupied burrowing owl nest site is present within the limits of work, construction may not proceed. The taking of burrowing owls or occupied nests is prohibited under CFGC.6 Nest sites must be flagged and protected by a designated disturbance-free buffer zone of at least 76 meters (250 feet).  Construction activities are not permitted within 76 meters (250 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment.  Construction may proceed if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the adults have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles have fledged.  Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from occupied burrows outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1-January 31), in consultation with the CDFW. All owls should be passively excluded from burrows within 49 meters (160 feet) of the work site. Passive exclusion is achieved by installing one-way doors in the burrow entrances. Doors should be in place for at least 48 hours and the site should be monitored daily for at least one week to confirm that the burrow has been abandoned. 5) Loggerhead shrike is a state species of special concern; it is not covered under the HCP/NCCP and incidental take of the species is not allowed. To ensure that no take of loggerhead shrike or any other migratory passerines occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a) If ground-disturbing activities (i.e., site clearing, disking, grading, etc.) can be performed outside of the nesting season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31), no additional surveys are warranted. b) Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1- August 31), a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of loggerhead shrike or any other migratory passerines nests within 30 meters (100 feet) of the project site. 6 CFGC §§3503, 3503.5 and 3800 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 491 CCCFDWCD 43 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 c) If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d) If an active nest is present within this buffer, the following measures shall be implemented.  Construction activities are not permitted within 30 meters (100 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a smaller buffer, a qualified biologist should coordinate with the CDFW and USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. Nest monitoring may be warranted for activities that would occur within a smaller buffer.  Construction activities may proceed prior to August 31 if the young birds have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. f. Sensitive natural communities recorded from the project region include alkali meadow, alkali seep, cismontane alkali marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, coastal brackish marsh, northern claypan vernal pool, stabilized interior dunes, valley needlegrass grassland, and valley sink scrub (Wood 2016). However, there are no known special-status natural communities on the project site. Although the project would involve the removal of some limited riparian habitat along the creek in order to widen the channel, substantially greater riparian habitat would be created by converting the creek channel to a more natural channel and planting the banks with riparian trees and plant species. Thus, the impact of the project on sensitive natural communities and riparian habitat would be less than significant. g. During the 2015 site visits, a preliminary delineation of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters of the State was performed.7 Marsh Creek is expected to qualify as a water of the U.S. and a water of the State. Thus, as currently proposed, the project would result in impacts to jurisdictional waters. Impacts to the channel are regulated and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the CDFW. The proposed project would grade back both banks of Marsh Creek to an elevation just above the OHWM. The total length of channel to be altered is 4,000 feet. The impact on federal and state waters would be potentially significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, project impacts to jurisdictional waters would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: In order to avoid, minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts on waters of the U.S./waters of the State, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. 7 Methods were in accordance with the procedures outlined in Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE, 2008). Determination of the limits of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) conformed to procedures outlined in USACE (2006). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 492 CCCFDWCD 44 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 1) Impacts on waters of the U.S. will be avoided by restricting grading to an elevation above the OHWM; avoidance of impacts to waters of the State is not feasible. Long-term impacts shall be minimized by limiting the use of hardened structures (e.g., grouted riprap) in preference of bio-engineering solutions as much as is practicable. Surface water connections must not be permanently blocked or interrupted and the installation of drop-structures or other features that create barriers to wildlife movement shall be avoided. 2) Prior to construction, the project proponent will need to secure authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in conformance to the Clean Water Act and Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. 3) Participation in the HCP/NCCP is expected to satisfy the requirements of the regulatory agencies for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on stream channels, wetlands and riparian habitat. A Planning Survey Report shall be completed and submitted to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. The submittal shall include detailed drawings illustrating all temporary and permanent impacts. 4) Per the terms of the adopted HCP/NCCP, a wetland mitigation fee or on-site habitat restoration will mitigate the impacts. If accepted by the regulatory agencies, no additional mitigation for wetland impacts is typically required. HCP/NCCP fee payment will occur at project contract award. 5) For all work within and adjacent to the stream channel and riparian habitat, best management practices (BMPs) must be incorporated into the project design to minimize environmental effects. These include the following:  Construction in the active channels shall be restricted to the dry season (April 15-October 15).  Personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to the buffer zone of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub shall be trained by a qualified biologist in these avoidance and minimization measures and the permit obligations.  If dewatering is necessary, water released downstream of work areas must be as clean or cleaner than flows entering the work area. Sediment-laden water shall be either pumped onto upland sites for infiltration or into Baker tanks for settling, prior to being released back into the channel. Coffer dams shall consist of clean, silt-free sand or gravel in sand bags, or a comparable material. All coffer dam materials must be promptly removed when no longer needed.  High visibility temporary construction fencing should be erected between the outer edge of the limits of construction and adjacent streams or habitats to be preserved. Temporary construction fencing will be removed upon the completion of work.  Grading or construction near channels shall be isolated with silt fencing or other BMPs to prevent sedimentation. BMPs shall be regularly inspected.  Vehicles and equipment shall be parked on existing roads or previously disturbed areas. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 493 CCCFDWCD 45 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016  Equipment working in channels must be in good working order and free of leaks of fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids. Drip pans shall be placed under vehicles and equipment over waterways and spill clean-up materials should be kept onsite at a convenient location.  Equipment maintenance and refueling shall be performed well away from the top of bank of any channel; storm drain inlets shall be protected from an accidental release of contaminants.  Concrete washings or other contaminants must not be permitted to enter the stream channel or any storm drain inlet.  Any concrete structures or cured-in-place pipe linings shall be allowed to cure before coming in contact with surface flows.  Construction debris and materials shall be stockpiled away from watercourses.  Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., coconut coir matting, tackified hydroseeding, blown straw or other organic mulching material) shall be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub. Plastic mono-filament netting (e.g., that used with erosion control matting) or similar material should not be used within the action area; wildlife can become entangled or trapped such non- biodegradable materials. Erosion-control measures shall be placed between the outer edge of the buffer and the project site.  Fiber rolls used for erosion control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed.  Construction staging areas past the channel banks must be located away from any wetlands or other sensitive habitats as identified by a qualified biologist.  Newly graded earthen channel slopes shall be revegetated with a native seed mix developed by a qualified restorationist. Seed mixtures applied for erosion control shall not contain invasive nonnative species, and be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species. Straw or mulch shall also be applied to all bare surfaces. The seed mix and mulch shall be applied prior to the onset of the first winter-season rains.  Herbicide shall not be applied within 30 meters (100 feet) of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian habitat. However, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved by the U.S. EPA for use 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 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. Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible and by avoiding applying during windy days.  Additional measures may be outlined in the conditions of the permits issued by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the Habitat Conservancy. All permit conditions must be conformed to. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 494 CCCFDWCD 46 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 d. As mentioned above, limited construction work could occur in the low-flow channel and take of steelhead or Chinook could occur. To ensure there is no take of either of these species if work in the low-flow channel becomes necessary, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented to ensure temporary impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would be conducted by the USACE during the USACE permit application process. Marsh Creek is not part of an uninterrupted riparian corridor and although it is contiguous with extensive open shoreline lands downstream, it connects to the uppermost part of the watershed only after passing through commercial, industrial and residential development and numerous culvert outfalls. Much of the Lower Reach of Marsh Creek lacks significant riffles, pools, irregular bank features, and overhanging vegetation that provide suitable cover or refuge for resident or dispersing wildlife. Furthermore, the adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial development bring predators such as pets, feral animals, and those attracted to human habitation. Increased human activity, noise, and lighting further inhibit the movements of wildlife species. For these reasons, the section of Marsh Creek that constitutes the project site is not expected to serve as a significant wildlife corridor. Although, construction activities would disturb wildlife that use the creek in the project area this disturbance would be temporary. Furthermore, the implementation of the proposed habitat restoration and enhancement project would serve to improve the quality of available habitat for wildlife use, including movement of fish species. Thus, less than significant impacts to wildlife movement would occur. e. The natural vegetation within the project area consists of annual grasses and forbs with a few scattered oaks. Project implementation would require removal of predominantly ruderal vegetation consisting of herbaceous annual and perennial grasses and forbs. Trees planned for removal include one valley oak (dbh8 estimated to be 40 inches), two live oaks (14-inch dbh), and 5-10 non-native trees (8-inch dbh). The City of Brentwood Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance requires that any healthy oak trees (4-inch dbh or greater) that are removed within Planned Development 20 (PD-20) areas shall be replaced with 48-inch box blue oak trees with a canopy width of 7 to 8 feet and a height of 17 feet. The ordinance requires that all trees shall be planted in public lands, the golf course, open space areas or view easements. Although the proposed project is not subject to the City’s tree ordinance, trees to be planted along the creek would still comply with tree replacement standards and would provide a greater number of trees than are currently on-site. A key component of the proposed project is to plant numerous trees alongside the creek to provide shade for pedestrians utilizing the Marsh Creek Trail and to shade waters within the creek to improve water quality. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. f. The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP was adopted in August of 2007. The HCP/NCCP provides a framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species. Rather than individually surveying, negotiating, and securing mitigation, project proponents will receive required permits by paying a fee (and/or dedicating land) and adhering 8 Diameter of a tree measured at breast height or approximately 4.5 feet from the ground. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 495 CCCFDWCD 47 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 to Plan-required avoidance and minimization measures. Fees are paid into two separate reserves, a Development Fee and a Wetland Fee. The Development Fee requires payment based on a cost per acre for all acres converted to non-habitat with the cost per acre based on the HCP fee zone. The proposed project does not propose any building or structure development and would not convert any areas to non-habitat. Nonetheless, the project would temporarily disturb habitat and potentially affect covered species and payment of the Development Fee would be required. The Wetland Fee requires payment based on the amount and type of wetland or waters affected. The proposed project would comply with the HCP/NCCP and project impacts to species, habitat, and wetlands would be mitigated through the payment of Wetland Impact fees to the HCP/NCCP (or on-site habitat restoration). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP/NCCP and there would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 496                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 497 CCCFDWCD 48 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.5 Cultural Resources 5.5.1 Background The project area is situated on the western margin of California's Central Valley, one of two principal grassland communities that exist in California. The combination of the climate and arable soils has produced rich farmland leading to extensive agricultural use of the region, which has resulted in the disappearance of much of the original marsh and grassland community. Annual precipitation in the region is 6 to 29 inches. The climate is Mediterranean and temperatures in the summer are high (WSA 2016). No standing structures are present on the project site. On November 10, 2015, WSA conducted a records search for the project at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University (NWIC) (File No. 15-0613). The records search included a review of cultural resource and excavation reports and recorded cultural resources within 1/4-mile radius of the project area. The records search also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation Directory. A total of two cultural resources studies have been conducted within the project area, and a total five cultural resources studies have been conducted within 1/4-mile radius of the project. The records search indicated that no previously recorded resources are within the project area. One previously recorded resource, the Union9 Pacific Railroad (P-07-000813), is located within 1/4-mile of the project area. The resource is a segment of the historic Union Pacific Railroad6 whose alignment has been recorded in a number of different locations. WSA Staff Archaeologist David Buckley conducted a field reconnaissance of the proposed project area on November 17, 2015. The survey began at the southeast corner of the project area at the intersection of Dainty Avenue and proceeded north along the eastern side of Marsh Creek. The survey proceeded around the north end of the project area and then continued south along the west side of Marsh Creek, terminating back at Dainty Avenue. No prehistoric or historic deposits were observed during the archaeological survey and no evidence of prehistoric cultural soils (midden) was observed during the archaeological survey (WSA 2016). 5.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 9 The railroad is listed as Union Pacific in the record but actually is currently known as Southern Pacific Railroad. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 498 CCCFDWCD 49 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 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 geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? DISCUSSION: a. The project site consists of a section along Marsh Creek and the Marsh Creek Trail. The site does not contain buildings or structures that would qualify as historic al resources. No impact on a structure or feature of the built environment that qualifies as a historical resource would occur. b.,d. As noted above, no recorded archaeological resources are known from the project area. No prehistoric or historic deposits were observed during the archaeological survey and no evidence of prehistoric cultural soils (midden) was observed during the archaeological survey. However, given that associated grave goods and human remains have been identified at various places along the banks of Marsh Creek at other locations, all of the areas immediately adjacent to Marsh Creek are considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits. Therefore, project impacts to unknown cultural resources or human remains would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impacts to unknown historic and prehistoric archaeological resources and human remains to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Crew training, initial monitoring by a qualified archaeologist to determine an appropriate level of monitoring for the duration of the project, and additional spot checks pending the results of the initial monitoring shall be conducted prior to and during ground disturbing activities. A qualified archaeologist shall be present on the project site to monitor ground disturbing activities and inspect excavated soils to identify any cultural resources and human remains as deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist. All construction crew workers shall attend a training session led by a qualified archaeologist that discusses (1) the reasons for archaeological resource monitoring; (2) regulatory policies protecting resources and human remains; (3) basic identification of archaeological resources; and (4) the protocol to follow in case of a discovery of such resources. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 499 CCCFDWCD 50 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 In accordance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5 (f), should any previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood, privies, trash deposits or similar debris, be discovered during ground disturbing activities, work within 25 feet of these materials should be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and to consult with the lead agency about what appropriate mitigation would be appropriate to protect the resource. In the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are encountered during project-related ground disturbance, in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties, including the appointment of a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to the project. The MLD, or in lieu of the MLD, the NAHC, has the responsibility to provide guidance as to the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains. c. There are no known significant fossil deposits or paleontological resources located in the City of Brentwood (City of Brentwood 2014a). However, the geologic conditions within the city provide suitable conditions for the possibility of fossils to exist at depths of five to 10 feet below ground surface. The project site is mapped as Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits. Geologic formations, including various Quaternary subunits have a high to moderate potential for paleontological resources (City of Brentwood 2014a). Therefore, excavation on the project site could potentially inadvertently unearth and damage paleontological resources. Project impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be implemented to reduce the impact on paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to project construction, construction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering significant paleontological resources. All construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed of the requirements that unauthorized collection resources are prohibited. e. Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which came into effect on July 1, 2015, requires that lead agencies consider the effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and conduct consultation with federally and September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 500 CCCFDWCD 51 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 non-federally recognized Native American tribes early in the environmental review process. According to AB 52, it is the responsibility of the tribes to formally request of a lead agency that they be notified of projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction so that they may request consultation. One tribe, Wilton Rancheria, has contacted the District 10 requesting notification regarding projects proposed by the County. A letter was sent to Wilton Rancheria in October 2015 and no responses have been received to date. Although at this time, no other tribes have contacted the District requesting notification, the District proactively contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to obtain a list of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of or interest in tribal cultural resources in the project area. On February 1, 2016, WSA sent out letters to Native American tribes identified by NAHC notifying them of the proposed project and followed up with phone calls. Comments and recommendations were received from three Native American contacts. Ms. Zwierlein representing the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band recommended construction to proceed with caution and call an archaeologist, if needed. Ms. Sayers representing the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground disturbance. Ms. Cambra representing the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area recommended consultation with the lead agency and asked for a report on how they responded to the archaeologist's recommendations. A record of the Native American consultation can be found in the 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment Report. The District has determined that with the mitigation measures outlined above, the proposed project would not affect any known tribal cultural resources in the area. The impact would be less than significant. 10 The District is coordinating with Native American tribes on behalf of the County. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 501 CCCFDWCD 52 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.6 Geology and Soils 5.6.1 Background The project area is mapped as Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits. These soils are described as surficial sediments of alluvial clay and loam. Over the majority of the project site, soils encountered include clay with varying amounts of sand, silt, and gravel. The site is generally covered by seasonal grasses and weeds (ENGEO 2015). The existing Marsh Creek Trail consists of asphalt and landscaped gravels covering the surface. 5.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion GEOLOGY and SOILS Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) 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 on- or off-site 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 where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 502 CCCFDWCD 53 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 DISCUSSION: a. i. The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active earthquake faults. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expression of active faults is believed to exist within the project site. The nearest active faults are the Greenville fault and Mount Diablo Thrust fault, located approximately 8 miles and 15 miles to the west, respectively. The two faults are considered capable of a moment magnitude earthquake of 7.0 and 6.7, respectively. Additionally, the Great Valley fault, a buried thrust fault, underlies the general Brentwood area. The location of the Great Valley fault is inferred from regional data; the fault does not extend to the ground surface and its location is not accurately known (ENGEO 2015). Although the project site lies within a seismically active region, there are no known active faults crossing the project site and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, ground rupture is unlikely at the project site and the impact would be less than significant. a. ii. The project site could experience ground shaking due to an earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region, similar to that which has occurred in the past. Therefore, if cut slopes to create the floodplain and flood benches are steeper than 3:1, they could become unstable or collapse as a result of ground shaking. The impact would be potentially significant. The proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the project to comply with all recommendations specified in Section 3.3 of the Geotechnical Report, including those pertaining to slope construction, to reduce the potential for slope deformation in the event of an earthquake. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure less than significant impacts from seismic ground shaking. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The proposed project shall comply with all recommendations specified in Section 3.3 of the May 2015 Geotechnical Report prepared by ENGEO. a. iii. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the liquefaction susceptibility of the project site ranges from moderate to very high. The liquefaction susceptibility is high along the northeastern portion of the site adjacent to the railroad and very high along Marsh Creek. However, during field explorations conducted by ENGEO on December 9, 2014, no materials that would be classified as susceptible to liquefaction that are situated above groundwater levels were encountered. Furthermore, the project does not include any structures that would be inhabited by people. Thus, the impact from liquefaction would be less than significant. a. iv. The proposed project site is relatively flat and not located in an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would not be affected by landslides and no impact would occur. b. During construction activities, such as excavation of the creek channel, there could be potential for erosion and discharge of eroded sediment into Marsh Creek. Construction projects that involve disturbance of over 1.0 acre of land are required by law to seek coverage under the state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharge of September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 503 CCCFDWCD 54 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. As part of this permit, construction projects disturbing over 1.0 acre (such as the proposed project) are required to file a notice of intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board and implement a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the contribution of sediments, spilled and leaked liquids from construction equipment, and other construction-related pollutants to project site runoff. The District on behalf of the County would have oversight responsibility over the three reaches and would have the authority to stop construction in the event the SWPPP is improperly implemented. As a result of compliance with the law related to construction site runoff, the impact related to soil erosion during construction would be less than significant. Upon project completion, implemented restoration activities would reduce flow velocities within the creek thereby reducing erosion potential. Replanting native riparian vegetation along the creek and wetland plants within the excavated floodplain benches would also prevent soil loss. Additionally, permanent slope protection would be installed on newly cut slopes to prevent long-term effects of erosion and weathering. Matting, armor, revegetation, or biotechnical methods would be installed at the completion of slope construction and selected erosion control material would provide soil stabilization and promote vegetation growth. Thus, impacts from soil erosion following project completion would be less than significant. c. As noted above, no liquefiable materials were observed on the project site. Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction) that causes the overlying soil mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Due to the lack of liquefiable materials encountered at the site, the potential for lateral spread is also low. Therefore, the project site is not underlain by unstable soils and impacts are less than significant. d. Near surface soils on the project site exhibit high expansion potential with a Plasticity Index (PI) value of 34 with a Liquid Limit of 51, as documented by Terrasearch in a boring just east of the Sand Creek confluence. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes, which can cause soil heaving and cracking. No buildings are proposed as part of the project, and furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the project to comply with all recommendations specified in Section 3.3 of the Geotechnical Report. There would be a less than significant impact from expansive soils. e. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included in the proposed project, and there would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 504                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 505 CCCFDWCD 55 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5.7.1 Background General Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (U.S. EPA 2014). Climate change may result from:  natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;  natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of greenhouse gas (GHG) and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and  human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification). The primary change in global climate has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 degree Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climat e system during the current century (IPCC 2007). Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems, and to California, could include declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, rising average global sea levels, and many other potentially severe problems (IPCC 2007). The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere 11 is called the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: (1) short-wave radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long-wave radiation is re-emitted by the Earth; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb or trap the long-wave radiation and re-emit it back towards the Earth and into space. This third process is the focus of current climate change actions. While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other trace GHGs have a greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation. To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996).12 For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO 2 over 100 years. The use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG 11 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers). 12 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year values. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 506 CCCFDWCD 56 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO2e). This essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the same climate change impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2. Regulatory Setting In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate chang e, then- Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels (approximately 457 MMTCO2e); by 2020, reduce emissions to 1990 levels (estimated at 427 MMTCO2e); and by 2050 reduce statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels (approximately 85 MMTCO2e). In response, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 32 in 2006 (California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires ARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction from forecast emission levels) (OPR 2008). Pursuant to AB 32, ARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Climate Change Scoping Plan indicates how reductions in significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan recommendations are intended to curb projected business-as-usual growth in GHG emissions and reduce those emissions to 1990 levels. 5.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 or reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? DISCUSSION: a. Implementation of the proposed project would result in small increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with increases of CO 2 from mobile sources including construction haul trucks (to off-haul excavated materials), and equipment used during the construction of the proposed project. There would be minimal operational GHG emissions for reasons presented below. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 507 CCCFDWCD 57 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Construction During implementation of creek restoration activities, GHGs would be emitted from the operation of construction equipment and from construction worker vehicles and haul truck trips to and from the project site. GHG emissions during construction were estimated using the CalEEMod model. Based on CalEEMod, construction activities on the project site would generate approximately 44.6 MTCO2e in 2017. There are no quantitative thresholds put forth by the BAAQMD for the evaluation of the significance of a project’s construction emissions. However, these estimated one-time emissions are lower than the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold that is put forth by the BAAQMD for the evaluation of the impact from a project’s operation emissions. Therefore, the emissions are considered too small to result in a significant change in global climate change. The impact from the construction phase GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Operation A small number of periodic vehicle trips would be made to the project site initially for monitoring the success of the plantings and in the long run for creek maintenance. The number of vehicle trips to monitor the plantings would be minimal and would not substantially increase GHG emissions. The vehicle trips for creek maintenance would be about the same number as the trips currently made to the area by the District staff under current conditions. The impact from operational emissions would be less than significant. b. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase in GHG emissions, as described above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32 or other state laws and regulations related to GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 508                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 509 CCCFDWCD 58 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.8.1 Background Nearby land uses are primarily residential subdivisions, Willow Wood School/Dainty Center, city parks, and vacant lands planned for residential development and city parks. Historically, Marsh Creek has been highly modified by the District and various agricultural activities. Pesticides may be present in soils due to historic agricultural use of the site and surrounding areas. However, a Phase I ESA analysis prepared in 2003 for the adjacent Pulte project site, determined that DDE and DDT chlorinated pesticide concentrations on the Pulte project site were less than 0.079 parts per million (ppm), and DDT concentrations were less than the detection limit of 0.010 ppm (City of Brentwood 2014b). Existing hazardous materials use in the creek area is limited to the use of certain herbicides to control invasive species and use of fuel in vehicles used to access the various portions of the creek. 5.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which 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) 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 510 CCCFDWCD 59 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 DISCUSSION: Project a., b. There are no known environmental hazards on the project site. The proposed project would not involve routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in any significant quantities. Small quantities of hazardous materials, including fuel for construction equipment would be used on-site during construction activities. All activities would comply with state and federal hazard and hazardous material regulations, thus the risk associated with the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be minimal. The impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. c. Willow Wood School/Dainty Center is the nearest school to the project site, located approximately 50 feet to the east of the Upper Reach between Central Boulevard and Dainty Avenue. However, the proposed project would not involve handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. . d. According to CERCLIS, Geotracker, and EnviroStor database searches for known hazardous materials contamination, conducted on May 25, 2016, the project site is not located on a property associated with a hazardous site listed under Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the Cortese List. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with a hazardous site listed under Government Code Section 65962.5. There would be no impact. e., f. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport is the Byron Airport-C83 located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. No structures are proposed as part of the project. There would be no impact. g. Implementation of the proposed project would have no effect on emergency evacuation plans for the surrounding area. The project site is a 4,000 linear feet section of Marsh Creek. The surrounding area is primarily agricultural, residential, and vacant lands planned for residential development and city parks. Creek restoration activities would produce 24,000 cubic yards of excavated soils. About 4,000 cubic yards of the excavated soils would be used on-site as fill while the remaining 20,000 cubic yards would require haul trucks to transport and dispose of the f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project 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? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 511 CCCFDWCD 60 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 materials off-site. Due to the volume involved and the provision in the project to stockpile the excavated materials and remove when needed, a large number of vehicle trips would not be generated that could interfere with emergency access to or from the areas adjoining the project site during construction. Access to the site would be from Griffith Lane, a cul‐de‐sac connecting to Central Boulevard or from the soon-to-be constructed Bella Drive and Island Palm Way within the Pulte Development east of the project site. Construction work and associated vehicle trips would not restrict access to or block any public roads and would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Additionally, the project contractor would be required to notify emergency personnel with construction details and schedule prior to the start of construction. The impact would be less than significant. h. The project site is located in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone area and is designated as a Local Responsibility Area (CalFire 2009). Implementation of the proposed restoration activities would not result in the construction of structures on the project site or increase the site’s overall fire hazard severity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not increase risks to the public from wildfires. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 512                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 513 CCCFDWCD 61 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 5.9.1 Background At the project location, Marsh Creek is a perennial, 4th order stream.13 The watershed originates in the Morgan Territory on the north side of Mt. Diablo and covers some 128 miles2. Marsh Creek flows for 30 miles and empties into the tidally influenced Dutch Slough, and then Big Break and the lower San Joaquin River (Wood 2016). Marsh Creek Dam, located near Briones Valley and approximately 3.9 miles upstream of the project, was constructed in 1963 and impounds runoff from approximately 38 percent of the Marsh Creek watershed. The four major tributaries draining into Marsh Creek are Briones Creek, Dry Creek, Deer Creek and Sand Creek. The confluence of Briones and Marsh Creeks is at the Marsh Creek Reservoir; Dry Creek flows into Marsh Creek approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the project site; and Deer and Sand Creeks flow into Marsh Creek within the project site. Historically, much of the lower reaches of Marsh Creek were dry in the summe r. Currently, flowing surface water is present from lower Marsh Creek to its mouth; these flows are made up primarily of water resulting from an elevated water table caused by runoff from agricultural and landscape irrigation and urban discharges (Wood 2016). The project site is located in FEMA Flood Zone AE, an area subject to inundation with a 1.0 percent annual-chance of flood (FEMA 2016). 5.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 13 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahler_Stream_Order for descriptions of stream orders. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 514 CCCFDWCD 62 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? DISCUSSION: a. During construction of the proposed project, there is a potential for increased erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of polluted runoff from the project site. As discussed in Response b in Section 5.6 above, NPDES requires that the proposed project develop and implement a SWPPP, including control measures (or Best Management Practices) to control erosion and release of sediment and other pollutants from the site. The SWPPP would ensure that construction activities would not cause an exceedance of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) water quality standards. As a result, the project’s construction activities would not result in an exceedance of a water quality standard and the impact would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would decrease creek flow velocities and erosion potential while improving water quality. The project would reduce the potential for erosion and sediment transport by lowering the water stage, reducing the velocity by widening the cross-sectional velocity of the channel, and establishing native riparian vegetation where compatible with the September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 515 CCCFDWCD 63 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 flood management objectives. The planting of vegetation such as trees along the widened creek channel would provide shade for surface waters, thereby decreasing water temperatures and increasing the currently low dissolved oxygen levels. Thus, the proposed project would reduce erosion and improve water quality on the project site as compared to existing conditions. As a result, the project would not involve any activity that would result in an exceedance of a water quality standard and the impact would be less than significant. b. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any groundwater extraction. Additionally, the restoration activities would not increase impervious surfaces on the project site, and therefore would not interfere with groundwater recharge. There would be no impact. c. Channel widening would reduce flow velocity and thereby reduce the potential for scour and erosion, although as noted in the Project Description, detailed hydraulic modeling may indicate that some bank armoring is necessary where the expanded channel will taper down to th e existing channel at the downstream project boundary or in other locations. By including appropriate erosion and scour control measures, lowering the water stage, reducing flow velocity by widening the creek channel, and establishing native riparian vegetation, the proposed project would reduce erosion potential of the creek section. The impact related to soil erosion would be less than significant. d. Implementation of the proposed project would not negatively impact Marsh Creek, its tributaries or alter drainage patterns of the surrounding area to cause excess runoff or floods. No impervious development would occur as part of the project that would increase the volume of storm water runoff. The project site is located in FEMA Flood Zone AE, an area subject to inundation with a 1.0 percent annual-chance of flood. The proposed project is an innovative non- structural approach to flood management that focuses on giving the creek more room to safely convey flood waters. Restoration activities would entail increasing the cross-sectional area of the stream channel by excavating earth along both banks of the Upper Reach and Middle Reach to create new floodplain benches and along the east bank of the Lower Reach to create a new 10 to 40 foot floodplain. The purpose of the channel widening is to create enough conveyance capacity to safely convey large flood flows known to Marsh Creek. The newly created flood benches and floodplain would be inundated when flows in the creek rise during typical storm that reoccur nearly annually. Thus, the proposed project would improve creek flow to reduce impacts from flood hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. e. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP, which will include erosion and water pollution control measures, to control off-site sediment delivery during construction. As a result, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Operational impacts to polluted runoff are discussed in Response a above. This impact is considered less than significant. f. Currently, poor water quality within the creek from urban run-off is made worse by the lack of wetlands, shade, and microbial activity. Relatively high temperatures combined with low dissolved oxygen levels have caused four major fish kills on Marsh Creek over the last nine years. As mentioned above, the proposed project would plant trees along the creek section to provide shade thereby decreasing water temperatures. Planting native riparian vegetation within the September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 516 CCCFDWCD 64 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 widened creek would also help increase dissolved oxygen levels and improve water quality. Therefore, impacts would be beneficial and less than significant. g.-j. The project site is located within a federally designated 100-year flood hazard area. However, no housing or structures are proposed as part of the planned channel widening and restoration activities. The project site is not in an area that could be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 517 CCCFDWCD 65 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.10 Land Use and Planning 5.10.1 Background The project is located along Marsh Creek in the City of Brentwood. Lands surrounding the project area are developed with residences and city parks, and vacant lands are planned for residential development and city parks. 5.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion LAND USE & PLANNING Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 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? DISCUSSION: a. Residential subdivisions are present on both sides of the creek and an approved subdivision is planned for the vacant land to the east of the Lower Reach. However, there is no established community located on the project site and due to the nature of the creek restoration project, no impact would occur. b. The project site is mapped as a waterway in the General Plan. The City’s General Plan is not applicable to the project. Furthermore, the project would not change the land use of the parcels that contain the creek. Therefore, there would be no impact. c. The proposed project is within the ECCC HCP/NCCP, and anticipated project impacts would be mitigated through the payment of a Development Fee and Wetland Impact fee (or on-site restoration) to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP or NCCP and there would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 518                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 519 CCCFDWCD 66 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.11 Mineral Resources 5.11.1 Background Within the City of Brentwood, mineral resources include sand, gravel, coal, oil, and gas. In general, sand is likely the most significant economic mineral deposit found. It is possible that significant deposits of coal and specialty sand remain in the western portion of Brentwood, within the Domengine sandstone. Oil and gas have been sporadically produced in the region since 1864 and are recovered from sands mostly of the Eocene age, at depths of approximately 4,000 feet. The potential for additional oil and gas reserves exists within the city. Dry gas is presently being produced in the northeast portion of Brentwood, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the area (City of Brentwood 2014a). Aggregate resource areas within the City of Brentwood are classified as either MRZ-1 or MRZ-4 in SMARA Mineral Land Classification Maps.14 Mineral resource extraction is not permitted under the Resource Management Directives of the Department of Parks and Recreation. There are no existing active oil or gas wells or mineral extraction on or in the vicinity of the project site. 5.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? DISCUSSION: a. - b. The project site is located along Marsh Creek. There are no mineral resources on the project site and no mineral extraction occurs or is known to have occurred on the project site. There would be no impact. 14 MRZ-4 are areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification. MRZ-1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 520                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 521 CCCFDWCD 67 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.12 Noise 5.12.1 Background Noise-sensitive land uses generally include those uses where exposure to noise would result in adverse effects, as well as uses where quiet surroundings are an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Other noise-sensitive land uses include hospitals, convalescent facilities, parks, hotels, churches, libraries, and other uses where low interior noise levels are essential. The project site is located along Marsh Creek where the surrounding areas are being rapidly urbanized with residential and commercial uses. The primary noise sources in the project area include traffic noise from local roadways. The Union Pacific Railroad, located approximately 175 feet north of the Lower Reach is currently inactive . The closest highway, SR-4 is located approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site. Residential homes, a daycare center, city parks, and vacant lands are adjacent to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Upper Reach are located within Willow Wood School/Dainty Center and residential neighborhoods less than 50 feet to the east. There are also residential neighborhoods located approximately 100 feet to the west of Central Boulevard and Marsh Creek up to Deer Creek. Lands to the east of the Middle Reach are also developed with single-family residences and the nearest receptors are about 50 feet from the proposed construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Lower Reach are single-family homes and Sungold Park located less than 50 feet to the west. 5.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion NOISE Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 522 CCCFDWCD 68 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 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? DISCUSSION: a. The potential for construction noise to exceed the City of Brentwood noise standards are detailed in Response d below. Once the project is constructed, there would be no increase in operational noise in the project area due to the project. Creek restoration may increase visitors utilizing the Marsh Creek Trail. However this increase would not be substantial enough to cause noise levels to increase above the City’s noise standards. Thus, the impact would be less than significant. b. Channel widening and restoration activities would not require pile-driving, blasting, or other activities that could cause substantial groundborne vibration or noise. Project construction activities would include the use of tractors, loaders, excavators, graders, which are not sources of significant groundborne vibration or noise. Haul trucks could result in some level of vibration while hauling materials off-site. However, the vibrations would be the range that is experienced in urban areas from truck movement. The impact would be less than significant. c. Implementation of the proposed project would not add any new sources of noise to the project area. The creek section is currently maintained by the District and will continue to be upon project implementation, thereby not increasing vehicle trips for maintenance. In the first few years of project operation, monitoring of the restoration efforts would add a small number of vehicle trips to the project site. In addition, due to restoration of riparian vegetation along the creek banks and trail improvements, the project would improve the experience of the trail users as well as provide areas where trail users can stop in shade and enjoy the beauty of the creek. This may result in an increase in visitors to the creek and a resultant increase in vehicular traffic to parking facilities near Marsh Creek. However this increase would not be substantial compared to existing conditions. Therefore, there would not be a substantial permanent increase in noise levels related to mobile sources. The impact would be less than significant. d. Construction activities would require the use of tractors, loaders, excavators, graders, and haul trucks. The number of construction vehicle trips would increase, depending on the specific activity that is underway. Also the location of the construction activities would differ with each reach and all of the improvements may not be constructed within the same timeframe on all three reaches. Furthermore, sensitive receptors that are proximate to one reach would be affected by September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 523 CCCFDWCD 69 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 the noise from construction on that reach and generally would not be affected by noise generated by the work on other reaches due to distance and attenuation. The area to the east of the Upper Reach is developed with residential neighborhoods that are less than 50 feet away from the proposed widening. A school and daycare center is also located on the east bank of the creek just north of Dainty Avenue. Land to the west between Dainty Avenue and Central Boulevard is owned by the District and is vacant. Residential neighborhoods are present to the west of Central Boulevard and Marsh Creek up to Deer Creek (approximately 100 feet from the proposed activities). Construction activities in the Upper Reach would take place over the short timeframe of about 2 weeks. Lands to the east of the Middle Reach are also developed with single-family residences and the nearest receptors are about 50 feet from the proposed construction activities. Lands to the west of the Middle Reach are vacant and no sensitive receptors are present in that area. Construction activities in the Middle Reach would take place over 1 to 2 weeks. Lands to the east of the Lower Reach are undeveloped at this time although future city parks are planned adjacent to the creek and the remaining area is the site of the approved Pulte residential subdivision. Single-family homes and a city park (Sungold Park) are located to the west of the Lower Reach (less than 50 feet). Construction activities would take place over about 4 weeks. Construction activities and traffic would cause temporary increases in noise due to site grading, use of construction equipment, and operation of construction vehicles. Construction equipment would be operated intermittently over the course of construction on each reach. Routine noise levels from conventional construction activities (with a typical mix and number of pieces of equipment operating on the site) range from 75 to 86 dB(A) equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) at a distance of 50 feet, from 69 to 80 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 100 feet, from 55 to 66 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 500 feet, and 48 to 60 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 1,000 feet. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors are likely to be lower because the small size of the project would require only a few pieces of construction equipment and they would be operating for a relatively short time during the construction period. Nonetheless, noise from channel widening and restoration activities could impact the surrounding residences, school and daycare center, and park facilities that are located less than 50 feet from various work areas along the creek section. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1, which requires the project to comply with the Brentwood Noise Ordinance and limits construction activities to daytime hours, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 The project contractor shall ensure that construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050, as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 524 CCCFDWCD 70 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 e., f. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport is the Byron Airport-C83 located approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. No structures are proposed as part of the project. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 525 CCCFDWCD 71 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.13 Population and Housing 5.13.1 Background The project site is surrounded by residential uses, a private elementary school and daycare center, city parks, vacant land planned for residential use and city parks, and vacant land. The project site does not include any housing. 5.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion POPULATION & HOUSING Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: a. The proposed project does not include the construction of homes and/or businesses. In addition, the proposed project would not construct any new roads or infrastructure that could support future development. As a result, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. There would be no impact. b.- c. There are no residences on the project site or people currently living on the site . Impacts from project implementation would not affect the existing residences adjacent to the creek section. As a result, the proposed project would not displace any housing or people. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 526                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 527 CCCFDWCD 72 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.14 Public Services 5.14.1 Background The proposed project is the implementation of creek widening and restoration activities. There are no structures on the project site and implementation of the proposed project would not include the construction of any habitable structures. 5.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: Project a.i. Fire protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). Implementation of the proposed project would not increase population growth in the area, and thus would not affect the ECCFPD services or response time. The project site is located in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone area and is designated as a Local Responsibility Area.15 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of structures on the project site or increase the site’s overall fire hazard severity. 15 CalFire Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, Local Responsibility Area, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/contra_costa/fhszl_map.7.pdf, accessed June 1, 2016. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 528 CCCFDWCD 73 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on fire protection services. a.ii.-v. Implementation of the proposed project would not indirectly or directly increase the population. Police services are provided by the City of Brentwood Police Department. Channel widening and restoration activities would not impact existing police services or response time. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the need for school or park facilities, or other facilities such as public libraries. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 529 CCCFDWCD 74 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.15 Recreation 5.15.1 Background The project site is located along Marsh Creek and there are no structures on the project site. Sungold Park is located adjacent to the west of the Lower Reach. Additionally, a vacant City-owned parcel is located on the east side of the Upper Reach just south of Central Boulevard. There is a vacant strip of land to the west between the creek and Central Boulevard owned by the District and City of Brentwood. 5.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion RECREATION Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? DISCUSSION: a., b. Due to the nature of the proposed project, its implementation would not induce population growth that would increase demand for recreational facilities. There would be no deterioration of recreational facilities (including the project site) due to implementation of the restoration activities, rather the creek restoration activities would improve the overall condition of the creek. The Marsh Creek Trail would be relocated as part of the proposed project in the Middle and Upper Reaches. The Pulte developer would relocate the trail section in the Lower Reach. The trail would be in the same general alignment and would be depressed in the area of Central Boulevard to pass under the roadway. The proposed project would enhance opportunities for strolling, hiking, and biking along Marsh Creek. Furthermore, the lower 1,600 feet of the project would be integrated into a new linear city park, which would provide passive recreation amenities and native landscaping consistent with creek restoration. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 530                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 531 CCCFDWCD 75 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.16 Transportation and Traffic 5.16.1 Background Local access to the creek section is provided from the south via Central Boulevard and from the north via O’Hara Avenue and Sand Creek Road. SR-4 is located approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site and provides regional access to the project site. 5.16.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and 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 due to 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? DISCUSSION: a., b. Implementation of the proposed project would not induce population growth on the project site or in its vicinity such that new vehicle trips would be generated. In addition, the proposed project September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 532 CCCFDWCD 76 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 would not construct any new roads or infrastructure that could support future development. However, creek widening and restoration activities such as off-hauling of excavated fill material would require the use of construction haul trucks and would temporarily increase the number of vehicles accessing the project site. Construction vehicles would access the project site via local roadways and existing maintenance roads or the regional trail along the creek. However, construction activities on the Upper and Middle Reaches would involve no more than 2 weeks for each reach, and the Lower Reach work would at most involve up to 30 days. Due to the small scale and short duration of the project, project construction would not generate a large number of vehicle trips. Once construction is completed, the creek section will continue to be maintained by the District, thereby not increasing vehicle trips for maintenance. In the first few years of project operation, monitoring of the restoration efforts would add a small number of vehicle trips to the project site. In addition, due to restoration of riparian vegetation along the creek banks and trail improvements, the project would improve the experience of the trail users as well as provide areas where trail users can stop in shade and enjoy the beauty of the creek. This may result in an increase in visitors to the creek and a resultant increase in vehicular traffic to parking facilities near Marsh Creek. However this increase would not be substantial compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable transportation plans, congestion management program, policies, or ordinances or result in congestion on Central Boulevard, O’Hara Avenue, Sand Creek Road, or SR-4. The impact would be less than significant. c. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of permanent structures and would have no effect on air traffic patterns and existing air traffic safety. There would be no impact. d.-f. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of roads or infrastructure. As mentioned in Section 2.4.6 above, the proposed project would route the regional trail under an existing road bridge thereby eliminating two dangerous intersections where the existing trail crosses busy roadways (Dainty Avenue and Central Boulevard). The proposed project would reduce the gradient of the steep slope between the creek and the trail and provide a new foot trail and a new pedestrian bridge that would allow additional access for people to cross the creek within the Middle Reach. Therefore the proposed project would improve pedestrian walkability and there would be no impact. The proposed project would not adversely impact the nearby roadways. All creek restoration activities would take place on the project site. Emergency access to nearby residences as well as public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would not be impeded by implementation of the proposed project. There would be no impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 533 CCCFDWCD 77 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems 5.17.1 Background There are no existing buildings on the project site. A City of Brentwood sewer main is located on the west side of the Upper Reach. For most of the length, the sewer is within the Central Boulevard right of way. However, a portion of this sewer is located within one of the District’s parcels where flood control improvements would be constructed. The sewer line is over 15 feet deep, at least 4 feet below the flow line of the creek. However, the sewer line is below the maximum depth of excavation and would not be relocated. Near Sand Creek confluence in the Middle and Lower Reach, the sewer main crosses under the creek and continues north along the east bank of the Lower Reach. In the Lower Reach, the sewer line is located within the area that would be excavated to create the easterly floodplain. 5.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 storm water 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 are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 534 CCCFDWCD 78 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: a., e. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate any wastewater. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any exceedances of any wastewater requirements. There would be no impact. b. The proposed project would not increase demand for water or generate wastewater. It would be the responsibility of the construction contractor to obtain water that would be used for dust control during construction activities. The contractor would obtain water from an off-site source and truck it to the construction sites. Reintroduced native vegetation and proposed trees may require irrigation for the first few years. Irrigation practices may include the use of Dri-Water time release gel packs and if necessary, piped water, which would be available from adjacent subdivisions and city parks. Upon successful establishment, the new vegetation and trees would rely upon precipitation, storm water runoff from the surrounding areas, and creek inundation. Implementation of the proposed project would not require irrigated water or generate wastewater. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing water or wastewater facilities or construction of a new water or wastewater facility. There would be no impact. With respect to the sewer line in the project area, the proposed project would not relocate the sewer line. In the Lower Reach, minor modifications to sewer manholes may be required to accommodate changes in ground elevation. In all cases, grading would be performed around manholes so that potential spills from manholes would initially drain away from Marsh Creek. c. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase impervious surfaces on the project site that would generate additional storm water. The existing Marsh Creek Trail is paved. While that pavement will be removed, the same amount of pavement would be placed to create the relocated trail. Additionally, pervious pavement is being considered for use on the relocated trail and if utilized would reduce runoff. Therefore, there would be no impact related to construction of new storm water facilities to handle project runoff. d. Implementation of the project activities would not require potable water. There would be no impact to existing water supplies. f., g. The proposed project would not create any additional solid waste. There would be no impact to solid waste facilities or regulations relating to solid waste. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 535 CCCFDWCD 79 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project… Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation 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, 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? DISCUSSION: a. Please refer to responses under Biological Resources items (a) through (f), and Cultural Resources items (a) through (e), above. Future development on the project site would not significantly affect fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it eliminate examples of California history or prehistory. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, identified above in this Initial Study, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment. Impacts under this criterion would be less than significant. b. Implementation of the proposed restoration project would not result in cumulative impacts. Creek restoration activities would manage flows, restore native vegetation, improve water quality within Marsh Creek, and improve walkability of the existing Marsh Creek Trail. No structures are proposed for the project and creek restoration activities would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Therefore less than significant cumulative impacts from the proposed project have been identified. c. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Air emissions and noise from construction activities would be the only impacts through which the proposed project could have an effect on human beings; however, all construction- September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 536 CCCFDWCD 80 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 related air quality and noise impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels by implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1, AIR-2, and Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 and would therefore avoid causing substantial adverse effects on human beings. Further, compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure a stabilized design for a flood conveyance zone. For all other resource areas, the proposed project would either have less than significant impacts, or, impacts that would not affect human beings. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 537 CCCFDWCD 81 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 6. REFERENCES CalFire. 2009. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, Local Responsibility Area. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/contra_costa/fhszl_map.7.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2016. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2014. Contra Costa County ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/con14.pdf . California Department of Conservation. 2014. The Land Conservation Act Maps. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx City of Brentwood. 2014a. City of Brentwood General Plan 2020 Draft EIR. April. City of Brentwood. 2014b. Palmilla Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by Raney Planning & Management. March. ENGEO. 2015. Geotechnical Exploration Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project, Brentwood. May 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. National Flood Hazard ArcGIS Layer, Accessed May 25, 2016. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Technical Advisory- CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2016. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- spm.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2016. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2016. CalEEmod Emissions Modeling for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoratio n Project. June. USEPA. 2014. Causes of Climate Change. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html. March 18. Accessed May 30, 2016. Wood Biological Consulting. 2016. Biological Resource Assessment for the Three Creeks Restoration Project at Marsh Creek. February 9, as revised June 9. WSA. 2016. Cultural Resources Assessment Report Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project, Brentwood. May. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 538                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 539 CCCFDWCD 82 Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Initial Study/MND No.: 16-39 August 2016 7. REPORT PREPARERS Impact Sciences, Inc. Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal Angela Pan, Project Planner 8. TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ENGEO Jennifer R. Botelho, CEG Paul C. Guerin, GE Wood Biological Consulting Mike Wood, Principal WSA James Allan, Principal Investigator Illingworth & Rodkin James Reyff, Principal (Peer review/air quality analysis) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 540 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency establish a program to monitor and report on mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process to avoid or reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with project implementation. CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (1)) requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted at the time that the public agency determines to approve a project for which an EIR or a Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared, to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the EIR or ND are fully implemented. The MMRP for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration project is presented in Table 4.0-1, Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program. Table 4.0-1 includes the full text of project-specific mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The MMRP describes implementation and monitoring procedures, responsibilities, and timing for each mitigation measure, including: Number: Identifies the number of the mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure: Provides full text of the mitigation measure as provided in the final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Monitoring/Reporting Action(s): Designates responsibility for implementation of the mitigation measure and when appropriate, summarizes the steps to be taken to implement the measure. Mitigation Timing: Identifies the stage of the project during which the mitigation action will be taken. Monitoring Schedule: Specifies procedures for documenting and reporting mitigation implementation. The Contra Cost County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and American Rivers may modify the means by which a mitigation measure will be implemented, as long as the alternative means ensure compliance during project implementation. The responsibilities of mitigation implementation, monitoring, and reporting extend to several district departments and offices. The manager or department lead of the identified unit or department will be directly responsible for ensuring the responsible party complies with the mitigation. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the overall administration of the program and for assisting relevant departments and project managers in their oversight and reporting responsibilities. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is also responsible for ensuring the relevant parties understand their charge and complete the required procedures accurately and on schedule. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 541                                         THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK    September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 542 Table 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule AIR QUALITY AIR-1: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following BMPs during project construction: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil stockpiles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible and feasible. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Include in construction contract(s) Monitor compliance during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 543 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. AIR-2: All diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 50 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously during the duration of construction shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Include requirement in construction contract(s) During construction Confirm and document during construction BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: To avoid and minimize impacts to California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard during construction activities, the project will implement the following measures: 1. Coverage under the HCP/NCCP. The project proponent shall apply for coverage under the HCP/NCCP. Participation in the HCP/NCCP, including implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and payment of applicable fees would provide the project proponent with incidental take coverage for California red-legged frog, Pacific (Western) pond turtle, and silvery legless lizard. 2. Seasonal Avoidance. If required by the Streambed Alteration Agreement or Water Quality Certification, work shall be limited to the dry season, from April 15 to October 15. 3. Minimize Nighttime Work. If required by the Streambed Alteration Agreement or Water Quality Certification, nighttime construction shall be restricted to avoid effects on nocturnally active species such as California red-legged frog. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District File application, obtain HCP/NCCP coverage, and implement measures by including them in the construction contract(s) Prior to start and during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 544 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule 4. Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program to all construction personnel working on site. At a minimum the training should include a description of special-status species that could be encountered, their habitats, regulatory status, protective measures, work boundaries, lines of communication, reporting requirements, and the implications of violations of applicable laws. 5. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing. Prior to the start of construction, wildlife exclusion fencing (WEF) shall be installed as warranted and consistent with the HCP/NCCP to isolate the work area from any habitats potentially supporting special-status animals or through which such species may move. The final project plans shall indicate where and how the WEF is to be installed. The bid solicitation package special provisions shall provide further instructions to the contractor about acceptable fencing locations and materials. The fencing shall remain throughout the duration of the work activities, be regularly inspected and properly maintained by the contractor. Fencing and stakes shall be completely removed following project completion. 6. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Prior to the initiation of work, BMPs shall be in place to prevent the release of any pollutants or sediment into the creek, storm drains, or tributaries; all BMPs shall be properly maintained. Leaks, drips, and spills of hydraulic fluid, oil, or fuel from construction equipment shall be promptly cleaned up to prevent contamination of water ways. All workers shall be properly trained regarding the importance of preventing and cleaning up spills of contaminants. Protective measures should include, at a minimum: No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning should be allowed into any storm drains or watercourses. a. Spill containment kits should be maintained onsite at all times during construction operations and/or September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 545 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule staging or fueling of equipment. b. Coir rolls or straw wattles should be installed along or at the base of slopes during construction to capture sediment. 7. Erosion Control. Graded areas shall be protected from erosion using a combination of silt fences, fiber rolls along toes of slopes or along edges of designated staging areas, and erosion control netting (such as jute or coir) as appropriate on sloped areas. 8. Construction Site Restrictions. The following site restrictions shall be implemented to avoid adversely affecting sensitive habitats and harm or harassment to listed species: a. Any fill material shall be certified to be non-toxic and weed free. b. All food and food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed trash containers and removed completely from the site at the end of each day. c. No pets from project personnel shall be allowed anywhere in the project site during construction. d. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site except for those carried by authorized security personnel, or local, State or Federal law enforcement officials. e. All equipment shall be maintained such that there are no leaks of automotive fluids such as gasoline, oils or solvents and a Spill Response Plan shall be prepared. Hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, etc. shall be stored in sealable containers in a designated location that is isolated from wetlands and aquatic habitats. f. Servicing of vehicles and construction equipment including fueling, cleaning, and maintenance should occur only at sites isolated from any aquatic habitat September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 546 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule unless separated by topographic or drainage barrier or unless it is an already existing gas station. Staging areas may occur closer to the project activities as required. 9. Proper Use of Erosion Control Devices. Plastic mono-filament netting (e.g., that used with erosion control matting) or similar material shall not be used within the project area; wildlife can become entangled or trapped in such non-biodegradable materials. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting, tackified hydroseeding, blown straw, or other organic mulching material. 10. Protocol for Species Observation – Pacific (Western) pond turtle and silvery legless lizard. If a Pacific (Western) pond turtle or silvery legless lizard is encountered in the project site, work in the area of the finding must cease immediately until the animal either moves out of harm’s way of its own accord or is safely relocated well upstream or downstream of the project site. Only a qualified biologist with a scientific collection permit issued by the CDFW may handle and relocate Pacific (Western) pond turtle or silvery legless lizard. Any sightings and relocation of Pacific (Western) pond turtle and silvery legless lizard should be reported to the CDFW and the CNDDB. BIO-2: To minimize and avoid impacts to Chinook salmon and steelhead, the following measures will be implemented: 1. Seasonal Avoidance. In-stream work shall be limited to June 1 to October 31. 2. In-Stream Activities: If in-stream construction or dewatering is required, the following precautionary measures should be implemented: a. A preconstruction survey of the aquatic environment Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Retain qualified biologist to implement the measures. Prior to start and during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 547 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule shall be performed by a qualified biologist. b. A qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program working on site. c. A qualified biologist should monitor all in-stream activities. d. If dewatering is proposed, a qualified biologist should monitor the installation of coffer dams. During dewatering, a qualified biologist should check for stranded aquatic wildlife. Dewatering pumps must be fitted with intake screens with a mesh no greater than 5 mm (0.2 in) and BMPs will be installed to minimize sediment transport during installation of coffer dams. e. Native species (non-special-status fish species) should be relocated upstream or downstream of the cofferdams by a permitted biologist. Non-native species should be euthanized in accordance with the guidance of the CDFW. All wildlife encounters should be documented and reported to the CDFW. If listed salmonids are present, the NMFS shall be consulted to determine the appropriate measures to ensure conformance with ESA. BIO-3: In order to avoid impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and other bird species protected under the MBTA and CFGC during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. 1. Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall present an environmental awareness program to all construction personnel working on site. At a minimum the training shall include a description of special-status species that could be encountered, their habitats, regulatory status, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Retain qualified biologist to implement the measures. Prior to start and during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 548 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule protective measures, work boundaries, lines of communication, reporting requirements, and the implications of violations of applicable laws. 2. Swainson’s hawk is a federally listed threatened species and is covered under the HCP/NCCP. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to ensure that no take of Swainson’s hawk occurs. Therefore, the measures outlined below should be implemented. a. The project proponent should apply for coverage under the HCP/NCCP. Participation in the HCP/NCCP would provide the applicant with incidental take coverage for Swainson’s hawk and satisfy any requirements for mitigation for loss of habitat. b. Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (March 15-September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than one month prior to construction to determine if there are any active Swainson’s hawk nests within 305 meters (1,000 feet) of the project site. c. If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d. If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be followed. • Construction activities are not permitted within 305 meters (1,000 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site- specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a small buffer, a qualified biologist should coordinate with CDFW and USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. • Construction activities may proceed prior to September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 549 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule September 15 if the young Swainson’s hawks have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 3. White-tailed kite is a state-listed fully protected species; it is not covered under the HCP/NCCP and incidental take of the species is not allowed. To ensure that no take of white-tailed kite or other migratory raptors occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a. Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of white-tailed kite or other migratory raptors within 76 meters (250 feet) of the project site. b. Prior to the removal or significant pruning of any trees, they shall be inspected by a qualified biologist for the presence of raptor nests. This is required during both the breeding season and non-breeding season. If a suspected raptor nest is discovered, the CDFW shall be notified. Pursuant to CFGC Section 3503.5, raptor nests, whether or not they are occupied, may not be removed until approval is granted by the CDFW. c. If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d. If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. • Construction activities are not permitted within 76 meter (250 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a small buffer, a qualified biologist should September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 550 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule coordinate with the CDFW and/or USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. Nest monitoring may be warranted for activities that would occur within a smaller buffer. • Construction activities may proceed prior to August 31 if the young white-tailed kites or other raptor species have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 4. Burrowing owl is a State species of special concern and a covered species under the HCP/NCCP. To ensure that no take of burrowing owl occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a. Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), a CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of all suitable burrowing owl habitat that would be affected by the project. The survey shall be performed no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of burrowing owl within 153 m (500 ft) of the project site, access permitting. b. If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. c. If an active nest is present within this buffer, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. • If an occupied burrowing owl nest site is present within the limits of work, construction may not proceed. The taking of burrowing owls or occupied nests is prohibited under CFGC. Nest sites must be flagged and protected by a designated disturbance-free buffer zone of at least 76 meters (250 feet). • Construction activities are not permitted within September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 551 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule 76 meters (250 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. • Construction may proceed if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the adults have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles have fledged. • Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from occupied burrows outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1-January 31), in consultation with the CDFW. All owls should be passively excluded from burrows within 49 meters (160 feet) of the work site. Passive exclusion is achieved by installing one-way doors in the burrow entrances. Doors should be in place for at least 48 hours and the site should be monitored daily for at least one week to confirm that the burrow has been abandoned. 5. Loggerhead shrike is a state species of special concern; it is not covered under the HCP/NCCP and incidental take of the species is not allowed. To ensure that no take of loggerhead shrike or any other migratory passerines occurs, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. a. If ground-disturbing activities (i.e., site clearing, disking, grading, etc.) can be performed outside of the nesting season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31), no additional surveys are warranted. b. Prior to any ground disturbance during the nesting season (February 1-August 31), a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if there are any active nests of loggerhead shrike or any other migratory passerines nests within 30 meters (100 feet) of the project site. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 552 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule c. If there are no occupied nests within this buffer, no further action is needed. d. If an active nest is present within this buffer, the following measures shall be implemented. • Construction activities are not permitted within 30 meters (100 feet) of an occupied nest to prevent nest abandonment. However, if site-specific conditions or the nature of the activity warrant a smaller buffer, a qualified biologist should coordinate with the CDFW and USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. Nest monitoring may be warranted for activities that would occur within a smaller buffer. • Construction activities may proceed prior to August 31 if the young birds have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. BIO-4: In order to avoid, minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts on waters of the U.S./waters of the State, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. 1. Impacts on waters of the U.S. will be avoided by restricting grading to an elevation above the OHWM; avoidance of impacts to waters of the State is not feasible. Long-term impacts shall be minimized by limiting the use of hardened structures (e.g., grouted riprap) in preference of bio- engineering solutions as much as is practicable. Surface water connections must not be permanently blocked or interrupted and the installation of drop-structures or other features that create barriers to wildlife movement shall be avoided. 2. Prior to construction, the project proponent will need to secure authorization from the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in conformance to the Clean Water Act and Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Obtain permits; obtain coverage under HCP/NCCP; include BMPs in construction contract (s) Prior to start and during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 553 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule 3. Participation in the HCP/NCCP is expected to satisfy the requirements of the regulatory agencies for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on stream channels, wetlands and riparian habitat. A Planning Survey Report shall be completed and submitted to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. The submittal shall include detailed drawings illustrating all temporary and permanent impacts. 4. Per the terms of the adopted HCP/NCCP, a wetland mitigation fee or on-site habitat restoration will mitigate the impacts. If accepted by the regulatory agencies, no additional mitigation for wetland impacts is typically required. HCP/NCCP fee payment will occur at project contract award. 5. For all work within and adjacent to the stream channel and riparian habitat, best management practices (BMPs) must be incorporated into the project design to minimize environmental effects. These include the following: • Construction in the active channels shall be restricted to the dry season (April 15-October 15). • Personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to the buffer zone of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub shall be trained by a qualified biologist in these avoidance and minimization measures and the permit obligations. • If dewatering is necessary, water released downstream of work areas must be as clean or cleaner than flows entering the work area. Sediment-laden water shall be either pumped onto upland sites for infiltration or into Baker tanks for settling, prior to being released back into the channel. Coffer dams shall consist of clean, silt-free sand or gravel in sand bags, or a comparable material. All coffer dam materials September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 554 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule must be promptly removed when no longer needed. • High visibility temporary construction fencing should be erected between the outer edge of the limits of construction and adjacent streams or habitats to be preserved. Temporary construction fencing will be removed upon the completion of work. • Grading or construction near channels shall be isolated with silt fencing or other BMPs to prevent sedimentation. BMPs shall be regularly inspected. • Vehicles and equipment shall be parked on existing roads or previously disturbed areas. • Equipment working in channels must be in good working order and free of leaks of fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids. Drip pans shall be placed under vehicles and equipment over waterways and spill clean-up materials should be kept onsite at a convenient location. • Equipment maintenance and refueling shall be performed well away from the top of bank of any channel; storm drain inlets shall be protected from an accidental release of contaminants. • Concrete washings or other contaminants must not be permitted to enter the stream channel or any storm drain inlet. • Any concrete structures or cured-in-place pipe linings shall be allowed to cure before coming in contact with surface flows. • Construction debris and materials shall be stockpiled away from watercourses. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 555 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule • Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., coconut coir matting, tackified hydroseeding, blown straw or other organic mulching material) shall be used on site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian woodland/scrub. Plastic mono-filament netting (e.g., that used with erosion control matting) or similar material should not be used within the action area; wildlife can become entangled or trapped such non-biodegradable materials. Erosion-control measures shall be placed between the outer edge of the buffer and the project site. • Fiber rolls used for erosion control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed. • Construction staging areas past the channel banks must be located away from any wetlands or other sensitive habitats as identified by a qualified biologist. • Newly graded earthen channel slopes shall be revegetated with a native seed mix developed by a qualified restorationist. Seed mixtures applied for erosion control shall not contain invasive nonnative species, and be composed of native species or sterile nonnative species. Straw or mulch shall also be applied to all bare surfaces. The seed mix and mulch shall be applied prior to the onset of the first winter-season rains. • Herbicide shall not be applied within 30 meters (100 feet) of wetlands, ponds, streams, or riparian habitat. However, where appropriate to control serious invasive plants, herbicides that have been approved by the U.S. EPA for use in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used as long as label September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 556 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule instructions are followed and applications 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. Herbicide drift should be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible and by avoiding applying during windy days. • Additional measures may be outlined in the conditions of the permits issued by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and the Habitat Conservancy. All permit conditions must be conformed to. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1: • Crew training, initial monitoring by a qualified archaeologist to determine an appropriate level of monitoring for the duration of the project, and additional spot checks pending the results of the initial monitoring shall be conducted prior to and during ground disturbing activities. • A qualified archaeologist shall be present on the project site to monitor ground disturbing activities and inspect excavated soils to identify any cultural resources and human remains as deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist. • All construction crew workers shall attend a training session led by a qualified archaeologist that discusses (1) the reasons for archaeological resource monitoring; (2) regulatory policies protecting resources and human remains; (3) basic identification of archaeological resources; and (4) the protocol to follow in case of a discovery of such resources. • In accordance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5 (f), should any previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources, including but Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Retain qualified archaeologist to implement identified measures; also include in construction contract(s) Prior to start and during construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 557 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood, privies, trash deposits or similar debris, be discovered during ground disturbing activities, work within 25 feet of these materials should be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and to consult with the lead agency about what appropriate mitigation would be appropriate to protect the resource. • In the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are encountered during project-related ground disturbance, in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. • The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties, including the appointment of a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to the project. The MLD, or in lieu of the MLD, the NAHC, has the responsibility to provide guidance as to the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains. CUL-2: Prior to project construction, construction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering significant paleontological resources. All construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work in the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Prior to start of construction Confirm and document during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 558 Number Mitigation Measure Monitoring/Reporting Action(s) Mitigation Timing Monitoring Schedule vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed of the requirements that unauthorized collection resources are prohibited. Include in construction contract(s) GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 The proposed project shall comply with all recommendations specified in Section 3.3 of the May 2015 Geotechnical Report prepared by ENGEO. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Follow recommendations of geotechnical report During project design, prior to start of excavation, and during construction Document compliance upon completion of construction NOISE NOISE-1 The project contractor shall ensure that construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 9.32.050, as follows: Outside Heavy Construction: Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Include in construction contract(s) During construction Document compliance during construction September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 559 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 APPENDIX B Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 560 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS 1. Contra Costa Health Services (August 4, 2016) 2. Ann Kennedy (August 12, 2016) 3. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (August 15, 2016) 4. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (August 25, 2016) 5. Delta Stewardship Council (August 30, 2016) 6. East Bay Regional Park District (September 1, 2016) 7. Chevron (September 1, 2016) 8. City of Brentwood Public Works Department (September 2, 2016) 9. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) (September 2, 2016) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 561 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #1. CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES (August 4, 2016) Comment 1-1: Contra Costa Health Services notes that permits will be required for well or soil boring activities prior to commencing drilling activities and abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under permit. Response: Comments have been noted and forwarded to the project design team. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 562 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 563 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #2. ANN KENNEDY (August 12, 2016) Comment 2-1: Ms. Kennedy notes that she lives next to Marsh Creek between Deer Creek and Sand Creek and endorses the restoration project and offers citizen volunteers if needed; also suggested to plant milkweed for the monarch butterflies. Response: Letter in support of this project is acknowledged. Plant suggestion has been noted and forwarded to the project design team for consideration. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 564 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 565 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #3. EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVANCY (August 15, 2016) Comment 3-1: The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy notes that the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP take coverage should be listed in Section 2.7 Permits and Approvals Required and pointed out that the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy is first abbreviated as ECCCHC on page 4 but then called out differently on page 34 (as the Conservancy) and 37 (as the Habitat Conservancy). Response: Comments noted and included in this CEQA record for the final IS/MND. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 566 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 567 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #4. CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALTY CONTROL BOARD (August 25, 2016) Comment 4-1: The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) states that their agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and ground waters of the state and as such their comments will address concerns surrounding those issues. The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act which requires each Basin Plan contain water quality objectives to ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives. The Central Valley Water Board further notes that all wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Central Valley Water Board offers links for more information. Response: Comments noted. No further response is necessary. Comment 4-2: The Central Valley Water Board notes various permits that may be required for the project if applicable (Construction Storm Water General Permit, Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits, Industrial Storm Water General Permit, Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification, Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State, Dewatering Permit, Regulatory Compliance for Commercially Irrigated Agriculture, Low or Limited Threat General National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, NPDES Permit). Response: As noted in Section 2.7 “Permits and Approvals Required” the project will require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Section 401 permit - Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley Water Board, and Section 2.9 “Hydrology and Water Quality” notes that a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbances will be obtained. Other permits noted will be considered and obtained if applicable to the project. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 568 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 569 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 570 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 571 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 572 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 573 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 574 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #5. DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (August 30, 2016) Comment 5-1: Delta Plan Policies: Delta Stewardship Council (Council) notes that the Delta Plan includes 14 regulatory policies that are applicable to all covered actions and provides a few key regulatory policies that may be applicable to the project and provides staff contact information for guidance. Response: The project proponents will consult with the Council to ensure the project is consistent with the Delta Plan regulatory policies as applicable to the project. Comment 5-2: Best Available Science and Adaptive Management: Delta Plan Policy G P1 “Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan” calls for covered actions to document use of best available science which should be consistent with criteria listed in Appendix 1A “Best Available Science” of the Delta Plan regulations such as relevance, inclusiveness, and objectivity. Delta Plan Policy G P1 also calls for ecosystem restoration projects to include adequate provisions for continued implementation of adaptive management, appropriate to the scope of the action; this requirement can be satisfied through development of an adaptive management plan that is consistent with the framework described in Appendix 1B “Adaptive Management” of the Delta Plan along with documentation of adequate resources to implement the proposed adaptive management process. The Council provided the Delta Science Program contact information for consultation to assist in document preparation for use of best available science and adaptive management. Response: The project will ensure consistency with Delta Plan Policy G P1 as well as implement the Best Available Science criteria listed in Table 1A-1 of Appendix 1A (Relevance, Inclusiveness, Objectivity, Transparency and Openness, Timeliness, Peer Review) and an Adaptive Management plan described in Appendix 1B which provides a framework to plan, implement, evaluate and respond as applicable to the project. Comment 5-3: Mitigation Measures: Delta Plan Policy GP 1 also requires that actions not exempt from CEQA and subject to Delta Plan regulations must include applicable feasible mitigation measures consistent with those identified in the Delta Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) or substitute mitigation measures that are equally or more effective. The Council also notes that the Delta Plan Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) should be used to ensure compliance with the Delta Plan mitigation measures and provided a link to the document. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 575 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 Response: Comments noted. The Delta Plan PEIR MMRP was reviewed and determined that the project MMRP is consistent with the Delta Plan PEIR MMRP as applicable to the project. Nevertheless, the Delta Plan PEIR will be referenced should other applicable mitigation measures become warranted that is not already included in the project MMRP. Comment 5-4: Habitat Restoration: The Council notes that Delta Plan Policy ER P2 “Restore Habitats at Appropriate Elevations” states that habitat restoration must occur at appropriate elevations and be consistent with Appendix 3 “Habitat Restoration” of the Delta Plan regulations, which is an excerpt from the 2011 Draft Ecosystem Restoration Program Conservation Strategy. Appendix 3 describes many ecosystem benefits related to restoring floodplains, however it cautions that such restoration should include investigation and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control methylmercury production and transport since periodic wetting and drying makes these areas prone to methylation of mercury. Marsh Creek is currently cited as exceeding water quality standards for mercury on the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, making management of mercury issues relevant to the Parkway Project. The Council recommends that the MND specifically address the potential impact of the project to contribute to methylation of legacy mercury in the Marsh Creek watershed and explain how the project either is designed to minimize this impact or includes appropriate mercury related BMPs. Response: Comments noted. Marsh Creek is listed as impaired for mercury due to an abandoned mercury mine in the upper watershed, but bio-sentinel and chemical surveys over the last two decades have found relatively low levels of mercury and methylmercury in the watershed below Marsh Creek Reservoir, which appears to act as a mercury trap (John Cain, American Rivers, personal communication). Nevertheless, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has established methylmercury waste load allocations for all dischargers to the Delta through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) (Delta Mercury TMDL) with intentions of reducing the mercury concentrations in fish down to levels considered to be protective of people and wildlife who consume fish from the Delta. The Delta Mercury TMDL translates reduced levels of mercury in fish to a water column target of 0.06 nanograms unfiltered methylmercury per liter (ng/L). If the average total methylmercury concentration in a water body exceeds 0.06 ng/L, follow-up actions are required to investigate causes and determine reasonable and foreseeable means of attaining a 0.06 ng/L. The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) began implementation of a Methylmercury Control Study in 2012 to fulfill requirements of the Central Valley Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge Permit (Order No. R5-2010-010). A Methylmercury Control Study Work Plan (Amec 2013) was prepared to 1) evaluate the September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 576 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 effectiveness of existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the control of methylmercury; 2) evaluate additional or enhanced BMPs, as needed, to reduce mercury and methylmercury discharges to the Delta; and 3) determine the feasibility of meeting methylmercury waste load allocations. Wet year and dry year samples were obtained at several locations along Marsh Creek within the project vicinity from spring 2012 through spring 2015: just upstream and downstream of the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant (downstream of the project site), and at the confluences of Sand Creek, Deer Creek, and Dry Creek (all tributaries to Marsh Creek); Sand and Deer Creek confluences occur within the project segment, and Dry Creek is upstream of the project site. Methylmercury concentrations ranged between non-detect to 1.2 ng/L (Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Methylmercury Control Study Progress Report, October 2015). Creating an intermittently flooded floodplain on Marsh Creek could create a methylated environment resulting in an increased level of methylmercury if there is elemental mercury present. However, based on the hydrology in Marsh Creek, the inundation events have a very short duration and are infrequent, which would presumably limit mercury export into Marsh Creek and the Delta. Further monitoring will be conducted to compare post-project levels to the pre-project data gathered from 2012 to 2015 to help determine whether implementation of this project will have any effect on methylation. Project construction will incorporate applicable BMPs to avoid or minimize off-site sediment transport. Comment 5-5: Invasive Species: The Council notes that Delta Plan Policy ER P5 states “The potential for new introductions of or improved habitat conditions for nonnative invasive species, striped bass, or bass must be fully considered and avoided or mitigated in a way that appropriately protects the ecosystem.” Nonnative species, such as terrestrial and aquatic weeds, are a major obstacle to successful restoration because they affect the survival, health, and distribution of native wildlife and plant species. Although there is little chance of eradicating most established nonnative species, management can be designed to reduced their abundance. The Council suggests consideration of incorporating the Delta Plan’s PEIR Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4-1 which calls for an invasive species management plan to be developed and implemented for any projects that could lead to introduction or facilitation of invasive species establishment. The mitigation requirement also calls for the plan to include nonnative species eradication methods (if eradication is feasible), nonnative species management methods, early detection methods, notification requirements, BMPs for preconstruction, construction, and post construction periods, monitoring, remedial actions and reporting requirements, and provisions for updating the target species list over the lifetime of the project as new invasive species become potential threats to the integrity of the local ecosystems. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 577 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 Response: Comments noted. The project will implement an invasive species management plan consistent with the Delta Plan’s recommendation as applicable to the project. Comment 5-6: Respect Local Land Use: The Council notes that Delta Plan Policy DP P2 calls for habitat restoration projects to avoid or reduce conflicts with existing uses and to consider comments from local agencies and the Delta Protection Commission. The Council also notes that the MND states the project is consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan and would not affect any land use of adjoining parcels to the project area, which is primarily designated residential. The MND also describes how the Parkway Project would protect East Bay Regional Park District’s Marsh Creek trail by relocating it to new top of the eastern bank under the proposed project. Response: Comments noted. No further response necessary. Comment 5-7: Inconsistencies with the Delta Plan: The Council notes that the MND should discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed plan and the Delta Plan and that according to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G a project that is inconsistent with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations may result in a finding of significant impact on the environment. Response: Comments noted. The project is consistent with the Delta Plan as it is a multi-benefit project that will reduce flood risk associated with a changing climate, improve Delta water quality, restore denuded stream-side habitat, and enhance the Delta as a place. Further, the project will advance water quality recommendations of the Delta Plan to improve environmental water quality by reducing several pollutants conveyed to the Delta by urban and stormwater run-off including nitrates, pathogens, and contaminants with development of new floodplain wetlands and riparian vegetation along the channel that will cleanse polluted run-off that drain to Marsh Creek, Dutch Slough, and eventually to the Delta and Bay. Improving environmental water quality in Marsh Creek is particularly important to further the Delta Plan’s goal of protecting Dutch Slough – a priority habitat restoration area. Comment 5-8: Delta Plan Recommendations: Protect and Enhance Recreational Opportunities: The Council notes that the Delta Plan recommends protecting and improving existing recreation opportunities while seeking ways of providing new and better coordinated opportunities. Delta Plan Recommendation DP R11 calls for providing new and protecting existing recreational opportunities in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. Additionally, Recommendation DP R16 states that public agencies owning land should increase opportunities, where feasible, for bank fishing, hunting, levee-top trails, and environmental education. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 578 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 The Council also notes that they appreciate that the MND describes how the project would relocate the Marsh Creek trail and how the lower 1,600 feet of the project would be integrated into a new city park and include interpretive signs. Response: Comments noted. The project is consistent with DP R11 “Provide New and Protect Existing Recreation Opportunities” and DP R16 “Encourage Recreation on Public Lands” as the project will protect and improve the existing creek trail and provide interpretive aides for environmental education for visitors. Comment 5-9: Final Remarks: The Council notes that they overall support this project and look forward to working with and providing guidance to County staff on the requirements of filing a Delta Plan Certification of Consistency. Response: Letter in support of this project is acknowledged. No further response necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 579 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes580 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes581 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes582 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes583 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes584 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #6. EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT (September 1, 2016) Comment 6-1: The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) appreciates that the Marsh Creek Trail within the project area will be located above the 100-year flood plain zone which will avoid increased maintenance costs and potential trail closures. The project is considering a pervious surface for the trail as part of the proposal required by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. The Park District comments that they maintain a portion of the Marsh Creek Trail and requests that a local funding mechanism be established to accommodate additional maintenance required for this type of surface. Response: The Contra Costa County Flood Control District has been having discussions with the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department about the local funding mechanism and the City has agreed they’ll provide additional fundi ng for the additional maintenance required for this type of surface. Comment 6-2: The City of Brentwood is proposing to widen Central Blvd. to four (4) lanes by adding a new bridge. The Park District comments safety concerns regarding the increased distance trail users would have to travel across Central Blvd. once additional lanes are added. The Park District supports the trail passing under the bridge(s) and elimination of at grade crossing which is a much safer experience for trail users and may improve traffic flow on Central Blvd. Additional structures required to protect the bridge abutments and trail alignment under the bridge will need to be included in the CEQA analysis. Response: The project will include armoring under the bridge to protect the bridge and proposed trail undercrossing. The armoring will be a combination of concrete and riprap. The riprap will be vegetated where accessible to sunlight. The MND points out that other locations within the project segment will need to be armored to stabilize slopes which will minimize erosion and provide stabilized slopes for the trail relocation as noted in the Biological Resources, Geology and Soil, and Hydrology and Water Quality sections. No additional structures will be necessary to protect the bridge abutments or trail. Comment 6-3: The Park District requests that the Contra Costa County Flood Control District design the trail undercrossing to Caltrans Chapter 1000 Class I bikeway standards, which calls for at least ten (10) feet of overhead clearance if possible which will also allow enough clearance for equestrians, emergency vehicles and overhead signage if necessary. The Park District will still need to preserve emergency vehicle and maintenance access through the current on street trail entrances for operational purposes. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 585 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 Response: The trail will be designed to the Class I Bikeway standards with the exception that the 10-ft recommended clearance is not achievable under the existing bridge. The design can achieve 8-ft minimum clearance as specified by the Caltrans standards. The Federal Highway Administration standards for equestrians recommends a 12-ft clearance. It is our expectation that equestrians will need to use the Central Blvd. at-grade crossing. Emergency vehicle and maintenance access (EVMA) will be maintained at street level as well. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 586 Claudia Gemberling, Environmental Analyst II Contra Cost County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Gemberling, The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration (the project), proposed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD). The Park District has a long term commitment to protecting and maintaining open space in Contra Costa County and providing safe non-motorized public transportation and recreational opportunities by way of our Regional Trail Network. The District operates and maintains the Marsh Creek Regional Trail (the Trail) on the east side of Marsh Creek, which is within the project’s scope. The project proposes to relocate the trail for approximately 0.8 mile as part of the restoration effort of Marsh Creek. The Park District appreciates the CCCFCD’s willingness to relocate the existing trail above the 100 year flood plain to avoid increased maintenance costs and potential trail closures. The CCCFCD is considering a pervious surface for the trail as part of the proposal required by the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy. The Park District maintains this portion of the Marsh Creek Trail and requests that a local funding mechanism be established to accommodate additional maintenance required for this type of surface. The City of Brentwood is proposing to widen Central Blvd to four (4) lanes by adding a new bridge. The Park District has safety concerns regarding the increased distance trail users would have to travel across Central Blvd. once additional lanes are added. The Park District supports the trail passing under the bridge(s) on Central Blvd. and the elimination of the existing at grade crossing; which is a much safer experience for trail users and may improve traffic flow on Central Blvd. There are several schools within .5 mile of the project, and students and parents will be able to walk/bike to school on a safer route with this improvement. Additional structures required to protect the bridge abutments and trail alignment under the bridge, which may encroach into the creek channel, will need to be included in your CEQA analysis. The Park District requests that CCCFCD design the trail undercrossing to Caltrans Chapter 1000 Class I bikeway standards, which calls for at least ten (10) feet of overhead clearance if possible. This also allows enough clearance for equestrians, emergency vehicles and overhead signage if necessary. The Park District will still need to preserve emergency vehicle and maintenance access (EVMA) through the current on street trail entrances for operational purposes. The Park District appreciates the opportunity to review the IS/MND and provide comments. We look forward to working with the CCCFCD on this project. Please provide any future information and design plans for Park District review. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (510) 544-2609, or by e-mail at swilson@ebparks.org. Respectfully, Suzanne Wilson Senior Planner – Trails Development CC – Neoma Lavalle, Planner EBRPD; Sean Dougan, Trails Development Program Manager EBRPD September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 587 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 588 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #7. CHEVRON (September 1, 2016) Comment 7-1: Leidos Engineering LLC, on behalf of Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC), describes the background of inactive, historic crude-oil pipelines within the project vicinity and identifies the approximate location of the former Old Valley Pipeline (OVP) and Tidewater Associated Oil Company (TAOC) alignments with respect to the project’s layout. Leidos further states that CEMC conducted risk assessments at numerous locations within known historical crude-oil release points along the former OVP and TAOC pipelines and analytical results have indicated that the crude-contaminated soil was non-hazardous. If soil affected by the historical release of crude oil from these former pipelines is encountered during construction activities it may be reused as backfill on site. Parties conducting construction activities in the vicinity of these former pipeline rights-of-way may wish to use the information provided in the letter to help prepare for the possibility of encountering pipelines and pipeline- related asbestos-containing materials ACM during the course of their work. Response: Comments have been noted and forwarded to the project design team. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 589 September 1, 2016 Stakeholder Communication – Contra Costa County Ms. Claudia Gemberling Environmental Analyst II Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553 Subject: Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project Chevron Environmental Management Company Historical Pipeline Portfolio–Bakersfield to Richmond Dear Ms. Gemberling: On behalf of Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC), Leidos, Inc. (Leidos; CEMC contract consultant) recently reviewed the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project (proposed project). The information contained in this letter may help you to understand something about Chevron's former pipeline operations in the City of Brentwood, as residual weathered crude oil, abandoned pipeline, and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) could potentially be encountered during subsurface construction activities in the vicinity of these former pipeline locations within the existing former pipeline rights of way (ROW). Portions of the former Old Valley Pipeline (OVP) and Tidewater Associated Oil Company (TAOC) pipelines existed in the vicinity of the proposed project area. These formerly active pipelines were constructed in the early 1900s and carried crude oil from the southern San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. Pipeline operations for the OVP ceased in the 1940s, and in the 1970s for the TAOC pipelines. When pipeline operations ceased, the pipelines were taken out of commission. The degree and method of decommissioning varied: in some instances the pipelines were removed, while in others they remained in place. Because these pipelines have been decommissioned, with the majority of pipelines having been removed, they are not readily identified as underground utilities through the Underground Service Alert North System or utility surveys. Figure 1 illustrates the locations of the former OVP and TAOC ROWs with respect to the proposed project area. The location of the pipelines shown on Figure 1 is based on historical as-built drawings and the approximated positional accuracy of the alignments is generally +/- 50 feet. The OVP and TAOC pipelines were installed at depths of up to 10 feet below ground surface. The steel pipelines were typically encased in a protective coating composed of coal tar and ACM. Working under the direction of State regulatory agencies, CEMC conducted risk assessments at numerous locations with known historical crude-oil release points along the former OVP and TAOC pipelines. Analytical results from these risk assessments indicated that the crude-contaminated soil was non-hazardous. Accordingly, it is likely that September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 590 if soil affected by the historical release of crude oil from these former pipelines is encountered during construction activities it may be reused as backfill on site. Properly abandoned crude-oil pipeline may be left in the ground. Parties conducting construction activities in the vicinity of these former pipeline ROWs may wish to use the information provided in this letter to help prepare for the possibility of encountering abandoned pipelines and pipeline-related ACM during the course of their work. For more information regarding these historic pipelines, please visit http://www.hppinfo.com/. If you would like additional information, or would like to request more detailed maps, please contact Leidos consultants Mike Hurd (michael.t.hurd@leidos.com) at (510) 466-7161 or Tan Hoang (tan.t.hoang@leidos.com) at (916) 979-3742. Sincerely, Mike Oliphant MO/klg Enclosure: Figure 1. Historical Pipeline Rights of Way – Lower Reach Improvements ss cc: Mr. Mike Hurd – Leidos 475 14th Street, Suite 610, Oakland, California 94612 Mr. Erik Nolthenius – City of Brentwood Planning Division 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California 94513 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 591 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DATE: 8/18/2016 FILE: Q:\HPPBTR\MANAGEMENTSTRATEGY\POTENTIAL PROJECTS\CONTRA COSTA\THREECREEKSPARKWAY\PROJECTS\FIGURE 1\PSEP_FIG1_THREERIVERSPKWY_2016_08.MXDHISTORICAL PIPELINE RIGHTS OF WAY Brentwood, California LOWER REACH IMPROVEMENTS ANALYST: HOANGTA FIGURE: 1 CALIFORNIA LOCATION MAP Map is compiled from data sources that vary in accuracy; features may not be displayed in exact relationship to one another. Do not rely on map for legal information or underground work.XXXHistorical Old Valley Pipeline (OVP) ! ! Historical Tidewater Associated Oil Company (TAOC) PipelineI04080 Feet September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 592 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 593 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #8. CITY OF BRENTWOOD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (September 2, 2016) Comment 8-1: The City of Brentwood Public Works Department (City) suggested to include in the last paragraph of Section 2.2 “Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses” on page 8 that the planned linear city park part of the Pulte development is planned to be under construction during the spring and/or summer of 2017. Response: Comment noted and is included in this CEQA record for the final IS/MND. No further response is necessary. Comment 8-2: The City notes that the footnotes to Table 1 in Section 2.4 “Project Components” on page 10 indicate that the parcel numbers and ownership information are shown on Figures 4, 6, and 8, but the information is not shown. Response: Comment noted. The figures have been updated and included in this CEQA record for the final IS/MND. No further response is necessary. Comment 8-3: The City commented that Section 2.4.1 “Middle Reach” does not address the “Phase II Design Alternative” widening shown in blue and noted on Figure 7. Response: The intent was to have an alternative if the sewer line could be relocated in accordance with City requirements. Comment 8-4: The City recommends not using the term “relocation” in Section 2.4.3 Sewer Line Relocation on page 17 (page number not shown) because the sewer line will remain in place and suggested revising to “Existing Sewer Main”. Response: Comment noted and is included in this CEQA record for the final IS/MND. No further response is necessary. Comment 8-5: The City recommends changing the wording to “City of Brentwood Encroachment and/or Grading Permit” in Section 2.7 “Permits and Approvals Required” in the last line on page 19 as the City will want to review items such as construction plans, haul truck routes, traffic control, bonds, working hours, and possibly impose conditions such as repair of improvements damaged during construction, periodic coordination with City staff, and potential need for settlement monitoring. Response: Comment noted and is included in this CEQA record for the final IS/MND. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 594 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 Comment 8-6: The City of Brentwood PWD comments on Section 5.8.2 “Hazards and Hazardous Materials” discussion item g on page 60 that if APN 017-110-011 “DLT Ventures (Griffith)” is not made available for soil stockpiling, it does not appear that the project has adequate space at other locations to stockpile a significant amount of excavated material based on the other parcels identified in Section 2.4, Table 1. This could result in a frequency of haul truck traffic that is worthy of further consideration. The City’s permit process will help identify the haul routes and traffic control that will be needed to mitigate impacts. The City recommends considering less precise language that would leave open the possibility of access from alternative locations. Construction staging may require cycling earthmoving trucks through the project if turn-around space is limited. The City comments that it should be stipulated that access and haul routes will be agreed upon during the design process, prior to construction. Response: Comments noted. The MND analyzed potential stockpile locations and haul routes. Feasible stockpile locations and haul routes will be finalized during the permit process prior to start of construction. Comment 8-7: The City comments that while the statement in the “Background” of Section 5.16.1 “Transportation and Traffic” is true for access directly to the creek, other possible access points as shown in Figure 3 should be mentioned and evaluated. The City also comments that it should be noted that some of the streets mentioned may be under developer control, or may be deemed not suitable for haul truck traffic, and therefore not allowed for construction access. Response: Comments noted. Some of the access points shown in Figure 3 are for public access to existing and planned city parks part of the Pulte Development (i.e., Bella Drive, Island Palm Way) which may not be accessible upon project completion as noted by the City but will be determined during the design process. As noted in discussion items a, b of Section 5.16, construction vehicles would access the project site via local roadways and existing maintenance roads or the regional trail along the creek. Central Blvd. and Dainty Avenue are local roadways that provide access to the project site and trail; the County Flood Control District maintenance road at Sungold Park within the Carmel Estates development is another access point. Comment 8-8: The City comments that discussion items “a” and “b” in Section 5.16.3 “Transportation and Traffic” on page 75 discusses the duration of construction and construction traffic and suggests noting the number of trips per day that would be needed to achieve those durations. The City also comments that traffic control measures for hauling trucks would likely be justified, and required, as part of an encroachment permit. And, notes that if parcel 017-110-011 would be used for September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 595 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 stockpiling, and subsequent trucking away from the site, the access to that property for trucking would be Minnesota Avenue. Response: Comments noted. The exact number of trips per day needed to achieve the construction and construction traffic durations will be determined when the contractor obtains the encroachment permit as well as traffic control measures for haul trucks. Comment 8-9: The City comments on Section 5.17 “Utilities and Service Systems” that even though a conflict or interaction with the existing sewer system, other than adjustments to manhole lids, is extremely unlikely, a response protocol should be created that identifies what actions need to be taken in the event of damage to existing facilities. The City also comments that the City requires vehicular access over the sanitary sewer main that is not subject to the 100 year flood event and proposed widening near 371+00 would appear to impact that requirement, but widening may have already been accomplished at that location. No typical section for 371+00 is provided to clarify. Relocation of the sanitary sewer main may be necessary to ensure the aforementioned requirement is met. Response: Comments noted. A response protocol will be prepared prior to construction to address necessary actions in the event of damage to the City’s existing facilities. The existing sewer line location is below the existing top of bank at station 371+00 and is currently below the 100-year flood event. The proposed project will not affect this condition. The proposed project grading begins immediately downstream of station 371+00 and transitions to a widened left bank. The City will have an opportunity to review project plans to ensure an acceptable design. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 596 RDG Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project 07.07.16 Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 - Upper Reach Concept Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank CCCFCD APN NO. 017-17C-004 City of Brentwood APN NO. 017-210-004 City of Brentwood APN NO. 017-201 -038 City of Brentwood APN NO. 017-260 -080 City of Brentwood APN NO. 017-280 -113 CCCFCD APN NO. 017-20C -XXX Upper Reach Improvements FIGURE 4 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-09/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 597 - Middle Reach Concept RDG Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project 07.07.16 Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank Pulte APN NO. 017-170-007 CCCFCD APN NO. 017-17C-004 APN NO. 017-110-011 Middle Reach Improvements FIGURE 6 1273.001-09/16 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 598 - Lower Reach Concept RDG Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Project 07.07.16 Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 Trail Proposed Trail Existing Sewer Parcel CCCFCD Parcel HCP Setback for buffer Proposed Retaining Wall Cross Section Proposed Floodplain Proposed Creek Bank APN NO. 017-170-008 Pulte APN NO. 017-170-007 CCCFCD APN NO. 017-17C-004 Lower Reach Improvements FIGURE 8 SOURCE: Restoration Design Group, Inc. 2016 1273.001-09/16September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 599 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Mailing Address 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 www.brentwoodca.gov Engineering Division Operations Division Physical Address Physical Address 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 2201 Elkins Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 Phone (925) 516-5420 – Fax (925) 516-5421 Phone (925) 516-6000 – Fax (925) 516-6001 September 2, 2016 Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Claudia Gemberling, Environmental Analyst II Re: Three Creeks Parkway Restoration Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Gemberling: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration for this important project. City staff has reviewed it and offers the following comments for your consideration: 1. Section 2.2 “Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses,” Page 8: In the last paragraph of the section, it may be worth noting that the park is planned to be under construction during the spring and/or summer of 2017. 2. Section 2.4 “Project Components”, Page 10: The footnotes to Table 1 indicate that the parcel numbers and ownership information are shown on Figures 4, 6, and 8, but the information is not shown. 3. Section 2.4.1 “Middle Reach”: This section does not address the “Phase II Design Alternative” widening shown in blue and noted on Figure 7. 4. Section 2.4.3 “Sewer Line Relocation”, Page 17 (page number not shown): I would recommend not using the term “relocation” because the sewer line will remain in place. Maybe something more general like “Existing Sewer Main” would be more appropriate. 5. Section 2.7 “Permits and Approvals Required”, Page 19, last line: I would recommend changing the wording to “City of Brentwood Encroachment and/or Grading Permit”. With the encroachment permit application process, the city will want to review items such as construction plans, haul truck routes, traffic control, bonds, working hours, and possibly impose conditions such as repair of improvements damaged during construction, periodic coordination with city staff, and potential need for settlement monitoring. 6. Section 5.8.2, discussion item g, Page 60: a. If APN 017-110-011 “DLT Ventures (Griffith)” is not made available for stockpiling, It does not appear that the project has adequate space at other locations to stockpile a significant amount of excavated material, based on the other parcels identified in the Section 2.4, Table 1. This could result in a frequency of haul truck traffic that is worthy of further consideration. The City’s permit process will help identify the haul routes and traffic control that will be needed to mitigate impacts. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 600 b. I recommend considering less precise language that would leave open the possibility of access from alternative locations. Construction staging may require cycling earthmoving trucks through the project if turn-around space is limited. It should be stipulated that access and haul routes will be agreed upon during the design process, prior to construction. 7. Section 5.16.1, “Background” – While the statement is true for access directly to the creek, what if other access points are possible? Shouldn't those be mentioned and evaluated also? Other access points are shown on the exhibit for Figure 3, but not discussed anywhere else. However, it should also be noted that some of the streets mentioned above may be under developer control, or may be deemed not suitable for haul truck traffic, and therefore not allowed for construction access. 8. Section 5.16.3 (.2 was skipped), discussion items “a” and “b”, Page 75: In the discussion of duration of construction and construction traffic, it might be useful to see the number of trips per day that would be needed to achieve those durations. Traffic control measures for hauling trucks would likely be justified, and required, as part of an encroachment permit. Also, if parcel017-110-011 would be used for stockpiling, and subsequent trucking away from the site, the access to that property for trucking would be Minnesota Ave. 9. Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems: Even though a conflict or interaction with the existing sewer system, other than adjustments to manhole lids, is extremely unlikely, a response protocol should be created that identifies what actions need to be taken in the event of damage to the existing facilities. The City of Brentwood requires vehicular access over the sanitary sewer main that is not subject to the 100 yr flood event. Proposed channel widening near 371+00 would appear to impact that requirement, but widening may have already been accomplished at that location. No typical section for 371+00 is provided to clarify. Relocation of the sanitary sewer main may be necessary to ensure the aforementioned requirement is met. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone (925-516-5420) or by e-mail (shunn@brentwoodca.gov). The City looks forward to construction of the project. Very truly yours, Steven J. Hunn Senior Engineer Cc: Miki Tsubota, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Jack Dhaliwal, Assistant Director of Public Works/Engineering Steve Kersevan, Engineering Manager Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager Martin Lysons, Assistant City Attorney September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 601 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 602 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THREE CREEKS PARKWAY RESTORATION PROJECT (SCH# 2016082008) COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT #7562-6D8176; COUNTY CEQA FILE #: CP 16-39 COMMENT LETTER #9. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (September 2, 2016) Comment 9-1: The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit noted that the IS/MND was submitted to selected state agencies for review and provided the list of those agencies and comments letters received. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was the only agency that submitted a comment letter to the State Clearinghouse. Response: The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board comment letter is addressed in Comment Letter #4 of this package. No further response is necessary. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 603 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 604 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 605 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 606 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 607 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 608 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 609 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 610 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 611 RECOMMENDATION(S): (1) APPROVE the plans, specifications and design for the Slifer Park Improvements – Shade Structures, Discovery Bay Area, Project No. 7783-6X5440. (2) DETERMINE that the lowest monetary bidder, S.R.P. Company, has failed to document an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program, as provided in the project specifications, and the Board FURTHER DETERMINES that S.R.P. Company’s bid is non-responsive and REJECTS the bid on that basis; and (3) DETERMINE that the bid submitted by McNabb Construction, Inc., has complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and has exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for the project, as provided in the project specifications; and FURTHER DETERMINE that McNabb Construction, Inc. has submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for this project. (4) AWARD the construction contract for the above project to McNabb Construction, Inc., in the amount of $218,491 and DIRECT that the Public Works Director, or designee, prepare the contract. (5) DIRECT that McNabb Construction, Inc. shall submit two good and sufficient security bonds (performance APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Jason Chen, (925) 313-2299 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 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:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AWARD and AUTHORIZE execution of a construction contract for the Slifer Park Improvements - Shade Structures, Discovery Bay Area. (District III) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 612 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) and payment bonds) in the amount of $218,491 each. (6) ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds, evidence of insurance, and 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. (7) ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and/or upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are to be exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for security shall be returned. (8) AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, 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. (9) AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to order changes or additions to the work pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20142. (10) 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. (11) DECLARE that, should the award of the contract to McNabb Construction, Inc. 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: Funding for this project is provided by Countywide Landscape District (LL-2) Zone 61 (100%). BACKGROUND: The above project was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, plans and specifications are filed with the Board, bids were invited by the Public Works Director. On August 25, 2016, the Public Works Department received bids from the following contractors: BIDDER TOTAL BASE BID S.R.P. Company $215,000.00 McNabb Construction, Inc.$218,491.00 T Amarals Done Right Construction $295,000.00 The Public Works Director has determined that the low bidder, S.R.P. Company, submitted a non-responsive bid by failing to document an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program, as provided in the project specifications, and the Public Works Director recommends rejection of the bid submitted by S.R.P. Company. On September 8, 2016, S.R.P. Company was notified in writing of the Public Works Director’s determination. A copy of the letter is attached to this Board Order. S.R.P. Company did not appeal the determination. The Public Works Director has determined that McNabb Construction, Inc. documented an adequate good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program and exceeded the Mandatory Subcontracting Minimum for this project, and the Public Works Director recommends that the construction contract be awarded to McNabb Construction, Inc. The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by McNabb Construction, Inc. is the lowest September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 613 The Public Works Director recommends that the bid submitted by McNabb Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bid, and this Board concurs and so finds. The Board of Supervisors previously determined that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3(e) Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guideline during the May 22, 2012 board meeting. The general prevailing rates of wages, which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, are on file with the Clerk of the Board, and copies are available to any party upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the construction contract is not awarded, the project will not be constructed. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 614 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/547 declaring October 2016 as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month; and ACCEPT the following status report from the Public Works Department and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (FC District) on the Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program (CCSAP); and DIRECT the Public Works Department and the FC District to continue with implementation and the annual campaign of a Countywide sustainable CCSAP, including a follow-up report to this Board in one year. FISCAL IMPACT: Annual notices, outreach, and maintenance of safety features for this year is estimated to cost $100,000 and will be funded by Flood Control Zone 3B. BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2011, the Board of Supervisors directed the FC District to APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Tim Jensen, (925) 313-2390 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: David Twa, CAO, Thomas Geiger, County Counsel's Office, Sharon Hymes-Offord, Risk Management, Betsy Burkhart, CCTV, Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Chief Engineer, Mike Carlson, Flood Control, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Carrie Ricci, P.W. Administration, Catherine Windham, Flood Control C. 4 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month and its Associated Program, Countywide. Project No. 7520-6B8311 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 615 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) develop a sustainable and impactful outreach program to promote creek and channel safety throughout the County, after the drowning of two high school students in the Walnut Creek channel. In response, the FC District formed a CCSAP team that developed a strategy to achieve this goal. On October 4, 2011, the Board declared October 2011 as the first Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month, accepted the status report from the FC District on the Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, approved the implementation plan, and directed the FC District to continue with implementation and initiation of an annual campaign of a sustainable Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, including a follow-up report to the Board in one year. Since then, the Board of Supervisors received and approved a status report on the Annual Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program and declared October as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The Board of Supervisors also directed the FC District to continue with implementation and the annual campaign of a Countywide sustainable Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, including a follow-up report to this Board in one year. This past year, we completed the annual outreach to schools in September and worked with Walnut Creek Intermediate School to put on a Creek and Channel Safety Week. The Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program conducted its first safety week at Walnut Creek Intermediate School working with the leadership class to help develop and implement events for students that would raise student awareness of the “Stay Out, Stay Alive!” campaign. The highly successful program engaged hundreds of students in such activities as a poster competition and trivia contest, and it received positive local news coverage including several student interviews. This occurred the week of October 19–23 as part of our annual Creek and Channel Safety Month. Several student posters were laminated and placed in prominent locations in downtown Walnut Creek to communicate their safety message through the winter. These posters will be part of an annual campaign and will be displayed in downtown Walnut Creek each winter. The Chief Engineer, FC District, recommends that the Board declare October 2016 as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month, accept the above report, and direct the Public Works Department and FC District to continue with implementation and the annual campaign of a Countywide sustainable Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program, including a follow-up report to this Board in one year. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Resolution is not adopted, members of the public may not receive important information about creek and channel safety. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The FC District will continue to work with the schools and youth-based groups within the County to educate children about safety regarding creeks and flood control channels. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/547 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2016/547 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 616 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/547 In The Matter Of: Declaring October 2016 as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month, Countywide. WHEREAS, various regional flood control channels were constructed in Contra Costa County to efficiently drain stormwater and runoff from within the cities and towns; and WHEREAS, in April 2010, a family lost a husband and son in the rain-swollen Walnut Creek Channel; and WHEREAS, in February 2011, two young men drowned in the same channel; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2011, the Board of Supervisors directed the County Public Works Department and Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to pursue a sustainable outreach program to educate the public on the benefits and dangers of creeks and channels; and WHEREAS, continued education of the public about creeks and channels has been determined as the best way to keep citizens safe and avoid future tragedies; and WHEREAS, the Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Program is now being implemented Countywide with an annual declaration of October as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month to remind the public of the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby declares October 2016 as Creek and Channel Safety Awareness Month encouraging the public to be informed about the benefits and dangers of creeks and channels throughout Contra Costa County. Contact: Tim Jensen, (925) 313-2390 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: David Twa, CAO, Thomas Geiger, County Counsel's Office, Sharon Hymes-Offord, Risk Management, Betsy Burkhart, CCTV, Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Chief Engineer, Mike Carlson, Flood Control, Tim Jensen, Flood Control, Carrie Ricci, P.W. Administration, Catherine Windham, Flood Control 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 617 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 618 RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of Debra Fernandez and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $190,000, less permanent disability advances. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund Payment of $190,000, less permanent disability advances. BACKGROUND: Attorney Gregory M. Stanfield, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of Debra Fernandez v. Contra Costa County. The Board's September 13, 2016 closed session vote was: Supervisors Gioia, Andersen, Piepho, Mitchoff, and Glover - Yes. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier September 13, 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: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 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:Sharon Offord Hymes, Risk Manager Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Settlement of Claim, Debra Fernandez v. Contra Costa County September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 619 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 620 RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Enterprise Damage Recovery Unit, Robin McCloud, Zoila Quiroz, and Sergio Rimoldi. DENY late claims filed by Diana Lee Byrns and Edward Haney. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 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:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 621 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/513 honoring the service of Joseph Jackson, who has served for two years ending August 30, 2016, as Chair of the Youth Council in the City of Richmond. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Joseph Jackson, resident of Richmond and Richmond native, attended Richmond Public and Charter schools. He visits and uses West Contra Costa County's parks and libraries. Mr. Jackson is the first African American to serve on the Richmond Youth Council, and also its first elected chairperson. Jackson enjoys sports. His favorite teams are the Oakland Athletics, Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers. Jackson is a member of the United States National Guard, and an avid believer of community policing where not only the police protect the communities they're sworn to serve, but work with the residents as well. Jackson has served on numerous civic bodies and committees, including the City of Richmond's Juneteenth Festival planning committee and the Vote16USA Youth Advisory Board. Chair Jackson's favorite quote is his own: "It's what we do in our darkest moments, that define our brightest moments." APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Robert Rogers 510-231-8688 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Proclamation honoring the service of youth leader Joseph Jackson September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 622 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/513 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/513 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 623 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/513 Supporting youth leadership in Contra Costa County Whereas, Joseph Jackson is a resident of Richmond and has attended Richmond Public and Charter schools, and used and supported public parks and libraries; and Whereas, Jackson is a member of the U.S. National Guard, and a proponent of community policing strategies; and Whereas, Jackson is the first African American to serve on the Richmond Youth Council; and Whereas, Jackson is the the Richmond Youth Council's first elected chair; and Whereas, Jackson has served on numerous civic bodies and committees, including the City of Richmond's Juneteenth Festival planning committee and the Vote16USA Youth Advisory Board; and Whereas, Jackson is credited with the quote: "It's what we do in our darkest moments, that defines our brightest moments". Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County do hereby honor Joseph Jackson for his service as the chair of the Youth Council for the City of Richmond. ___________________ 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 624 PR.3, C.7 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 625 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Gayle Israel (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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Poll Worker Appreciation Week in Contra Costa County September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 626 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/518 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/518 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 627 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/518 Recognizing Poll Worker Appreciation Week in Contra Costa County WHEREAS, Contra Costa County Elections Division has 278 polling locations around the county; and WHEREAS, the Elections Division relies on more than 2,000 trained volunteers to open and close the polls on Election Day; and WHEREAS, these pollworkers play a critical role in making sure voters are treated fairly, are given the correct materials to vote and can cast their ballot without any outside distractions; and WHEREAS, pollworkers safeguard the rights of every registered voter as the they make their voices heard in the governance of the county, the state, the county, the cities and special districts; and WHEREAS, pollworker volunteers are the foundation of our country’s electoral system and our democratic heritage; and WHEREAS, these individuals are often the face that the public associates with the electoral process; and WHEREAS, the poll workers are the unsung heroes that continue to make it possible for our county and country to be able to choose our leaders and the laws that we follow as a society. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognize the hard work of those Contra Costa residents for volunteering as pollworkers. We honor their civic service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors encourages all civic-minded citizens to volunteer as pollworkers in Contra Costa County for the 2016 Presidential Election and the future. ___________________ 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 628 PR.1, C.8 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 629 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Lauri 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution recognizing September as Anti-Hazing Awareness Month September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 630 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/521 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/521 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 631 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/521 recognizing September as Anti-Hazing Awareness Month. WHEREAS, sixty-seven percent of college students joining a club or organization will be hazed whether or not their club or school condones it, and forty-seven percent of students have been hazed prior to going off to college; and WHEREAS, it is documented that hazing occurs as early as elementary school; and WHEREAS, hazing resulting in death dates back to the early 1800s, and since 1969 hazing deaths have occurred every year with thousands more sustaining serious physical and psychological injuries; and WHEREAS, hazing promotes brutality, degradation, humiliation, molestation, and self-loathing; and WHEREAS, the AHA! (Anti Hazing Awareness) Movement was created in the memory of Matt Carrington who was killed in a water hazing event while pledging a fraternity, and provides significant leadership in the area of community involvement in the education of our youth, grounded in the principle that education on the dangers of hazing is key to the community's well-being and long-term quality of life; and WHEREAS, the AHA! Movement promotes making better choices, understanding that there are consequences for actions, respect for one another, personal development, and finding alternatives to hazing; and WHEREAS, the AHA! Movement is committed to end the senseless and tragic cycle of deaths from hazing by reaching out to empower and educate our young people. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes September as Anti-Hazing Awareness Month in Contra Costa County and encourages residents to educate young persons and family members on the dangers of hazing and engage in programs to support the end of hazing. ___________________ 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 632 PR.2, C.9 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 633 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Abigail O'Connor 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Maria Ferrer for Twenty-Five Years of Service September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 634 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/549 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/549 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 635 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2016/549 Honoring Maria Ferrer upon the occasion of 25 years of service with the Contra Costa County Health Services Department. WHEREAS, Maria began her career with Contra Costa County Health Services as a temporary Account Clerk –Experienced Level on July 1, 1991; and WHEREAS, Maria received a commendation on August 24, 1995 from Andy Parsons, from the Contra Costa County Occupational Health Division in recognition of her work and accomplishments with the AB 2185 (Business Plan) program; and WHEREAS, Maria became a permanent Account Clerk –Advanced Level on February 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, Maria was promoted to Accountant III on December 15, 2003. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Maria Ferrer be recognized and thanked for her contributions to the General Accounting - Finance Division of the Contra Costa Health Services Department during her 25 years of service. ___________________ 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 636 PR.4, C.10 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 637 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPOINT Beth Mora to the At-Large seat #11 and Lanita Mims to the At-Large seat #12 on the Contra Costa Commission for Women, with terms expiring February 28, 2018, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Commission for Women (CCCW) was formed to educate the community and advise the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and other entities on the issues relating to the changing social and economic conditions of women in the County, with particular emphasis on the economically disadvantaged. The Committee consists of 20 members and one alternate, including: •Five district representatives; (one from each supervisorial district) •Fifteen at large members; and •One at large alternate The five district representatives are nominated for a three year term by each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:FAMILY & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointments to the Contra Costa Commission for Women September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 638 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The fifteen at large members and one at large alternate are nominated by the CCCW membership committee and forwarded to the full CCCW. On September 12, 2016, the Family and Human Services Committee approved the recommended reappointments of Ms. Mora and Ms. Mims, and are therefore recommending the full Board's approval of these appointments. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Seats on the Commission will not be filled. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Redacted Lanita Mims Redacted Beth Mora September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 639 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes640 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes641 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes642 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes643 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes644 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes645 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes646 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes647 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes648 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes649 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes650 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment #5006 authorizing a decrease in temporary salaries of $702,415, a decrease in professional services of $1,559,021 and an increase of $4,319,273 in new revenues from the State of California, Federal Titles IV-B and IV-E of Social Security Act, Title XIX IHSS Health Related, and Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance, and appropriating it to personnel expenses to support forty-nine new positions and funding nine previously approved positions related to Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21846 approved on April 19, 2016, in the Employment and Human Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: This action will provide funding to support nine new positions and nine existing positions in the Aging and Adult Bureau, one position in the Administration Bureau, two positions for the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence unit within the Bureau of the Director, and thirty-seven positions in the Children and Family Services Bureau. The cost of this action is $6,580,709, which includes estimated pension costs of $1,278,388. Of the $6.5 mil, $2,261,436 is originating from budget reductions in both professional services and temporary staff and the remaining amount is offset by new revenues from the State of California Federal Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, Title XIX IHSS health related, and Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant funding sources. These new revenues to support these positions will continue in FY 2017/18. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Erik Brown 925-313-1561 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Employment & Human Services (0501, 0502, 0503, 0581, 0586) Appropriation Adjustment September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 651 BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) is requesting to add forty-nine (49) positions in an effort to meet the program mandates in Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence, Adult Protective Services, In-home Supportive Services and Child Welfare as described in the Position Adjustment Resolutions #21928, #21929, #21930, #21931, #21932, #21933, #21934, #21935, #21936, #21937, # 21939, #21941 and #21942. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these positions are not added, the department will not be able to fully maximize its revenue sources and to provide needed services to the public. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appro adj 5006 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Adjustments No. 5006 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 652 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes653 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes654 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes655 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes656 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 657 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 658 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 659 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 660 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5010 authorizing new revenue in the amount of $15,000 from County Service Area P-6 Discovery Bay Zone funding and appropriate it for the Resisting Aggression Defensively Kids (radKIDs) program implemented by the Sheriff's Office - Investigation Unit. FISCAL IMPACT: This action increases revenues and appropriations by $15,000. BACKGROUND: In 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution establishing County Service Area P-6 Zones and authorizing a special tax on new developments in East County (Oakley and West Pittsburg/Bay Point). In 1992, the Board extended the special tax program to all unincorporated areas of the County. The Board Resolutions specified that "(T)he Revenues raised by this tax are to be used solely for the purposes of obtaining, furnishing, operating and maintaining police protection equipment or apparatus, for paying the salaries and benefits of police protection personnel, and for such other police protection service expenses as are deemed necessary." Unlike CSA P-6 tax, which is APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Liz Arbuckle, Heike Anderson, Tim Ewell C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Appropriations Adjustment - Office of the Sheriff RAD Kids program September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 661 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) imposed upon property owners, property owners vote to levy the special tax on their property. The vote, however, is taken at the time building permits/zoning approval is sought, which means that normally the only property owner is the developer. Also unlike CSA P-6 tax, which is based on property value, CSA P-6 Zones are taxed on parcel use (i.e. base tax for vacant site is $100; for single residential is $200; for multiple residential is $400-$600). Each year, the tax increases by the Bay Area Consumer Price Index. Use of this funding is at the discretion of the Sheriff. This funding has not been routinely used for a specific purpose, but used as needed for primarily one-time cost items. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Funding will not be appropriated to implement the radKIDS program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Sheriff's Office is implementing the RAD kids program, which will cover a wide range of subjects for children ages 5-12; these subjects include: Safety at home, at play and at school Bicycle and traffic safety Planning for emergencies such as fire and natural disasters Response to bullying Internet safety Avoiding adult predators Physical skills to avoid physical control or harm AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Appropriations and Revenue Adjustment No. 5010 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Appropriation and Adjustments No. 5010 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 662 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes663 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes664 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 665 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 666 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21909 to add four (4) Animal Center Technician (BJWC) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade QA5 1041 ($3,120-$3,792), cancel three (3) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) vacant positions 12298, 15919, and 15920 at salary plan and grade QA5 0840 ($2,557-$3,108); and one (1) Special Services Worker II (999G) (represented) vacant position 11034 at salary plan and grade TB5 0791 ($2,533-$3,079) in the Animal Services Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, the cost of this action will be $47,024 for fiscal year 2016/17. These positions will be funded by 32% User Fees, 31% City Revenue, 37% County General Fund. These funds will continue to support these positions in FY 2017/18. This transaction will include $11,895 additional pension expense. BACKGROUND: The demand for the Animal Services Department's shelter services has increased significantly since the beginning of 2016. Due to the rise in demand, the volume of work performed by the Animal Center Technicians has increased. Animal Center Technicians handle the intake APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Arturo Castillo (925) 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Arturo Castillo C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add four Animal Center Technician positions, cancel three Animal Services Utility Worker and cancel one Special Services Worker II position September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 667 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of animals within the shelter, along with their assessment, vaccinations and other essential tasks to provide necessary care thereafter. In April 2016, the Animal Services Department enhanced its shelter sanitation system to increase its cleaning efficiency and therefore decrease sanitation demands. This in turn has resulted in a decrease in the volume of work performed by Animal Services Utility Workers, who are tasked with the majority of the sanitation duties within the shelters. Canceling Animal Services Utility Worker positions and adding additional Animal Center Technician positions will provide the Department sufficient staffing to maximize the quality of care services for our sheltered animals. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The volume of work performed by the Animal Center Technicians has increase significantly due to the demand in shelter services. If the number of Animal Center Technicians is not increased the necessary care of sheltered animals may decline and the prevalence of infectious deceases may increase because of insufficient staffing levels. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21909 ASD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21909 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 668 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21909 DATE 8/23/2016 Department No./ Department Animal Services Budget Unit No. 0366 Org No. 3340 Agency No. 36 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21909 to add four Animal Center Technician (represented) positions, cancel three Animal Services Utility Worker (represented) vacant positions and cancel one Special Services Worker II (represented) vacant position in the Animal Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 8/15/2016 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 $56,429.00 Net County Cost $20,879.00 Total this FY $47,024.00 N.C.C. this FY $17,400.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 32% User Fees, 31% City Revenues, 37% County Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Arturo Castillo ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 8/23/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/8/2016 Add four (4) Animal Center Technician (BJWC) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade QA5 1041 ($3,120-$3,792), cancel three (3) Animal Services Utility Worker (BJWE) (represented) vacant positions 12298, 15919, and 15920 at salary plan and grade QA5 0840 ($2,557-$3,108); and cancel one (1) Special Services Worker II (999G) (represented) vacant position 11034 at salary plan and grade TB5 0791 ($2,533-$3,079) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Lauren Ludwig 9/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/20/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 669 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/20/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 670 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 671 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21960 to: 1.Add the following nine (9) positions in the Health Services Department: Four (4) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Analyst II (LBVC) at salary level ZB5-1784 ($6,771-$9,074); Two (2) 40/40 – Health Services Information Technology Manager (LBFA) at salary level ZB5-2093 ($9,195 - $11,177); One (1) 40/40 – Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB)at salary level 3RH-0750 ($2,905 - $3,605); One (1) 40/40 -Assistant Health Services Information Technology Director – Customer Support - EXEMPT (LBD2) at salary level B85-2212 ($10,349 - $12,579); One (1) 40/40 – Information System Specialist III (LTTA) at salary level QS5-1496 ($5,323 - $6,470); and 2. Cancel the following nine (9) vacant positions in the Health Services Department: Three (3) 40/40 – Health Services Information Systems Specialist (LBTB), positions #9563, #10156, #11171 at salary level B85-1613 ($5,323 - $7,134); APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Jacqueline Kidd, (925) 957-5261 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add nine (9) permanent positions and cancel nine (9) permanent vacant positions in the Health Services Department September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 672 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Specialist I (LBTD), position #13861 at salary level ZB5-1541($3,957 - $4,822); One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Analyst III (LTWA), position #14279 at salary level ZB5-1834 ($7,115 - $9,535); One (1) 40/40 – Information Systems Assistant II (LTVH), position # 7996 at salary level 3R5-1005 ($3,131 - $3,806); One (1) 40/40 -Storeroom Clerk (91WC), position # 14055 at salary level QS5-0916 ($2,867 – $3,485); One (1) 40/40 – Assistant Health Services System Director – Network Operations (LBGD), position #7118 at salary level ZA5-1932 ($7,840 - $10,506); One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Information Systems Programmer/Analyst (LBTC), position #12841 at salary level ZB5-1787 ($6,791 - $9,101). FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $78,342 with estimated pension costs of $27,811. The cost will be entirely offset with Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Information Technology Division is requesting to add nine (9) permanent full-time positions necessary to provide a more effective and efficient systems support in relations to the growth and development of ccLink Health Information Systems – one (1) Assistant Health Services Information Technology Director-Customer Support (Exempt) to direct and monitor the growth of ccLink and other clinical applications; four (4) Health Services Systems Analyst II positions to continue servicing ccLink according to the post-live staffing models; two (2) Health Services Information Technology Managers to manage the growth responsibility focused on ccLink applications; one (1) Information Systems Specialist III to support the state of the art Electronic Health Record utilized throughout Health Services; and one (1) Clerk-Experienced Level to provide clerical support to the unit managers. The Department is canceling nine (9) vacant positions as they are no longer meeting the operational needs of the expanded ccLink health information systems. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Information Technology Division of the Health Services Department will not have adequate staffing to meet the demand and volume of patient care information for those we serve. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21960 HSD P300 No. 21960 Attachment 1 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21960 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 673 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21960 DATE 8/15/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 6555 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add and cancel various positions in the Health Services Department. (See Attachment 1) Proposed Effective Date: 9/28/2016 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 $78,342.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $58,756.50 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenue Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Jacqueline Kidd ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 674 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 675 POSITION ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION NO. 21960 - ATTACHMENT 1 HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT – ADD/CANCEL VARIOUS POSITIONS ADD (9) • Four (4) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Analyst II (LBVC) • Two (2) 40/40 – Health Services Information Technology Manager (LBFA) • One (1) 40/40 – Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) • One (1) 40/40 - Assistant Health Services Information Technology Director – Customer Support - EXEMPT (LBD2) • One (1) 40/40 – Information System Specialist III (LTTA) CANCEL (9) • Three (3) 40/40 – Health Services Information Systems Specialist (LBTB), positions #9563, #10156, #11171 • One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Specialist I (LBTD), position #13861 • One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Systems Analyst III (LTWA), position #14279 • One (1) 40/40 – Information Systems Assistant II (LTVH), position # 7996 • One (1) 40/40 - Storeroom Clerk (91WC), position # 14055 • One (1) 40/40 – Assistant Health Services System Director – Network Operations (LBGD), position #7118 • One (1) 40/40 – Health Services Information Systems Programmer/Analyst (LBTC), position #12841 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 676 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 677 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 678 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21928 to add nineteen (19) Social Worker III (XOVB) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1618 ($5,524-$6,714) in the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Families Services Bureau. ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21929 to add fourteen (14) Social Casework Assistant (XDVB) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1434 ($4,604 - $5,596) in the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Families Services Bureau. ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21930 to add two (2) Children’s Services Clerical Specialists (J9SC) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 3R5 1092 ($3,412 - $4,802) in the Employment and Human Services Department, Children and Families Services Bureau. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Holly Trieu (925) 313-1560 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Holly Trieu C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add 19 Social Worker III, 14 Social Casework Assistant, and 2 Children's Services Clerical Specialist in CFS EHSD September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 679 FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21928 will have an annual cost of approximately $2,252,222. The positions are funded 42% Federal revenue and 58% State revenue. The estimated annual pension costs are $461,035. Approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21928 will have an annual cost of approximately $1,418,858. The positions are funded 42% Federal revenue and 58% State revenue. The estimated annual pension costs are $283,136. Approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21930 will have an annual cost of approximately $158,182. The positions are funded 42% Federal revenue and 48% State revenue, and 10% County fund. The estimated annual pension costs are $29,982. BACKGROUND: The Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) passed by the State Legislature in 2015 is a major initiative with a significant workload impact. In order to comply with the mandates of this legislation, we will need to build an infrastructure for a robust service delivery model which includes children and family team meetings to reduce congregate care, recruitment and family finding program in order to place children in family setting and small family home setting. To meet this new state initiative and improve business practices, the Children & Family Services Bureau (CFS) plans to add nineteen (19) Social Worker III positions. This increase in critical staff positions ensures our most vulnerable children and families are served safely and efficiently. In addition, it is essential to create and maintain the highest possible resources for service delivery to families. CFS also plans to add fourteen (14) Social Casework Assistant positions in order to perform services such as visitation supervision, parent training, home visits, and transportation; all of which are mandated services for Child Welfare to provide in order to meet the "reasonable efforts" findings in court hearings. These services are necessary to ensure the agency meets our legal obligation to assist families in meeting the needs of their children to return home or to remain home safely. Social Casework Assistants will perform these functions for the agency allowing social workers to focus on family service delivery and risk assessment. Two (2) Children’s Services Clerical Specialist positions are being added to cover the entire Children & Family Services Bureau county-wide and are assigned in each of the operational offices with some current positions “floating” to other offices when the demands become exceptionally high in one office. The placement trend has continued to increase with more children entering care and moving from one placement to another. The Children's Services Clerical Specialist position prepares, collects, reviews and processes a variety of specialized children’s services forms and documents from the social work staff for foster care payment processing required by eligibility, ensures all records are processed in a timely manner to meet State and Federal mandated time-frames and functions as a liaison between social work staff placing children and eligibility staff providing payments to caregivers. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The creation of the listed position are essential to comply with the Continuum of Care Reforms. If the positions are not create the County may be unable to provide necessary services to return to their families and provide the familes needed support services. This would result with the County at risk of not being in compliance with Federal mandates of state Title IV-B and IV-E program requirements. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: Families that are Safe, Stable and nuturing. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 680 AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21928 EHSD P300 No. 21929 EHSD P300 No. 21930 EHSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21928 Signed P300 21929 Signed P300 21930 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 681 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21928 DATE 8/31/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0502 Org No. 5216 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add 19 Social Worker III (XOVB) represented positions in Children & Family Services at EHSD (AR 37558) Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $2,252,222.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $1,689,167.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Federal 42%, State 58% Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/6/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/8/2016 Add nineteen (19) Social Worker III (XOVB) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1618 ($5,524- $6,714) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 682 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 683 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 684 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21929 DATE 8/31/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Service Budget Unit No. 0502 Org No. 5216 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add 14 Social Casework Assistant (XDVB) represented positions in Children & Family Services at EHSD (AR37559) Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $1,418,858.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $1,064,144.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Federal 42%, State 58% Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/6/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/8/2016 Add fourteen (14) Social Casework Assistant (XDVB) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1434 ($4,604 - $5,596) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 685 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 686 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 687 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21930 DATE 8/31/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0502 Org No. 5220 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add 2 Children's Services Clerical Specialist (J9SC) represented positions in Children & Family Services at EHSD (AR38541) Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $158,182.00 Net County Cost $15,818.00 Total this FY $118,637.00 N.C.C. this FY $11,864.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Federal 42%, State 48%, County 10% Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/6/16 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/8/2016 Add two (2) Children’s Services Clerical Specialists (J9SC) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 3R5 1092 ($3,412 - $4,802) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 688 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 689 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 690 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21936 to add one (1) Employment and Human Services Division Manager-Project (XAD1) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade Z12 1841 ($7,381-$9,449) in the Employment and Human Services Department’s Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative Unit. ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21937 to add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant II Project (APV2) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade Z25 1475 ($4,986-$6,061) in the Employment and Human Services Department’s Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative Unit. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for both positions is accounted for in Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5006. Upon approval Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21936, will have an annual cost of $146,749. This project position will be funded 100% Federal revenue. The annual pension cost is $30,897. Upon approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21937, will have APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Holly Trieu (925) 313-1560 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Holly Trieu C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one EHS Division Manager-Project and one Administrative Assisant II-Project position in EHSD September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 691 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) an annual cost of $107,919. This project position will be funded 60% Federal revenue, 40% State revenue. The annual pension cost is $21,904. BACKGROUND: Employment and Human Services Department is a participant in an innovative multi-sector partnership devoted to advancing optimal outcomes for youth at the highest risk of involvement or already involved in the juvenile justice system in Contra Costa County. The overall management of the Youth Justice Initiative (YJI) /Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) is with Employment and Human Services Department. Specifically the YJI will serve as a hub for coordination, capacity building and dissemination of best and promising practices and initially test two pilot programs: 1) a school-wide prevention and intervention effort for some of the County’s highest-risk students, beginning with a pilot middle school in the Antioch School District. 2) Comprehensive post-disposition advocacy, reentry, and aftercare services to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism for juvenile probationers throughout the County. The Department has determined in order to maintain staffing continuity that an EHS Division Manager- Project is needed. The EHS Division Manager-Project will implement, organize, direct and coordinate the activities of the YJI including developing policy, identifying best practices, leveraging local and national resources and testing a minimum of two evidence based approaches in collaboration with multiple public and private agencies. The Domestic Violence Division in the Employment and Human Service Department is responsible for the management of federal grants from the Office of Victims of Crime and Commercially & Sexually Exploited Children (SCEC). The Department is requesting to convert the contract to one full time Administrative Services Assistant II Project position. The position will coordinate and develop a system of care for human trafficking (HT) victims. The position will oversee deliverables for a federal grant, provide implementation consultation to Children and Family Services on new Human Trafficking mandates and develop critical policies in this area of human exploitation. The position is also needed to sustain consistent staff to meet the demands of the funders and mandates. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, deliverables required by the funding sources will not be completed and the department will not have the appropriate staff to oversee and manage the Federal Grant programs. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: These positions will provide the Department with the staff to provide at risk youth and youth involved in the juvenile justice system with services to reduce rates of youth-related violence. These services are critical to support (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; and (5) communities that are Safe and provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21936 EHSD P300 No. 21937 EHSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21936 Signed P300 21937 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 692 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21936 DATE 8/31/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0586 Org No. 0586 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add one Employment and Human Services Division Manager-Project (XAD1)represented position in the Employment and Human Services Department’s Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative Unit (AR36676). Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $146,749.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $110,062.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Federal Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/7/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/15/2016 Add one (1) Employment and Human Services Division Manager-Project (XAD1) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade Z12 1841 ($7,381-$9,449) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/15/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 693 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 694 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 695 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21937 DATE 8/31/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0586 Org No. 0586 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add one Administrative Services Assistant II-Project (APV2)represented position in the Employment and Human Services Department’s Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative Unit (AR36677). Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $107,919.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $80,939.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 60% Federal, 40% State Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/7/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/15/2016 Add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant II Project (APV2) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade Z25 1475 ($4,986-$6,061) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/15/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 696 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 697 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 698 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21962 to add two (2) full-time Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) positions at salary level and grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905 - $3,605) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $155,507 with $30,718 in estimated pension costs. The cost will be fully funded by Health Care Premiums. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add two full-time Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) positions for the Contra Costa Health Plan. The department needs immediate support staff to cover provider and public phone lines, review and research claim status, and manually enter medical claims in addition to handling provider research, manually handle claim disputes, and answer tracer sheets. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the department will be unable to pay claims APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add two (2) full-time positions in the Health Services Department September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 699 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: (CONT'D) in a timely manner for network providers and the amount of interest will rise higher than the combined salary of two clerks. No adequate time and support can be provided to network providers calling in to check on claims due to not having enough staff on the team. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21962 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21962 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 700 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21962 DATE 8/30/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services/CCHP Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6569 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add two (2) full-time Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) positions in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 9/28/2016 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 $155,507.02 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $116,630.26 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Health Care Premiums 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 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 701 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 702 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 703 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21939 to add three (3) Social Worker (XOVC) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1434 ($4,604-$5,596) in the Employment and Human Services Department, Aging and Adult Services Bureau's Home Support Services Division. ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21942 to add one (1) Clerk – Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905-$3,605) and one (1) Account Clerk Experienced Level (JDVC) (represented) full time position at Salary and Grade 3RH 0755 ($3,192-$3,958) in the Employment and Human Services Department, Aging and Adult Services Bureau's Home Support Services Division. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for both positions is accounted for in Appropriation and Revenue Adjustment No. 5006. Upon approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21939 there is an annual cost of $304,045. These positions are funded with 56% Federal and 44% State revenue. The annual pension APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Holly Trieu (925) 313-1560 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Holly Trieu C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add three Social Workers, one Clerk-Experienced Level, One Account Clerk-Experienced Level in Aging & Adult Services September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 704 FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D) cost is approximately $60,672. Upon approval of Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21942 there is an annual cost of $144,599. These positions are funded with 45% Federal, 41% State revenue and 14% County fund. The annual pension cost is approximately $26,789. BACKGROUND: Effective January 1, 2016 the California Department of Social Services mandates the implementation of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) per Senate Bills 855 and 873. There are over 8,604 IHSS clients who qualify for in home care and their providers are paid through IHSS and the Public Authority. The mandate requires the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Division to administer new functions including overtime monitoring and travel time for providers, scheduling of multiple providers for a single client, appeals processes, management of violations, and emergency back-up for providers. Currently the FLSA guidelines require several levels of activity involving Social Workers and Account Clerks in IHSS Payroll. The Employment and Human Services Department created a staff unit in April 2016 to administer the new regulations; however, additional staff is needed. The Social Workers are required to approve overtime requests, travel time and wait time based on the clients authorized services – these are new duties for Social Workers and cannot be absorbed into their existing caseloads. The newly hired Social Workers will be assigned the full range of IHSS duties in order to provide caseload relief and allow all Social Workers to manage the FLSA-driven changes on their caseloads. The Account Clerk is needed to administer payroll to over 8,000 providers, sort and open mail, collect mailers, and input data into CMIPS II, including new enrollment documents and schedules. The Clerk – Experienced Level will provide clerical support to the unit. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these positions are not approved the In Home Supportive Services and Public Authority will be out of compliance with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) instructions on Senate Bill 855 and Senate Bill 873 which will govern the implementation of the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) rules. Delays in processing forms would delay the payment to providers for services rendered, thus placing the recipients’ care in jeopardy. Non-compliance with CDSS regulations may place the County at risk for sanctions and other corrective action by the state. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21939 EHSD P300 No. 21942 EHSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21939 Signed P300 21942 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 705 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21939 DATE 8/29/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0503 Org No. 5311 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add 3 Social Workers (XOVC) represented positions in the Aging and Adult Services Bureau (AR 39830) Proposed Effective Date: 9/13/2016 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 $304,045.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $228,034.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 56% Federal, 44% State funding Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/7/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/15/2016 Add three (3) Social Worker (XOVC) (represented) full time positions at Salary Plan and Grade 255 1434 ($4,604-$5,596) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/15/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 706 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 707 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 708 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21942 DATE 8/29/2016 Department No./ Department Employment and Human Services Budget Unit No. 0503 Org No. 5311 Agency No. A19 Action Requested: Add 1 Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) represented and one Account Clerk-Experience Level (JDVC) represented positions in the Aging and Adult Services Bureau (AR36501 and AR36236) Proposed Effective Date: 9/20/2016 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 $144,599.00 Net County Cost $20,244.00 Total this FY $108,449.00 N.C.C. this FY $15,183.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 45% Federal, 41% State, 14% County Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Holly Trieu 3-1560 ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kevin J. Corrigan 9/8/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/15/2016 Add one (1) Clerk – Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) full time position at Salary Plan and Grade 3RH 0750 ($2,905- $3,605) and one (1) Account Clerk Experienced Level (JDVC) (represented) full time position at Salary and Grade 3RH 0755 ($3,192-$3,958) Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 9/15/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 709 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 710 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 711 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21963 to add one (1) Pre-Hospital Care Coordinator position (VBSG) at salary level ZB5-1766 ($8,049-$8,972) and cancel one vacant Emergency Medical Services Program Coordinator (VBHB) position #16353 at salary level ZB5-1824 ($7,045-8,563) in the Health Services Department. (Represented). FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $7,209, which includes $1,741 in estimated pension costs. The cost will be funded by Measure H monies. BACKGROUND: The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of the Health Services Department is a vital unit that is an integrated system of private and public providers rendering emergency medical care. It is a community-based health management model that provides acute illness, injury care and follow-up. It also contributes to treatment of chronic conditions and community health monitoring. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one (1) full time position and cancel one (1) full-time position in the Health Services Department. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 712 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Emergency Medical Services Division needs to restructure its functions and it has determined that the Emergency Medical Services Program Coordinator is not needed at this time and it is most appropriate to add a Pre-Hospital Care Coordinator position. The Pre-Hospital Care Coordinator will support the new Alliance (contractor/subcontractor) agreement to fulfill the patient safety, medical control and performance oversight associated with the new Alliance service model. This role will also support new statutory mandates associated with changes to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and Paramedic certifications and discipline, Dispatch Pre-hospital data integration and Health Information Exchange (HIE) Management, and non-emergency ambulance provider oversight. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the EMS Unit will not be able to fulfill the operational needs required by the expanded services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21963 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21963 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 713 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21963 DATE 8/19/2016 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0540 Org No. 6543 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one full-time (1) Pre-Hospital Care Coordinator (VBSG) and cancel one (1) Emergency Medical Services Program Coordinator (VBHB) position #16353 in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 9/28/2016 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 $7,209.05 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $4,806.03 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Measure H funds 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 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 714 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 715 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 716 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21964 to add one Clerk – Specialist Level (JWXD) position at salary plan and grade level 3RX – 1156 ($3,627 - $4,632) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $94,835 with estimated pension cost of $19,731 already included. Costs will be 100% funded by Mental Health Realignment monies. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add one Clerk – Specialist Level to Behavior Health Division’s Utilization Review Unit. Behavioral Health Division has seven new Community Based Organization providers with the anticipation of three additional providers. Utilization Review Unit is responsible for managing and authorizing all claims sent to the State on behalf of the Behavioral Health Division which must be done in a timely manner to avoid delays APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Clerk - Specialist Level in the Health Services Department September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 717 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in payment and disallowances. The Department has determined one Clerk – Specialist Level position would be the most appropriate solution to address the complexity and increased workload. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will not have the appropriate level of staffing for its Behavioral Health Division’s Utilization Review Unit. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21964 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21964 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 718 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21964 DATE 9/7/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5943 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one Clerk - Specialist Level (JWXD) position in the Health Services Department. Proposed Effective Date: 9/28/2016 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 $94,835.07 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $79,029.23 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Mental Health Realignment funds Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 719 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 720 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 721 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21965 to add one Clerk – Experience Level (JWXB) position at salary plan and grade level 3RH – 0750 ($2,906 - $3,605) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $76,733 with estimated pension cost of $15,359 already included. Costs will be funded by Mental Health Vocational Services' contract with State of California’s Department of Rehabilitation. (100%) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add one Clerk – Experienced Level to ensure Behavior Health Division’s Mental Health Vocational Counseling Program meets its contract obligations with the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR). One of the contractual requirements is to maintain accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Clerk - Experienced Level in the Health Services Department September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 722 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Facilities (CARF). The Program must mail out surveys to Employers, Stakeholders and Clients to assess the Program’s service deliverables. The Program must also illustrate accurate consumer file maintenance including file audits and timely file archiving. The Department has determined one Clerk – Experienced Level position would be the most appropriate solution to address these contract obligations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will not have the appropriate level of staffing for its Behavioral Health Division’s Mental Health Vocational Counseling Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21965 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 21965 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 723 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21965 DATE 9/7/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5973 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one Clerk - Experienced Level (JWXB) position in the Health Services Department. (Represented) Proposed Effective Date: 9/21/2016 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 $76,733.61 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $63,944.67 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Third Party Funding Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 724 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 725 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 726 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21958 to add one part time (20/40) Mental Health Community Support Worker I (VQWE) position at salary plan and grade level TC5 – 0875 ($2,753 - $3,346) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action has an annual cost of approximately $40,156 with estimated pension cost of $7,127 already included. The position will be funded by Mental Health Services Act. (100%) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department is requesting to add one part time Mental Health Community Support Worker I to assist with the collection of data and work plan evaluations by administering surveys, conducting focus groups and logging program activities. In addition, this position would support the Promoting Wellness, Recovery, and Self-Management Through Peers Program created under Mental Health Services Act Innovation Program. Without the addition of this new part time APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one part time Mental Health Community Support Worker I in the Health Services Department September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 727 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) position Behavioral Health Division’s Office of Consumer Empowerment will not be able to provide the support and data need to adequately administer the Mental Health Services Act Innovation Program. The Department has determined one part time Mental Health Community Support Worker I would be the most appropriate solution to address this growing need. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will not have the appropriate level of staffing for its Behavioral Health Division’s Office of Consumer Empowerment. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21958 HSD September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 728 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21958 DATE 9/7/2016 Department No./ Department HEALTH SERVICES Budget Unit No. 0467 Org No. 5753 Agency No. A18 Action Requested: Add one part-time 20/40 Mental Health Community Support Worker I (VQWE) position in the Health Services Department. (Represented) Proposed Effective Date: 9/28/2016 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 $40,156.44 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $33,463.70 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% Mental Health Service Act Funding Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Melissa Carofanello ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Enid Mendoza 9/20/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ 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 9/20/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 729 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/20/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 730 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 21961 to establish the classifications of Student Intern, Level I (998A) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 101 ($$10.00 - $11.03), Student Intern, Level II (998B) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 102 ($$11.58 - $14.08), Student Intern, Level III (998C) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 103 ($14.77 - $17.95), Student Intern, Level IV (998D) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 104 ($$18.86 - $22.92), and Student Intern, Level V (998E) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 105 ($24.07 - $29.26) effective September 27, 2016; and abolish the classifications of Student Worker - Deep Class (999E) (unrepresented), Administrative Intern – Deep Class (AP9A) (unrepresented) and Library Student Assistant – Exempt (3KW2) (unrepresented), effective December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: Departments will transition qualified employees from the classes of Student Worker - Deep Class, Administrative Intern – Deep Class and Library Student Assistant – Exempt Classifications into the Student Intern classification prior to December 31, 2016. Any increased costs will be absorbed by operating departments using the classification. There are no additional pension expenses as individuals occupying the new classification will be temporary employees and not entitled to pension benefits. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources 335-1779 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lisa Lopez, Assistant Director of Human Resources, Harjit S. Nahal, Assistant County Auditor C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Ito, Human Resources Consultant Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Establish Student Intern classification and abolish Student Worker-Deep Class, Administrative Intern–Deep Class and Library Student Assistant September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 731 BACKGROUND: The Student Intern classification is being established, replacing three outdated and obsolete classes, to provide practical and meaningful work experience for students while providing temporary service to operating departments. This multiple level classification is designed for the employment of students and recent graduates on a limited-term hourly basis up to 25 hours per week. Student Interns may work up to forty (40) hours per week for up to twelve weeks during summer break (May through September). The Student Intern classification is a County-wide classification and duties performed will vary in scope of activity depending on the assigned department and level. Students can advance in both level and pay based on education and operational need. Appointment to this temporary class is restricted to students enrolled in, or recent graduates of, an accredited high school, technical school, junior college, or four-year college or university. Incumbent curriculum must lead to a diploma, program certificate, Associate, Bachelor or advanced degree. This classification will provide a means of temporary employment whereby students may become familiar with the practical application of courses being studied and other areas of interest and is anticipated to provide an opportunity for students to transition into regular county employment. Incumbents will be temporary employees; no regular permanent appointments will be made to this class. Student Interns will not be used in lieu of hiring regular county employees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Departments will continue to struggle with outdated intern/worker classifications that do not meet the needs of the County. ATTACHMENTS P300 21961 P300 21961 Attachment September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 732 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21961 DATE 9/21/2016 Department No./ Department Human Resources Budget Unit No. 0035 Org No. 1351 Agency No. 05 Action Requested: Establish the classifications of Student Intern, Level I (998A) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 101 ($10.00 - $11.03), Student Intern, Level II (998B) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 102 ($11.58 - $14.08), Student Intern, Level III (998C) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 103 ($14.77 - $17.95), Student Intern, Level IV (998D) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 104 Proposed Effective Date: 9/27/2016 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 $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT 100% General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. L. Lopez ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 9/21/16 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 9/21/2016 See Attached, effective dates below reflect both actions recommended by Human Resources. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. 12/31/2016(Date) L. Lopez 9/21/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/21/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Lisa Driscoll 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 733 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/21/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 734 ATTACHMENT P300 NO. 21961 Establish the classifications of Student Intern, Level I (998A) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 101 ($10.00 - $11.03), Student Intern, Level II (998B) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 102 ($11.58 - $14.08), Student Intern, Level III (998C) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 103 ($14.77 - $17.95), Student Intern, Level IV (998D) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 104 ($18.86 - $22.92), and Student Intern, Level V (998E) (unrepresented) at salary plan and grade FS5 105 ($24.07 - $29.26), effective September 27, 2016; and abolish the classifications of Student Worker - Deep Class (999E) (unrepresented), Administrative Intern – Deep Class (AP9A) (unrepresented) and Library Student Assistant – Exempt (3KW2) (unrepresented), effective December 31, 2016. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 735 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Personnel Adjustment Resolution No. 21948 to add three (3) Accounting Technician (JD7A) (represented) positions at salary plan and grade 3RX 1236 ($3,925 - $5,013), cancel one (1) Clerical Supervisor (JWHF) (represented) vacant position number 2513 at salary plan and grade K6X 1290 ($4,141 - $5,288), cancel one (1) Account Clerk- Advanced Level (JDTD) (represented) vacant position number 13237 at salary plan and grade 3RX 1133 ($3,545 - $4,527), cancel two (2) Account Clerk–Experienced Level (JDVC) (represented) vacant position numbers 12301 and 13141 at salary plan and grade 3RH 0755 ($3,192 - $3,958) in the Office of the Sheriff. FISCAL IMPACT: The Office of the Sheriff will have an annual savings of $85,471 to the department’s general fund, and an annual retirement savings of $12,239 due to the adding/canceling of the following positions. Add three Accounting Technicians ($372,759); cancel one Clerical Supervisor ($135,081); cancel an Account Clerk Advanced Level ($114,965) and cancel two Account Clerk Experienced Level positions ($208,183). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Marcie Clark, (925) 335-1545 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robyn Hanson C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Add three Accounting Technician positions, cancel one Clerical Supervisor , one Account Clerk- Advanced Level, and two Account Clerk Exp. positions September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 736 BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff oversees the operations and accounting for three detention facilities, 37 Federal and State grants, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), contract Law Enforcement Services, Communication billings, fee for service billing and miscellaneous Law Enforcement billings. All the grants providing funding have varying degrees of legal requirements requiring a higher level of accounting experience to assist the Sheriff’s Fiscal Office in remaining compliant with the ever increasing and constricting State and Federal regulations. As the fiscal agent, the Sheriff’s Fiscal Office provides policy, financial and program guidance to its divisions, contractors and sub-recipients. The purpose of the Sheriff’s Fiscal Office is to ensure all grant-related expenditures are properly coded to the funding source prior to payment processing. This system enables the Sheriff’s Fiscal Office to properly identify all expenditures for claim reimbursement. The fiscal responsibilities in financial grant management require budget monitoring of expenses as specified in the grant program guidelines. In addition, financial and program reports are submitted to various State and Federal agencies. The complex and specialized accounting required for Grants should be performed by the higher level Accounting Technician class. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The department requires higher level accounting experience to assist in the Sheriff's Fiscal Unit that require varying degrees of legal requirements. If this action is not approved, grant claim and billing deadlines may not be met, resulting in the loss of substantial revenue in the General Fund; and inmate accounts may be inaccurate, resulting in possible litigation. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 21948 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 737 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 21948 DATE 9/2/2016 Department No./ Department Office of the Sheriff Budget Unit No. 0255 Org No. 2500 Agency No. 25 Action Requested: Add three (3) Accounting Technician (JD7A) positions, Cancel one (1) Clerical Supervisor (JWHF) position (2513), Cancel one (1) Account Clerk- Advanced Level (JDHD) position (13237), Cancel two (2) Account Clerk –Experienced Level (JDTD) position (12301) & (13141 Proposed Effective Date: 10/01/2016 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 ($85,472.00) Net County Cost ($58,472.00) Total this FY ($64,104.00) N.C.C. this FY ($64,104.00) SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Office of the Sheriff General Fund Cost Savings Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Mary Jane Robb ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Timothy M. Ewell 9/13/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Add three Accounting Technician positions, cancel one Clerical Supervisor (2513) position, cancel one Account Clerk- Advanced Level (13237) position and cancel two Account Clerk –Experienced Level (12301 & 13141) positions. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Tanya Williams 9/14/2016 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 9/19/2016 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Timothy M. Ewell 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 738 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 9/19/2016 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 739 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Interagency Agreement #28-753-9 with Pittsburg Unified School District, an educational institution, to pay County an amount not to exceed $4,000, for the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project for 7th and 8th grade students, for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Interagency Agreement will allow Pittsburg Unified School District to pay County $4.00 per student to support the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project. (No County match). BACKGROUND: Pittsburg Unified School District has requested that Contra Costa Health Services, Public Health Clinic Services, provide Scoliosis Screening Clinics at their middle schools for their 7th grade girls and 8th grade boys, throughout the school year. By providing an outreach program such as the scoliosis screening of their students, the School District is able to provide a valuable diagnostic and preventative service to their students who might otherwise go untreated. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 925-313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement #28-753-9 with Pittsburg Unified School District September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 740 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On December 8, 2015 the Board of Supervisors approved Interagency Agreement #28-753-8 for the provision of Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening at Pittsburg Unified School District for the period from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. Approval of Interagency Agreement #28-753-9, will allow Pittsburg Unified School District to continue providing funding to support continuing scoliosis-screening services to its students, through August 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If contract is not approved, the Pittsburg Unified School District will not be able to provide continuous scoliosis screening to its eighth grade male students and seventh grade female students throughout the school year. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 741 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Interagency Agreement #28-697-14 with Antioch Unified School District, a government agency, to pay County an amount not to exceed $18,000, for the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project for its 7th and 8th grade students, for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this Interagency Agreement will allow Antioch School District to pay County $4.28 per student to support the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project. No County funds match required. BACKGROUND: Antioch School District has requested that Contra Costa Health Services, Public Health Clinic Services, provide Scoliosis Screening Clinics at their middle schools for their 7th grade girls and 8th grade boys, throughout the school year. By providing an outreach program such as the scoliosis screening of their students, the School District is able to provide a valuable diagnostic and preventative service to their students who might otherwise go untreated. On November APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A FLOYD, M WILHELM C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement #28-697-14 with Antioch Unified School District September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 742 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Interagency Agreement #28-697-13 with Antioch Unified School District, for the Public Health Clinic Services Scoliosis Screening Project for its 7th and 8th grade students for the period from September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. Approval of Interagency Agreement #28-697-14 will allow Agency to offer continuous scoliosis-screening services to its students, through August 31, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the county will not receive funds in order to screen for scoliosis in approximately 1,400 7th and 8th grade students in Antioch Unified School District. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 743 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to submit, on behalf of the County Grant Application, #28-886 from the National Association of County and City Health Official (NACCHO), in an amount not to exceed $18,000 to support the County’s Environmental Health Retail Standards Mentorship Program, for the period from November 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this grant submission will result in an amount of $18,000 from the National Association of County and City Health Official (NACCHO) (No County match required) BACKGROUND: Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) is part of Contra Costa Health Services Department and is mandated by California Health and Safety Codes implement the California Retail Food Code. CCEH has enrolled in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA), Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards to maintain professionalism and consistency with our local, state, and federal Environmental Health colleagues. Enrolling in the standards requires meeting APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: J Pigg, M Wilhelm C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Submission of Grant Application #28-886 from the National Association of County and City Health Official (NACCHO) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 744 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 9 program standards as detailed by FDA. Applying for the NACCHO Mentorship Program and obtaining the grant will greatly assist CCEH in obtaining a qualified and approved mentor to properly begin in the program standards to lead to the success of on completing the Retail Food Program Standards. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this application is not accepted, the County will not receive funds to support the needs of participants enrolled in the Environmental Health’s Retail Standards Mentoring Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NOT APPLICABLE September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 745 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Defender, or designee, to apply for and accept a grant in amount of $25,000 from the California Endowment for the Proposition 47 Outreach program, for the period October 15, 2016 through April 14, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant will fund the salary and statutory benefit charges for one (1) temporary clerk, for a six-month period beginning October 15, 2016. There is no requirement for matching funds by the County, and the grant will not increase Net County Cost. Anticipated grant revenues to be received will expended in FY 2016-17. BACKGROUND: Reflecting a growing movement for justice reform, California voters overwhelming passed Proposition 47, which reclassifies some "non-serious and nonviolent" property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The provisions of this new law terminate in November APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Richard Loomis, (925) 335-8093 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robin Lipetzky, Public Defender Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award from the California Endowment supporting Proposition 47 Defense Outreach September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 746 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 2017, which provide Defense Counsel with a limited period of time to identify, locate, and provide legal services to eligible defendants. By prioritizing an aggressive community outreach strategy in partnership with local community-based organizations and other government departments, the Public Defender's Office has become a statewide leader in Proposition 47 work. The department's efforts have resulted in the swift release of eligible persons from incarcerations, reductions for all known eligible felony probationers (more than 1,000 defendants) and the filing of resentencing and reclassification petitions in approximately 2,000 cases. There are reclassification provisions in Proposition 47 allowing for the reduction of prior felony convictions retroactively. According to data received from the County's Department of Information Technology, between 10,000 to 15,000 convictions are potentially eligible for reclassification. Despite our Department's commitment to this work, given the limitations of our existing staffing, at the current rate of outreach, application and filing, we expect to identify, solicit and process only 40% of the estimated 10,000 (or more) eligible cases in Contra Costa County, prior to the November 2017 statutory deadline. Solicitation of supplemental funding from non-profit foundations has previously resulted in three (3) individual awards of $73,503 to augment the public funding commitment to this important work. Currently the Proposition 47 Outreach Program has three (3) temporary clerical positions that work under the supervision of a Deputy Public Defender to accelerate the Proposition 47 activities already underway. The job duties include: client intake, review of closed cases, drafting and filing of petitions, preparing files for hearings, client communications and notification and conducting outreach events throughout the County. Continuation of the program is to be funded by the California Endowment in the amount of $25,000 for one temporary clerk for a six-month period beginning October 15, 2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Office of the Public Defender will experience difficulty in fully implementing the mandates of Proposition 47 for the residents of Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 747 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, to pay the County at the rate of $148 per hour, plus expenses, to provide radio communication maintenance services to the District, for the period October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenue for DoIT's Telecommunications division. BACKGROUND: Upon the District's request, the County Department of Information Technology will provide programming and maintenance services for the District'’s P25 radios used on the East Bay Regional Communications System Authority infrastructure as well as other related radio support services at the rate of $148 per hour, plus the cost of any materials and required equipment. The agreement provides that the County may adjust the hourly rate on July 1 of each year based on its costs to provide the services, and will notify District in writing of any change in the hourly rate for subsequent fiscal years (July 1 to June 30). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Reduced revenue for the radio division, which could increase labor rates. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Chief Information Officer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement for Radio Communication Services with Central Sanitary District September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 748 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a purchase order to Carousel Industries of North America Incorporated in the amount of $135,000 and a Software and Services Agreement with Voice Print International, LLC, for the term of September 27, 2016 through September 26, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: $135,000.00 General Fund; Budgeted. BACKGROUND: The Office of the Sheriff Communications center is a 24 hour Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) with a legal obligation to preserve recordings for a minimum of 180 days. The center is currently recording telephonic records on a Nice Industries product that is no longer supported by the vendor. It is necessary to replace this system as soon as possible to be able to comply with the legal obligation to preserve these records. The VPI recorder to be implemented and provided by Voice Print International will provide improved redundancy, more storage space, and the ability to record calls while they are on hold. The product also includes a Quality Assurance module which will enable the center to review and critique calls, and provide better customer service to the community. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Carousel Industries - VPI Digital Logging Recorder September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 749 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current Nice voice recorder is no longer supported by the vendor. If no action is taken to purchase the new recorder there is the possibility that the current recorder may fail and not be able to make recordings. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 750 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with STAND! For Families Free of Violence, a Non-Profit Corporation, effective September 30, 2016, with no change in the payment limit of $373,913 to continue to provide Phase II Lethality Assessment Program Implementation for Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention and extend the term from September 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $373,913: 100% Federal Department of Justice Grant (CFDA #16.590). No County costs. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the contract term to December 31, 2016, to provide continued services. The Zero Tolerance for Domestic Violence Initiative (ZTDVI) applied for and received funds from the US Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women (OVW), Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration ("Project") in 2013. The Project is implemented in two phases - an assessment phase ("Phase I") and an implementation APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with STAND! For Families Free of Violence September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 751 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) phase ("Phase II"). OVW completed Phase I in September 2014 and selected ZTDVI as one of four sites to participate in Phase II of the Project and implement the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP), a recognized promising practice. ZTDVI is engaging the Contractor to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the funding application. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Valuable services will not be provided. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 752 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Valley Air Conditioning & Repair, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000, to provide co-generation plant maintenance and repair for the period of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost is to be funded through Facilities Services budget. (100% General Funds) BACKGROUND: Facilities Maintenance is responsible for maintenance and repair for all County cogeneration plants. The County has seven of these units in its possession. Valley Air Conditioning & Repair, Inc. was the installing dealer and the local Northern California representative for five of these units. Facilities Services is requesting a 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: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve a contract with Valley Air Conditioning & Repair, Countywide September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 753 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, cogeneration maintenance and repair work will not be performed. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 754 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-277-20 with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $600,000,000, for the provision of health care services for Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, for the period from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-277-18 (as amended by Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #27-277-19) with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., for the provision of health care services for Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, for the period from July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-277-20 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide health care services for Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan through September 30, 2019. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-277-20 with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 755 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Medi-Cal recipients enrolled in Kaiser Foundation Health Plan would not receive health care services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 756 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #26-768-5 with Fred Nachtwey, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $164,000, to provide pulmonary services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC), for the period from November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-768-4 with Fred Nachtwey, M.D. for the provision of pulmonary services including, but not limited to: consultation, sleep studies and medical procedures at CCRMC, through October 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #26-768-5 will allow the Contractor to provide pulmonary services at CCRMC through October 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring pulmonary 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: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-768-5 with Fred Nachtwey, M.D. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 757 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 758 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with DFM Associates to extend the term of the agreement for an automated voter registration and election management system for one year, beginning June 30, 2016, and continuing thereafter for successive one-year periods, unless otherwise terminated. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund. The current annual cost is $167,000, with a provision for annual increases in an amount not to exceed 7%. The last cost increase was 7% in 2013 and the cost is not expected to increase substantially from year to year. This year’s costs are included in the department’s 2016-2017 budget. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa's Election Division relies on the DFM Election Information Management System (EIMS) to provide fast, reliable, and accurate election processing for voter registration, precinct/districts, street guide, office/incumbents, extracts/reports, pollworkers/polling places, and petition verification, among other functions. We are required by State and federal laws to maintain voter and election records on an automated voter registration and election management system. DFM is one of only two state-approved vendors and systems. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the extension is not approved, we will be out of compliance with State and federal laws. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Scott O. Konopasek, 925-335-7808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Lease Agreement Extension September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 759 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute a contract with Metropolitan Van and Storage, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for the delivery, pick up and storage of election supplies and equipment for the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The amount of the contract will not exceed $1,000,000 and will be included in each year's budget. The cost of drayage is a reimbursable election cost and a portion is reimbursed by those agencies for whom the County conducts elections. BACKGROUND: Bulky and heavy supplies and voting equipment must be delivered to polling locations, set up, and later retrieved for each election the County conducts. Metropolitan has provided these drayage services for many years. This contract renews their services for the same scope of work as in the past. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request is not approved, the Department will have to find alternative sources for these services, as it does not have the internal capacity to coordinate, stage, and deliver the supplies and equipment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Scott O. Konopasek, 925-335-7808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract for Election Equipment and Supply Delivery September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 760 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board action of January 19, 2016 (Item C.42), which authorized the Health Services Director, or designee, to contract with Laura Hans, M.D., an individual, for the period from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016, in the amount not to exceed $290,000 to provide pediatric services, to reflect the correct period of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-199 with Laura Hans, M.D., for the provision of clinic coverage, clinical case coverage, report writing and administrative duties in the Pediatrics Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers (CCRMC) for the period from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. The purpose of this Board Order is to correct the term from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 to January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, to reflect the intent of the Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, Contractor’s contract term will remain incorrect. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct Board Order Item #C.42 with Laura Hans, M.D. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 761 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 762 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) to increase the payment limit by $24,300 from $87,230 to a new payment limit of $111,530, and extend the term from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018, to continue to provide Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Financial and Real Estate Consulting services. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. 100% Developer Reimbursement. BACKGROUND: The Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority (the “Authority”), a joint powers agency, formed by the County and BART, and Pleasant Hill Transit Village Associates LLC (the “Developer”) entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) on December 19, 2005. The Authority and Developer were discussing amending certain terms and conditions of the DDA when the Authority advised Developer that in order for Authority to evaluate the economic impact of any changes, Authority needs to retain an economic consultant to provide analysis APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 Toms 925-674-7878 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contra Costa Centre Transit Village Financial and Real Estate Consulting – Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 763 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and recommendations. Developer has agreed to reimburse the Authority for the cost of such consulting on the terms and conditions set forth under the Reimbursement Agreement (RA) executed by the Authority and the Developer in 2012. Staff of the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), the designated administrators of the Authority, sent out Request for Proposal (RFP) to eight firms and eventually KMA was selected to provide the services. A contract was executed between Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development on behalf of the Pleasant Hill BART Station Leasing Authority and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., on November 6, 2012. This amendment will allow KMA to continue to provide the services to June 30, 2018, to include a new development opportunity on Block D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Contractor, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., will not be able to continue to provide economic analysis and recommendations to the Authority. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A ATTACHMENTS L-2 Form September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 764 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 765 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, to execute an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Justice for County participation in the Electronic Recording Delivery System Program, for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the County General Fund for this program. It will be funded by dedicated Electronic Recording Delivery Trust Fund monies (2454). The cost is determined annually based on the number of participating counties and the number of real property documents recorded the previous year. Contra Costa's share for FY 2016/2017 is $7,348.88. BACKGROUND: On November 1, 2005, the Board approved and authorized the Clerk-Recorder to participate in the Electronic Recording Delivery System Program and to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Attorney General for oversight of the program. The program will enable the County to improve and modernize its systems of recording and handling real property documents by electronically receiving documents from trusted and contracted agencies. Government Code section 27393 requires the Attorney General to develop regulations for review, approval, and oversight of the California Electronic Recording Delivery Program. Government Code section 27397 requires any county that establishes an electronic recording system to pay the Attorney General for the cost of regulation and oversight of the program. This Memorandum of Understanding permits Contra Costa to pay the Attorney General APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Barbara Dunmore 335-7919 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Joseph E. Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Annual Electronic Recording Agreement September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 766 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) > each year for its proportionate cost of developing and implementing the California Electronic Recording Delivery Program. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Services to residents will not improve if Contra Costa does not participate in the California Electronic Recording Delivery System Program. ATTACHMENTS 2016-17 MOU September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 767 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 768 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 769 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 770 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 771 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 772 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Community Violence Solutions effective September 1, 2016 to increase the payment limit by $6,056 to a new payment limit of $182,695 for continued services to victims of human trafficking and extend the term from September 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: $182,695: 100% Federal - Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime grant, No County match (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: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with Community Violence Solutions for Services to Victims of Human Trafficking September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 773 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 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 774 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-954-1 with Philip R. Mill, O.D. & Michael D. Sutton, O.D., Inc., A Professional Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, to provide optometry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members, for the period from November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018 FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: In November 2014, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #27-954 with Philip R. Mill, O.D. & Michael D. Sutton, O.D., Inc., A Professional Corporation, for the provision of optometry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2016. Approval of Contract #27-954-1 will allow Philip R. Mill, O.D. & Michael D. Sutton, O.D., Inc., A Professional Corporation, to continue providing optometry services to Contra Costa Health Plan members through October 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-954-1 with Philip R. Mill, O.D. & Michael D. Sutton, O.D., Inc., A Professional Corporation September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 775 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. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 776 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #27-824-3 with Arthritis and Rheumatology Medical Associates, Inc. (dba Northern California Arthritis Center), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $425,000, to provide rheumatology services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period from November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: In January 2015, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #27-824-2 with Arthritis and Rheumatology Medical Associates, Inc. (dba Northern California Arthritis Center), for the period from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2016, to provide rheumatology services to Contra Costa Health Plan members. Approval of Contract #27-824-3 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide rheumatology services through October 31, 2018. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 925-313-6004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-824-3 with Arthritis and Rheumatology Medical Associates, Inc. (dba Northern California Arthritis Center) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 777 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. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 778 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #23-601 with Omnipro Systems, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $140,000, for the provision of consulting and recruitment services to the Information Systems Unit of the Health Services Department, for the period from September 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Under Contract #23-601, the Contractor will provide consulting and recruitment services for the Information Systems Unit of the Health Services Department, for the period from September 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Information Systems Unit will not be able to recruit and fill vacant positions. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-601 with Omnipro Systems, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 779 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or his designee, to execute on behalf of the County, Agreement #22-995-1 with Persimmony International, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,026,888, to provide for license renewal and maintenance of the Public Health’s Home Visiting Program database, for the period September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement is funded 62% by the Federal Targeted Case Management (TCM) program, 48% of revenue offset will be generated by the Medical Administrative Activities (MAA) and County funds will be used to cover any unfunded amount. BACKGROUND: The Public Health Division Clinic Services provides home visiting services to patients. The Persimmony software program was developed specifically for the home visiting program to enhance nurse productivity and program accountability and to generate reports that are used to support the direct billing of revenue reimbursements. Under Agreement #22-995-1, the Contractor will provide license renewal and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #22-995-1 with Persimmony International, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 780 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) maintenance of the Public Health’s Home Visiting Program database, though August 31, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Agreement is not approved Public Health Clinic Services would have to attempt to purchase an off-the-shelf data base program, attempt to contract with another software developer to create a similar program or return to using paper charting. That would create an increased risk of patient chart audit exceptions and reduced operational oversight and monitoring capabilities. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 781 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Director, to execute a Purchase Order with Citrix Systems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $280,620 for purchase of Citrix software support renewals for the period October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: The Epic Electronic Health Record (HER) system requires the use of Citrix Terminal Services. Citrix software allows Health Services Department staff access to the Epic EHR system. Citrix also improves remote access to the Epic EHR for the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center on-call clinical staff. Health Services needs to renew its Citrix Subscription advantage support, extended hours support, and technical relations manager support. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without a current maintenance and technical agreement, Contra Costa Health Services would not be able to receive support in the event of a software or technical issue. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Citrix Systems, Inc. Purchase Order September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 782 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 783 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to execute a Blanket Purchase Order with Hill-Rom Company Inc. in the amount of $374,949 for a service agreement on rental beds at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) for the period November 1, 2016 through October 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I Budget. BACKGROUND: Hill-Rom Company Inc., is the only supplier for the specialty beds used at the CCRMC. They provide all the service, repairs, and replacement of the specialty beds. Without the service agreement in place, the CCRMC will not be able to provide the specialty beds needed in Labor and Delivery, specialty beds with higher weight limits, or beds needed for patients with special requirements. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, we will not be able to provide the beds required to care for our patient population at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, M Wilhelm, Renee Nunez C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Blanket Purchase Order with Hill-Rom Company Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 784 CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 785 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74–143–25 with California Psychiatric Transitions Incorporated, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,022,000, to provide residential care and mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed adults for the period from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 100% Mental Health Realignment. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of County’s population in that it provides a multi-disciplinary treatment program to adults who need active psychiatric treatment, including medication support and individual and group therapy services, as an alternative to hospitalization at a State Hospital. On July 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74–143–23 (as amended by Contract Extension Agreement #74-143-24) with California Psychiatric Transitions Incorporated for the period from July 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016 for the provision of residential care and mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed adults. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74–143–25 with California Psychiatric Transitions Incorporated September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 786 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #74–143–25 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through August 31, 2017. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s seriously mentally ill clients will not receive the inpatient psychiatric treatment that they need from this Contractor, and may require hospitalization at a State Hospital. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 787 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract #74-443-7 with Ujima Family Recovery Services, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $669,500, to provide trauma therapy, case management, and assessment services for SAMHWorks Clients for the period from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded 63% CalWORKS Alcohol and Other Drugs Services and 37% CalWORKS Mental Health. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 7, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-443-6 with Ujima Family Recovery Services for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for the provision of trauma therapy, case management, and assessment services. Approval of Contract #74-443-7 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: 09/27/2016 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: Cyntha 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-443-7 with Ujima Family Recovery Services September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 788 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s SAMHWorks Clients will not have access to Contractor’s services, which may result in a reduction in the levels of service to the community. 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). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 789 RECOMMENDATION(S): Approve and authorize the Health Services Director, or his designee, to execute, on behalf of the County as follows: 1. Cancellation Agreement #23 588-3 with Vyend, LLC, a limited liability company, effective on the close of business on September 30, 2016; and 2. Contract #23-588-4 with Vyend, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $427,014, for provision of management and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Technology Unit, for the period from October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract is funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (Rate Increase) BACKGROUND: On July 9, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-588-1 (as amended by Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-588-2) with Vyend, LLC, to provide management and technical assistance in the Department’s Information APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancellation Agreement #23-588-3 and Contract #23-588-4 with Vyend, LLC September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 790 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Technology Unit including day to day leadership and direction supervision and oversight of the Project Management office, for the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2018. In consideration of Contractor’s agreement to continue providing services, both parties have agreed to re-negotiate payment terms. The Department and the Contractor have mutually agreed to renegotiate the Contract Payment Provisions and the term to reflect the intent of the parties. Therefore, in accordance with General Conditions, Paragraph 5. (Termination and Cancellation) of the Contract, the Department and Contractor have agreed to a mutual cancellation of Contract #23-588-1 (as amended by Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-588-2). Approval of Cancellation Agreement #23-588-3 will accomplish this termination. Under Contract #23-588-4, Contractor will provide management and technical assistance to the Department’s Information Technology Unit, Project Management Office, through June 30, 2018. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Contract will not be consistent with the oral agreement negotiated between the Department and Contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 791 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment (Agreement #23-455-10) with Xerox Consulting Company, Inc., a corporation, to amend the prior contract amendment's (Agreement #23-455-9) effective date of June 30, 2016 to April 1, 2016, with no additional changes to the payment limit ($1,833,000) or contract term date (June 30, 2017) as approved by the Board on July 12, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Amendment is 100% funded by Hospital Enterprise Fund I Fund. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23–455-9 (to amend Contract #23–455-8), with Xerox Consulting Company, Inc., effective June 30, 2016, for continuation of consulting and technical support to the Department’s Health Services Information System with regards to Electronic Health Records program, and to extend the term from June 30, 2016 through APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Xerox Consulting Company, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 792 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) through June 30, 2017. However, the contract amendment/extension effective date of June 30, 2016 was stated incorrectly in the contract amendment/extension and the board order recommendation approved on July 12, 2016. Therefore, the department is requesting approval to execute another contract amendment to change the effective date of Agreement #23-455-9 to April 1, 2016.. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, the Contractor will not be paid for services rendered, as intended by the County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 793 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment (Agreement #23-564-3) with Soliant Health, Inc., a corporation, to amend the prior contract amendment's (Agreement #23-564-2) effective date of January 1, 2016 to December 1, 2015, with no additional changes to the payment limit ($970,200) or contract term date (June 30, 2017) as approved by the Board on May 10, 2016 (Item C.65). FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On May 10, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-564-2, to amend Contract #23-564-1 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #23-5641) with Soliant Health, Inc., effective January 1, 2016, for continuation of recruitment services for the Information Systems Unit of the Health Services Department, and to extend the termination date from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017. However, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Soliant Health, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 794 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the contract amendment/extension effective date of January 1, 2016 was stated incorrectly in the contract amendment/extension and the board order recommendation approved on May 10, 2016. Therefore, the department is requesting approval to execute another contract amendment to change the effective date of Agreement #23-455-9 to December 1, 2015. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, the Information Systems Unit will not be able to cover for recruitment services for the month of December. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 795 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment (Agreement #23-574-2) with Chenoa Information Services, Inc., a corporation, to amend the prior contract amendment's (Agreement #23-574-1) effective date of June 30, 2016 to May 1, 2016, with no additional changes to the payment limit ($200,000) or contract term date (June 30, 2017) as approved by the Board on July 12, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On July 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement 23-574-1, (to amend Contract #23-574), with Chenoa Information Services, Inc. effective June 30, 2016, for continuation of recruitment services for the Health Services Department Information Systems Unit, and to extend the termination date from June 30, 2016 through June 30, 2017. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Chenoa Information Services, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 796 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The purpose of this board of this is to correct the contract amendment/extension effective date from June 30, 2016 to read May 1, 2016, as it was intended. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this correction is not approved, Contractor will not paid for additional recruitment services rendered during the month of May. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 797 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or his designee, to pay $14,705 to Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. (dba TEK Systems, Inc.) for temporary help and recruitment services for the Information Systems Unit during the month of June 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: This Contract was 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. (dba TEK Systems, Inc.) provides temporary help and recruitment services for the Information Systems Unit. In June 2016, the Contractor provided services at the Department’s Information Systems Unit’s direction. Services were both requested by County staff and provided by the Contractor in good faith. Because of administrative oversight by both the County and Contractor, use of temporary help and recruitment services exceeded the authorized limits. Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. (dba TEK Systems, Inc.) is APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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, 335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: T Scott, M Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Payments for Services Provided by Allegis Group Holdings, Inc. (dba TEK Systems, Inc.) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 798 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) entitled to payment for the reasonable value of the services it provided under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. That theory provides that where a person has been asked to provide services without a valid contract, and the provider does so to the benefit of the recipient, the provider is entitled to recover the reasonable value of those services CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Allegis Group Holdings, Inc (dba TEK Systems, Inc.) will not be paid for services rendered in good faith to the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 799 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Coroner, a purchase order amendment with Good Source Solutions, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $80,500 to a new payment limit of $180,000 in order to provide packed food meals for MDF in addition to food products for the preparation of inmate meals in all three County adult detention facilities for the period April 01, 2016 through March 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $80,500. 100% County General Fund; Budgeted. BACKGROUND: Good Source Solutions, Inc. specializes in purchasing food product end runs and "seconds" on the market for distribution to schools and correctional facilities, which in turn provides increased purchasing power to client agencies. Good Source Solutions, Inc. is the distributor for Sysco Food Services. At times, the County is able to purchase food products from Good Source Solutions, Inc. directly at a better rate than Sysco Food Services. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Liz Arbuckle, Tim Ewell C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Good Source September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 800 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Martinez Detention Facility kitchen is scheduled for closure by Public Works for some maintenance/renovation work. After several samplings, Good Source Solutions, Inc. was selected as they are the only vendor who can meet the required individual packed food meals needed to service the Inmate population. They have the ability to design specific breakfast and lunch items in meal boxes that meet the necessary California Title XV nutritional requirements for inmates. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Sheriff's Office will not be able to provide inmates with prepackaged meal items during the renovation of the MDF kitchen. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: No impact. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 801 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Employment & Human Services Director, to renew a Blanket Purchase Order with Lakeshore Equipment Company (#3847301) in the amount of $1,900,000 for the period August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2021 for childcare center furniture, classrooms supplies and equipment. FISCAL IMPACT: 50% State ($950,000) California Department of Education 50% Federal ($950,000) Department of Health and Human Services / Administration for Children and Families CFDA # 93.600 BACKGROUND: The Department utilizes this company to furnish supplies for the 17 childcare centers operated by the Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not be able to make necessary purchases to operate the childcare centers. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jagjit Bhambra, Eric Pormento, Theresa Anderson, Cassandra Youngblood C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Renewal of Blanket Purchase Order with Lakeshore Learning Materials September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 802 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 Lakeshore Learning PO September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 803 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 804 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 805 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 806 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 807 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 808 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 809 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 810 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 811 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 812 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 813 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Information Officer, or his designee, to execute an extension to the Statement of Work for Hourly Services with International Business Machines Corporation, to extend the term through September 30, 2017 with no change to the original payment limit of $154,400, to complete the replacement of the Department of Information Technology's current billing application with IBM's Usage and Accounting Collector mainframe application, for the period August 18, 2015 through September 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: $154,400 (100% User Fees); the cost is budgeted under Org# 1060, Fiscal Year 16/17 and recovered through DoIT's billing process. BACKGROUND: IBM's CIMS application (currently in use by DoIT) has been replaced by Tivoli Decision Support for zOS (TDSz) Usage and Accounting Collector (UAC) services. CIMS is a middle ware application used to interface Mainframe accounting data and our Microsoft based accounting data. DoIT's accounting department relies on this application to import and export accounting data for the purpose of our weekly and monthly billing processes. Full conversion was not completed under the initial term expiring August 17, 2016. Department would like to extend time to allow completion of the project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ed Woo, Department of Information Technology Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:International Business Machines Corporation Client Relationship Agreement extension September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 814 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: By not implementing the Tivoli Decision Support Mainframe Application upgrade, DoIT will be unable to process our internal and external billing. This would adversely impact the department’s revenue. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 815 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Assessor's Office, a purchase order with Tyler Technologies Inc, in the amount of $145,861.00 for the maintenance and support of the AES Rapid 2000 computer automated appraisal system for the period of August 1, 2016 - July 31, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: AB589 Property Tax Administration Program funds, in the amount of $145,861.00 will be used to maintain the system. BACKGROUND: The AES Rapid 2000 system has been operational in the Assessor's Office since 1999. The system currently contains five (5) basic modules including residential property appraisal, appeal processing, public services tracking, Geographic Information System (GIS) and mass appraisal. The AES system has enabled appraisers to have on-line access to comparable sales data, property characteristics and Geographical Information System (GIS) parcel data, which is used to analyze and determine residential property appraisals for enrollment of the Assessment Roll. In its current state, the AES system has become a mission critical application for the appraisal staff, providing tools and services that extend beyond the capabilities if the County's Land Information System (LIS). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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 Cabrera 925.313.7508 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Gus Kramer, Assessor Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:AES Automated Appraisal System Maintenance & Support September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 816 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the purchase order is not approved, the Assessor's Office will no longer have the ability to maintain and support the AES Rapid computer system, which has become a mission critical application for the appraisal staff who value property for tax assessment purposes. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 817 RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER AND APPROVE the report, Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California and staff recommendations in response to the report as recommended by the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) was awarded a Technical Assistance Grant by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The grant included pipeline safety public outreach and education, and training for local first responders and outreach regarding the 811 Call Before You Dig Program. The grant period was from October 2014 through September 2015. AIA contracted with the Pipeline Safety Trust in 2015 to provide services intended to educate and inform the community about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. The contract included presentation at two community workshops in June 2015 and the production of a report. The report, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Carrie Ricci, (925) 313-2235 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Pipeline Safety Report to the Alamo Improvement Association September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 818 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California (the Report) is attached as Appendix A and includes a summary of the work completed and recommendations. The Hazardous Materials Commission reviewed the Report at their January 2016 and April 2016 meetings. The Planning and Policy Development Committee of the Hazardous Materials Commission reviewed the Report and recommendations at their October 2015, December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016 meetings. At the January 2016 meeting, the Commission agreed that 7 of the recommendations contained in the report merit further consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Michael Kent, Executive Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission summarized the Hazardous Materials Commission’s discussion and the recommendations at the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure (TWIC) Committee Meeting on April 14, 2016. The April 14, 2016 TWIC report is attached as Appendix B. At the April 14, 2016 TWIC meeting, staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works were directed to review the recommendations and report on how they could be implemented within the County. On May 23, 2016 staff from Conservation and Development, Public Works, the Office of Emergency Services, Health Services, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District met to discuss the recommendations, what is currently being performed and any additional steps that can be taken to improve in these areas. Staff reported back to TWIC on June 9, 2016. The June 9, 2016 TWIC report is attached as Appendix C. At that meeting staff were directed to bring a comprehensive report back to TWIC with an update on how we are implementing the recommendations of the Pipeline Safety Report, what we’re currently doing or have planned for each of the recommendations, and what other Counties with hazardous materials pipelines are doing regarding land use restrictions for pipelines located near congregate facilities. Staff reported back to TWIC on August 11, 2016 with a comprehensive report which is attached as Appendix D. At the August 11, 2016 representatives from the Alamo Improvement Association provided comments to the recommendations which are attached as Appendix E. The comments will be sent to the appropriate County Departments for review and consideration. TWIC directed staff to bring the report to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Staff will not move forward on the responses in the report. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 819 Page 1 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Pipeline Safety Report to the Alamo Improvement Association Produced by the Pipeline Safety Trust September 2015 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 820 Page 2 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) sponsored this report through a Community Technical Assistance Grant they received from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Roger Smith, AIA President, was the driving force behind this project; and Aron DeFarrari, Board Member, offered valuable feedback. Multiple Contra Costa County staff members were helpful in the writing of this report, and we appreciate their input and cooperation. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman, was invaluable in connecting us with others in the community and providing information. Jennifer Quallick, Field Representative to Supervisor Anderson, was also very helpful. Together, the four people mentioned above gave countless hours as part of the AIA Technical Assistance Grant for pipeline safety, ad-hoc working group, and we thank them all for their dedication. Numerous county, state, and federal agency employees, and pipeline operator staff members, spent time giving us information used in this report, and we appreciate their willingness to help. The Pipeline Safety Trust promotes pipeline safety through education and advocacy, increased access to information, and partnerships with residents, safety advocates, government, and industry, resulting in safer communities and a healthier environment. The work of the Pipeline Safety Trust would not be possible without the guidance and diligent work of the following people: Trust Board of Directors Lois Epstein – President (Anchorage, Alaska) Sara Gosman – Vice President (Fayetteville, Arkansas) Bruce Brabec – Treasurer (Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles) Beth Wallace – Secretary (Brighton, Michigan) Glenn R Archambault (Phoenix, Oregon) Paul Blackburn (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Michael Guidon (Seattle, Washington) Jeffrey Insko (Rochester, Michigan) Trust Staff Carl Weimer – Executive Director Rebecca Craven – Program Director Samya Lutz – Outreach Coordinator Chris Coffin – Administrative Assistant/ Webmaster/Graphic Design ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 821 Page 3 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose and Scope of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What kinds of pipelines are in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Where are the pipelines in Contra Costa County? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Who regulates pipeline safety? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 How much risk is there from the pipelines in Contra Costa County?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Pipeline Construction, Operations and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Land Use Planning and Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Damage Prevention and Public Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Emergency Response, Spill Response & Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix B. Community education meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System. . . . . . . . . . 36 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 822 Page 4 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California LIST OF ACRONYMS AIA – Alamo Improvement Association ASV – Automatic Shutoff Valve CAER – Community Awareness and Emergency Response CalEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency CAO – Corrective Action Order CATS – Community Assistance and Technical Services, PHMSA Pipeline Safety outreach staff CCC – Contra Costa County CDE – California Department of Education CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission CUPA – Certified Unified Program Agency, as authorized under CalEPA DCD – Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development EFRD – Emergency Flow Restricting Devices, or valves EPA – Environmental Protection Agency FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HCA – High Consequence Area HL – Hazardous Liquid HSD – Contra Costa County Health Services Department IHC – Iron Horse Corridor LS – Line Segment, specifying a number that identifies a specific segment of a pipeline NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board OSFM – California Office of the State Fire Marshal OSPR – California Department of Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response PHMSA – U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PST – Pipeline Safety Trust, also referred to in this report as “the Trust” RCV – Remote Control Valve SFPP – Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline system that is operated by Kinder Morgan TAG – PHMSA Community Technical Assistance Grant September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 823 Page 5 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California The Pipeline Safety Trust reviewed Contra Costa County hazardous liquid pipelines, with a particular focus on the Alamo area and the Iron Horse Corridor. In this report, we provide general information on pipeline regulations and risks, as well as more detailed information on concerns of particular interest to the Alamo community. We make a number of recommendations interspersed throughout the report and summarized here that in our opinion – if adopted by the various agencies and stakeholder groups mentioned – would make pipelines in Contra Costa County even safer. These recommendations are organized under the agency or group to which they are directed. We have purposefully not prioritized our recommendations, as implementation may be affected by any number of factors including budgets and workloads of the agencies involved. All our recommendations are summarized here: The Federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Could: • Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to the public. • Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management requirements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. • Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves consistent with the NTSB recommendations. • Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak detection systems in hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect high consequence areas, and provide a clear performance standard for computational pipeline monitoring systems. The State of California Could: • Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond to notifications of alleged violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis depending on the damaged utility involved. • Work with the California Department of Education (CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline product release on schools, and reducing the severity and consequences of pipeline releases on schools. The California Office of the State Fire Marshal Could: • Make their maps, incident and inspection information accessible to the public by posting it online. • Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to the public. • Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management requirements that apply to intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines. • Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines requiring automated valves that apply to hazardous liquid pipelines along the lines of the NTSB recommendations. • Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines that require better leak detection systems in high consequence areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for computational pipeline monitoring systems. The California Department of Education Could: • Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management guidance in coordination with emergency response agencies to offer help for schools that already exist in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum information that should be included in these plans regarding pipelines. The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Could: • Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens (especially along the Iron Horse Corridor) with concerns about multiple utility issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach, and resources to work in close coordination with other related departments and advisory groups. • Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities (i.e. schools, recreation facilities, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) located in close proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with other emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that can include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-specific considerations. • Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be subject to (and not exempt from) the General and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 824 Page 6 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California • Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachment including the review of setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff so that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines. • Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Could: • Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be subject to (and not exempt from) the General and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. • Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department Could: • Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials Commission regarding pipelines to provide an ongoing review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans and an active role in possible county efforts regarding additional coordinated technical review of pipeline integrity management planning. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department Could: • Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline- crossing road is the only access for numerous homes and facilities (e.g., Hemme Road, Camille Road) with the goal of creating public accessibility across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services. • Ensure the county has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations and widths. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline rights of way. The Contra Costa County Office of Public Education & Local School Districts Could: • Expand emergency preparedness resources to include information about pipelines and pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis plans and emergency preparedness plans that include pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident. The Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Group Could: • Include specific reference to oil and gas pipelines in the list of potential hazards listed in the hazard assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools. Pipeline Operators Could: • Reach out to the schools along pipeline easements and offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents that could occur in close proximity to the schools. • Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right of Way encroachments to determine whether there are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa County to resolve encroachments with neighboring property owners. • Become members of the Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response Group, and participate consistently in quarterly meetings and responses. • Contract for an independent technical seismic vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk analysis, and make the study available to the public. • Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. Local Fire Districts Could: • Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate with pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with the operators’ emergency response and spill response plans, know the facilities where people congregate (schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in close proximity to the pipeline, and be involved with any emergency planning done by those facilities. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 825 Page 7 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California INTRODUCTION Background Contra Costa County has over 1 million people and covers approximately 805 square miles. The city of Martinez is the county seat, and one of nineteen incorporated cities within the county. Oil refineries operate along the western and northern coastlines: Phillips 66, Chevron, Shell Oil, and Tesoro, with associated petroleum storage and transportation infrastructure. Most of the hazardous liquid pipelines in the county transport product to or from a storage facility or refinery. A Board of Supervisors governs the County, with representatives elected from five districts; the Alamo area is part of District II, and is unincorporated with about 15,000 residents. The homeowners association – the Alamo Improvement Association – is quite active, with an elected board and committees. In addition, the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council serves a formalized role with the county as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and the County planning agency, providing review and recommendations for a variety of activities that impact the Alamo area. One of the areas of particular interest to the Alamo community is the Iron Horse Corridor. This is an historic rail corridor managed as a regional multiuse trail that runs roughly north-south from Concord in northern Contra Costa County to beyond the Alameda County line to the south, cutting Contra Costa County roughly in half and traversing the county for about 20 miles. Utilities and private infrastructure also run along the corridor, including a refined oil pipeline referred to as the San Jose line that is part of the Kinder Morgan Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline (SFPP) system. Conversations in the Alamo community precipitated a renewed interest in this pipeline, and prompted the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) to seek technical assistance and commission this report on pipeline safety. Purpose and Scope of Report The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) contracted with the Pipeline Safety Trust in February 2015 to provide services intended to educate and inform the community about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. That included presentations at two community workshops in June 2015, as well as the production of this report. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Workshop held on June 3, 2015 in Alamo, CA The funding for these services came from a Community Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) awarded by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. AIA applied for this grant in the spring of 2014 to include pipeline safety public outreach and education, as well as training for local first responders, and outreach regarding the national 811 Call Before You Dig program. The grant period ran from October 2014 – September 2015. Roger September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 826 Page 8 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Smith, President of the Alamo Improvement Association was the primary point of contact for the TAG award and contract for services with the Trust. From January through August 2015, Pipeline Safety Trust staff participated in periodic conference calls with two representatives of the Alamo Improvement Association, a field representative in Contra Costa County District II Supervisor Anderson’s office, and the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman within the Contra Costa County Health Services Department. This ad-hoc group was highly engaged with planning the two hazardous liquid pipeline safety workshops that took place in June,1 and continued to be involved through the report process. Pipeline Safety Trust staff also engaged in one-on-one conversations with these same individuals as well as others from Contra Costa County Departments of Health Services, Public Works, Conservation and Development; local emergency services; California State offices of the Fire Marshal and the Office of Spill Prevention and Response; Kinder Morgan; and from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. AIA asked the Trust to report broadly on pipeline issues affecting the entire county as well as the role of federal and state agencies, and to focus in on issues specific to petroleum pipelines and particularly the pipeline concerns of people in the Alamo area. All the data shown in charts or graphs in this report is from PHMSA as of August 2015, unless otherwise noted. 1 The second of these two public forums was captured on video by CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus. com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5-b5ce- 00219ba2f017September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 827 Page 9 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California PIPELINE BASICS AND TECHNICAL ISSUES What kinds of pipelines are in Contra Costa County? There are three main types of pipelines in Contra Costa County, and it is important to understand what the different types are since they have different safety considerations and are regulated by different agencies under different rules. The three main types are: Hazardous Liquid Lines: These are the lines that move crude oil to the local refineries and then move refined products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.) from the refineries to other markets. Natural Gas Transmission Lines: These are the relatively larger, higher-pressure pipelines that move gas from production or storage to where the gas is distributed to our homes and businesses. They operate at pressures in the range of 300 to over 1500 pounds per square inch. Natural Gas Distribution Lines: A distribution line is a relative small, lower pressure pipeline used to supply natural gas directly to our homes and businesses. A distribution line is located in a network of piping located downstream of a natural gas transmission line. The “city gate” is where a transmission system feeds into a lower pressure distribution system. Gas distribution pipelines comprise by far the most mileage of pipes; they carry odorized gas (with the characteristic smell of rotten eggs) throughout urban areas. Two other important distinctions are interstate pipelines compared to intrastate pipelines. Interstate pipelines are typically longer transmission pipelines that cross state lines; intrastate pipelines are transmission pipelines that lie wholly within a single state.2 2 State lines are not the sole determiner for the inter/intrastate distinction. For details see 49 CFR 195, Appendix A. Where are the pipelines in Contra Costa County? The US has over 2.6 million miles of pipelines. Most of these (approximately 92%) carry gas – predominantly natural gas – and the rest (approximately 8%) carry hazardous liquids. Hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines are governed by separate regulations. Whether and how pipelines are regulated also depends on what product is carried and where the pipeline is located. Regulated Pipeline Mileage - U.S. and California Miles of Pipelines U.S. California Gas Transmission & Gathering 319,350 11,861 Gas Distribution 2,167,270 200,262 Hazardous Liquid 198,778 7,139 Total 2,685,398 219,262 Data from PHMSA as of 8/5/2015 There are over 4,000 miles of natural gas pipelines in Contra Costa County, 260 miles of which are transmission lines, and the rest are distribution lines and services.3 All the natural gas distribution pipelines are operated by Pacific Gas & Electric under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utility Commission. Hazardous liquid (HL) transmission pipelines in Contra Costa County total close to 500 miles.4 Roughly two-thirds of the HL pipelines carry refined products, and about one- third carry crude oil. 3 Data on gas pipeline mileage is from the California Public Utilities Commission (July 2015). 4 Data on HL pipeline mileage in Contra Costa County from OSFM staff, and does not include empty or abandoned lines. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 828 Page 10 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California The map below from the National Pipeline Mapping System5 shows the general location of the hazardous liquid (red) and the gas transmission (blue) pipelines in Contra Costa County. Anyone can access these maps to see where hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines run through their community. The map below shows the two main pipelines running through the Alamo area – the Kinder Morgan San Jose Line in red and the PG&E natural gas line in blue. The “public viewer” for the maps is available online at: https://www.npms.phmsa. dot.gov/PublicViewer/. 5 https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewerSeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 829 Page 11 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California The system takes practice to navigate, but once a person figures it out it is possible to zoom in to get an idea of where these types of pipelines are generally located and some basic information about the pipelines themselves. While these types of maps can provide a general idea of where pipelines are located they should never be used as an indication of where it might be safe to dig. The One Call system is the only way to identify the exact location of a pipeline, and is discussed in more detail later in this report. Details about the San Jose Pipeline AIA is particularly interested in the Kinder Morgan SFPP pipeline, especially the portion of that pipeline that runs for nearly 20 miles along the Iron Horse Corridor in central Contra Costa County; this segment of the SFPP system is also called the “San Jose line” or LS-16 (line segment 16). This line carries refined oil products and is the focus of this report because of its location along the Iron Horse Corridor from Concord south through Alamo to the Contra Costa – Alameda county line and beyond to San Jose. LS-16 is ten inches in diameter and classified as an intrastate pipeline, meaning it is regulated by the Office of the State Fire Marshal under a certification from PHMSA, and it operates under a rate structure approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The San Jose line is subject to federal regulations with regard to integrity management (discussed elsewhere in this report) as a release from the line could affect a high consequence area. The San Jose line delivers petroleum products from a pump station in Concord to the Kinder Morgan San Jose terminal – a total of 51.4 miles – and was installed in the mid-1960s, with portions of the pipe replaced through the decades as a result of maintenance activities. The maximum allowable operating pressure on the San Jose line is 1310 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), and the typical operating pressure at the originating Concord station is 1165 psig (operating pressure varies by elevation and distance from pump stations). The line throughput is generally about 4483 barrels per hour.6 There are five valves along the length of this line segment that serve to further isolate sections of the pipeline in the event of a release, located on average every 10 miles.7 These valves include three manual gate valves and two motor operated remote control valves. There are no automatic shut-off valves on this line. The original easement for this pipeline was between SFPP and the South Pacific Railroad, and existed at the time the county acquired the right-of-way from the Railroad in the 1980s. 6 Information about the San Jose line (LS-16) was gleaned from the following sources: PHMSA accident report database; OSFM pipeline failure investigation report; OSFM review of KM Integrity Management Program; PHMSA 5-2005-5025H case files; and presentation by KM Operations Manager June 2015. 7 The distance is greater than 10 miles in some places, with original placement impacted by topography and elevation. Who regulates pipeline safety? Federal Oversight Ultimately the U.S. Congress has responsibility for setting the framework under which pipeline safety regulations operate in the country. The U.S. Department of Transportation through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is primarily responsible for issuing and enforcing the minimum pipeline safety regulations. Most of these regulations are performance-based. For example, pipeline operators are required by the federal regulations to operate and repair pipelines in a safe manner so as to prevent damage to persons or property, but the way in which they do so is generally not spelled out prescriptively. This allows pipeline operators to prioritize pipeline inspections and repairs in areas with higher populations or higher risk factors, but it also makes the regulations ambiguous and challenging to enforce. State Oversight The federal pipeline safety laws allow for states to accept the responsibility to regulate, inspect, and enforce safety rules over intrastate pipelines within their borders under an annual certification from PHMSA. If a state receives such intrastate authority they can set regulations that are more stringent than those PHMSA sets as long as the state rules do not conflict with the federal regulations. PHMSA also can enter into an agreement with the state pipeline regulator to carry out inspections on interstate pipelines. Local governments are not allowed to create rules to regulate the operational safety of pipelines, though they may have involvement in spill response, routing and siting issues, and franchise or easement agreements. California has authority for intrastate pipelines, which is carried out through the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) for hazardous liquid pipelines, and through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for natural gas pipelines. The OSFM also had authority to act as an interstate agent for PHMSA on hazard liquid interstate pipelines through 2012, but ended that agreement to focus better on the intrastate pipelines due to an inability to retain enough qualified inspectors on staff. The California State Legislature is currently working to address this pay scale problem.8 California has adopted both hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline regulations that are more stringent than the federal minimum regulations for the intrastate pipelines. Some of those stronger hazardous liquid rules include better information sharing, incident reporting, and planning outreach to fire departments; more frequent pipeline inspections or testing, additional pressure testing requirements in certain situations including for 8 See SB-295 Pipeline safety: inspections (2015-2016). NAPSR Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements & Initiatives (2013). See http://www.napsr.org/compendium. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 830 Page 12 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California pipelines that have experienced certain kinds of leaks; better protection of pipeline easements from encroachment; and an internal comprehensive database and mapping system.9 City and County Governmental Powers For the most part the federal pipeline safety law precludes local government from adopting any regulation that requires a pipeline operator to take any action regarding the safe operation of a pipeline. There is nothing in state or federal law that restricts a local government’s ability to ask for increased safety measures as part of their negotiations regarding the use of public rights-of- way or other public property. While local government may not be able to require or enforce such measures, cities nationwide have been able to obtain increased safety measures through such voluntary requests, especially when such safety measures are well thought out, supported by the public, and do not conflict with federal or state regulations. One area in which local government has considerable ability to increase pipeline safety is through their land use and zoning authority. Details of this option are discussed in the Land Use Planning section later in this report. How much risk is there from the pipelines in Contra Costa County? Risk is one of those things that one person cannot really define for another, since each person thinks about risks in their own personal way. While some feel that skydiving is a risk worth taking, others won’t even go up in the airplane. In other words it is not possible for us to say whether the pipelines in Contra Costa County are safe enough. All we can do is to try to provide enough information so individuals can make that decision on their own, and then work with others in their community to set policies based on the beliefs of as many people as possible. Risk is made up of two different factors both of which need to be carefully considered when deciding how risky an activity is. Those factors are the probability that an event will occur (chance a pipeline will rupture or leak), and the possible consequences if it does. Probability First let’s take a look at some of the publicly available data to try to get a sense of the probability of a hazardous liquid pipeline incident occurring in Contra Costa County or along the Iron Horse Corridor. PHMSA maintains a publicly accessible database of reported pipeline incidents.10 Hazardous liquid pipeline operators are required to file an incident report when there is a release that results in any of the following: 1. death or injury requiring hospitalization; 2. estimated property damage exceeding $50,000; 3. an unintentional explosion or fire; or 4. a release of 5 gallons or more off of company property 9 California GOV Code § 51010 et. seq. 10 See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats for both online pipeline incident data and downloadable files. or the pipeline right-of-way or causing water pollution, or a release of 5 barrels (210 gallons) or more confined to company property or pipeline right-of-way and not causing water pollution.11 A subset of all these reported incidents are considered ‘significant’ if they result in items 1, 2, or 3 above or result in the release of 50 barrels (2,100 gallons) or more of hazardous liquids. A further subset of ‘serious’ incidents are those that result in a death or injury requiring hospitalization.12 Here are two graphs that show the numbers of significant incidents each year both throughout the U.S. and in California. As you can see in both cases the number of incidents is relatively small, and the overall trend is a decreasing number of incidents. The troubling part of these graphs is that in both cases over the past 6-8 years this trend seems to be turning around and the numbers of significant incidents are increasing. But raw numbers of incidents is a pretty rough way of looking at probability because the number of miles of pipelines changes, and the different types of products the pipelines carry have different failure rates. If we take the mileage of pipelines into consideration, and break the type of products these hazardous liquid pipelines carry down into the two main types – crude oil and other products – we start to get a more refined look at probabilities. The following graph shows that crude oil pipelines have a higher incident rate than product pipelines, and that both types of pipelines have a higher incident rate in California than in the rest of the country. 11 See 49 CFR § 195.50 and 195.52 for hazardous liquid accident reporting requirements. 12 For a complete description of these categories for all pipelines, see http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/datastatistics/ pipelineincidenttrendsSeptember 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 831 Page 13 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Incident rate alone does not really portray the consequence of an incident very well, so we also compare the amount spilled per incident per mile of pipe (see bar graph on upper right), which makes California’s higher rate of incidents look quite different. As you can see what this shows us is that while California may have more incidents per mile of pipeline than the national average, the amount spilled is considerably less than the national average. It is also possible to use these same rates to look at how individual pipeline companies compare to national averages. For instance, in the following graphs we compare the incident rate per mile of similar pipeline and gallons spilled nationally and in California with the rate of failures and gallons spilled that have occurred on the entire Kinder Morgan SFPP system, a portion of which runs along the Iron Horse Corridor. As can be seen from these graphs over the past five years the Kinder Morgan SFPP pipeline system has had fewer incidents and spilled far fewer gallons of product than other comparable pipelines throughout the U.S. and in California. SFPP is one of a number of pipeline systems in Contra Costa County, so trying to determine the probability of an incident within the county requires looking beyond the SFPP numbers. If we take the SFPP 5-year average incident rate as one bound (0.00028), and the California 5-year average incident rate as another bound (0.00070), we can use those together with the roughly 350 miles of non-crude hazardous pipelines in the county to estimate the likely frequency of incidents on these pipelines. Currently it could be expected that a significant incident would occur somewhere between once every 4 years (CA average) to once every 10 years (SFPP average). In Appendix D we have provided a list of all reported incidents in Contra Costa County, and from a look at that list it is clear that the frequency of significant incidents occurring in the county is higher than should be expected from these statistics. In the past five years alone there have been five significant incidents on these types of non-crude liquid pipelines in the County. One possible explanation for this higher rate is the high number of facilities processing fuel in the county. Such facilities are associated with pipelines, and therefore incidents related to the facilities also are incorporated with the pipeline incident statistics. These facilities have very high numbers of fittings, valves, and other appurtenances that tend to have higher failure rates, and often these failures are more contained on company owned property and do not affect the public and private rights-of-way through which longer pipelines travel.13 One other data set that provides some information about probability of failures is the cause of such failures. Following is a chart that shows the causes of significant incidents both nationally and in California. California hazardous liquid pipeline incidents appear 13 OSFM also maintains PHMSA incident data that they further separate for certain public presentations. For example, they may present only incidents occurring on the pipeline right-of-way and leave out those that occur within associated facilities; or they may remove data that includes idled or abandoned pipelines. OSFM does not provide these internal statistics to the public. 25 20 15 10 5 0 United States California Gallons Spilled / Year / Mile of Pipeline 2010 - 2014 Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines 15.15 23.27 3.81 7.93 20 15 10 5 0 Gallons spilled per year per mile of non-crude oil pipeline 2010 - 2014 U.S. 15.52 California 3.81 SFPP 0.2573 0.00080 0.00070 0.00060 0.00040 0.00050 0.00030 0.00020 0.00010 0.00000 Significant incidents per year per mile of non-crude oil pipelines 2010 - 2014 U.S. 0.00061 California 0.00070 SFPP 0.00028 0.002 0.0015 0.001 0.0005 0Non-Crude Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Crude Oil Pipelines Significant Incidents / Year / Mile of Pipeline 2010 - 2014 United States California September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 832 Page 14 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California to be more frequently caused by corrosion when compared to those across the US as a whole. Corrosion is the dominant cause of pipeline incidents in California, followed by Material/Weld/ Equipment failure. Both of these causes together lead to nearly two-thirds of all hazardous liquid pipeline incidents in both California (67%) and the U.S. as a whole (63%). These charts and graphs should provide some measure of the probability of a pipeline incident happening and some of the consequences if it does. It is fairly clear from the data that the chance of a pipeline failing in any particular spot is very, very small, but of course if you ask the families of any of the 360 people who were killed by pipeline incidents over the past twenty years in United States they would tell you that the consequences are huge. So what are the possible consequences of pipeline failures, and how can they be quantified? Consequences For natural gas pipelines it is fairly easy to predict the impact zone around a pipeline failure that explodes. There is a formula used in the federal regulations, based on the size and pressure of the pipeline that predicts the “potential impact radius,” and that radius is then used to define some elements of the regulations. The picture in the previous column shows how that radius might appear on a particular pipeline. For hazardous liquid pipelines predicting the consequence area is much more difficult because of the different products involved and because the products may flow long distances based on the terrain and whether they reach water. While each pipeline operator is required to do an analysis of whether a leak along any section of the pipeline could affect a high consequence area, that information is not shared with the public. The best that the public can do is to look at their own area and compare that with the consequences of past liquid failures. The National Transportation Safety Board investigates many of the most significant incidents and the reports of their investigations can be found at: http:// www.ntsb.gov/ investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx. We can also look at pictures like the ones above to see what can happen in the unlikely event that a hazardous liquid pipeline fails in a particular area. Past Incidents on the San Jose Line An incident occurred on the SFPP, San Jose line (LS-16) in Walnut Creek on November 9, 2004, in which five workers were killed and four others significantly injured from a pipeline rupture and explosion. Property damage was sustained nearby including a two-story structure that burned. The pipeline ruptured when it was struck by excavation equipment operating as part of a water supply Example of a Potential Impact Radius of a pipeline incident shown on an aerial map (assumes the pipeline rupture occurs at the center of the circle) PHMSA Data – 8-15-15 California Onshore Pipelines 4.6% 41.4% 11.5% 10.3% 25.3% 2.3%4.6% U.S. Onshore Pipelines 6.2%3.2%5.3% 24.9% 10.7% 11.2% 38.3% All Other Causes Corrosion Excavation Damage Incorrect Operation Material/weld/equipFailure Natural Force Damage Other Outside Force Damage Causes of Significant Incidents on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines – 2005 - 2014 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 833 Page 15 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California expansion project. The gasoline released from the pipeline was soon after ignited by welders also working on the new water supply pipeline. According to the OSFM Pipeline Failure Investigation Report, several contributing factors led up to the excavator bucket striking the pipeline, including “inadequate line locating, inadequate project safety oversight and communication, and failure to follow the one-call law” (page 14).14 OSFM made recommendations to Kinder Morgan that included improvements to the way in which employees observe and respond to one- call excavation notifications, and modifications to the company’s Operator Qualification Program related to line locating and excavation notifications. PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order (CAO) for Kinder Morgan in 2005 with respect to its entire Pacific Operations unit of hazardous liquid pipeline systems, covering 3,900 miles across six states, and including the SFPP pipeline system and the San Jose line. The CAO was in response to eight accidents within the previous 16 months that released petroleum products into or near high consequence areas. Seven of the eight occurred in California, and two within Contra Costa County: the November 9, 2004 incident mentioned above on LS-16, and a November 7, 2004 incident in Martinez that occurred on LS-47. PHMSA called out “a widespread failure of Kinder Morgan to adequately detect and address the effects of outside force damage and corrosion” (page 2), and ordered the operator to take immediate corrective actions with respect to all Pacific Operations unit hazardous liquid pipeline systems.15 PHMSA subsequently replaced the CAO with a 14-page Consent Agreement entered into on April 4, 2006 by both parties. The Consent Agreement also delineated specific actions to be taken by Kinder Morgan to improve its pipeline operations and integrity management and to be completed within ten years. On May 11, 2015, PHMSA issued a closure letter to Kinder Morgan, stating that all the required action had been completed and the terms of the Agreement were satisfied, thereby closing the case.16 In the next column is a graph that shows all reportable incidents on the Kinder Morgan SFPP system including the San Jose Pipeline that runs through Contra Costa County during the period that this corrective action order covered. This graph appears to support that the actions that Kinder Morgan took as part 14 California Office of the State Fire Marshal. Pipeline Failure Investigation Report, Form-11. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LS- 16 rupture in Walnut Creek, 9 November 2004. 15 U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety. Corrective Action Order re: case No. 5-2005-5025H, August 24, 2005. 16 Multiple technical documents were required to be submitted to PHMSA in accordance with the Consent Agreement, however these are not publicly available. Requests for information through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ about/foia) take many months for PHMSA to respond, and even when documents are received they often contain many redactions. Therefore the public is left with having little to go on to verify how PHMSA has followed through and been given adequate assurances that each item in the Consent Agreement has been completed. of the consent decree have helped reduce the number of incidents on this line. Pipeline Construction, Operations and Maintenance Many of the pipelines in place today were constructed before regulations existed for pipelines. Some of the current regulations have to do with ongoing operations and maintenance, and apply to both existing and new lines. Existing ‘grandfathered’ pipelines built prior to 1979 for hazardous liquid lines, or prior to 1968 for gas pipelines, may not have been constructed according to the current regulations. What are pipeline operators required to do to maintain safe pipelines? In this section, we go through basic information, and dive more deeply into some technical issues about which the Alamo community expressed particular concern. Construction The construction phase of pipeline installation is a critically important time to ensure the long-term integrity of the pipeline. Transmission pipelines are most commonly made of steel, and the pipes are fabricated and inspected to meet industry and government safety standards. Differing soil conditions and geographic or population characteristics of the pipeline route will dictate different requirements for pipe size, strength, wall thickness and coating material. Hazardous liquid pipelines must be buried between 18 and 48 inches below the surface, depending on location and soil properties. The prescribed depth must be adhered to at the time of burial, but regulations do not require it to be maintained over time. Operators must use qualified welders, and most welds on the pipe are evaluated and inspected in the field; a proper weld is stronger than the pipe itself. Corrosion Protection Corrosion is a serious issue for all steel pipelines. Without corrosion protection every steel pipe will eventually deteriorate, weaken, and become unsafe. With proper corrosion protection, steel pipelines can remain safely operating for many decades. Pipeline operators use three common methods to control corrosion: 2020 18 16 14 12 8 10 6 4 2 0 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 All Reportable Incidents on Kinder Margan’s SFPP System September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 834 Page 16 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California • Pipeline coatings and linings defend against corrosion by protecting the bare steel from coming in direct contact with corrosive conditions. • Corrosion inhibitors are substances that may be added to the commodity running through the pipe to decrease the rate of attack of internal corrosion. • Cathodic protection (CP) systems use direct electrical current to counteract the normal external corrosion that occurs due to soil and moisture conditions. On new pipelines, CP can help prevent corrosion from starting; on existing pipelines, CP can stop existing corrosion from getting worse. These corrosion control methods may all be used at the same time; pipeline engineers must carefully consider the specific operating conditions, and pipeline and commodity characteristics to maintain the necessary corrosion protection for each particular pipeline segment. High Consequence Areas and Integrity Management Hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect High Consequence Areas (HCAs), which include high population areas, certain drinking water sources, or some ecologically sensitive areas, must prepare integrity management plans and adhere to stricter rules than pipelines outside of such HCAs.17 For example, pipelines that could affect an HCA have to be physically inspected by the pipeline company on a regular basis, whereas pipelines that could not affect an HCA never are required to be inspected. Currently about 43% of all hazardous liquid pipelines in the U.S. and 68% in California could affect HCAs and fall under these requirements. Operators subject to integrity management must do a risk analysis of the segments of the pipeline that could affect HCAs, and then implement a plan to inspect and maintain that pipeline segment using methods appropriate to the specific risk factors impacting the pipeline. The minimum re-inspection interval for hazardous liquid pipelines is every five years; the integrity management plan and risk analysis may indicate certain pipelines or pipeline segments need to be re-inspected more frequently. The most commonly performed inspections are done with internal in-line 17 See 49 CFR § 195.450 and references therein for the definition of a high consequence area, and 49 CFR § 195.452 for the regulations concerning pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas. inspection devices referred to as ‘smart pigs’ that record problems such as corrosion, dents, and gouges as they move through the pipeline. The inspections are typically performed by a third party contractor that also interprets the inspection results, and submits both the results and their interpretation to the pipeline operator in the form of a report. Federal and OSFM regulators may review these internal inspection reports during their own regulatory inspections of a pipeline operator. Information about which pipeline segments are and are not within HCAs is not easily publicly available. However, it does appear that the vast majority of hazardous liquid pipelines in Contra Costa County are covered under the stricter integrity management rules that apply to the hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect an HCA. The portion of the San Jose line within the county is operating under these rules. The development and implementation of the Integrity Management Program in the last decade represented a major improvement in risk analysis and ongoing testing and maintenance of pipelines that fall under those requirements. However, with nearly a decade of performance data under the new rules numerous shortcomings in the current Integrity Management Program have been identified by a variety of groups including both PHMSA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB recently released a report18 that made numerous recommendations for improving Gas Transmission Integrity Management to make it clearer exactly what pipeline operators are required to do. PHMSA appears to be working on some of these improvements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines through various inquiries and rule makings, but as of this report no new or proposed rules have been released for public review. RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt regulations to implement NTSB recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management requirements. RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Make information about a pipeline’s HCA designation easily available to the public. Valves Valves must be installed along the pipeline to control the flow “at locations along the pipeline system that will minimize damage or pollution from accidental discharge, as appropriate for the terrain in open country, for offshore 18 Safety Study: Integrity Management of Gas Transmission Pipelines in High Consequence Areas, NTSB, 1/27/2015 http://www.ntsb.gov/ safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1501.pdf Cathodic protection test point along the Iron Horse Corridor September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 835 Page 17 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California areas, or for populated areas” (49 CFR § 195.260(c)).19 Valves must also be “installed in a location that is accessible to authorized employees and that is protected from damage or tampering” (49 CFR § 195.258(a)). Valves must be maintained in good working order at all times, and fully inspected and tested at least twice each year to ensure they are functioning properly.20 Some valves have to be operated manually by pipeline personnel, some valves can be operated remotely from a control room, and some valves are designed to operate automatically if certain conditions occur on the pipeline. If a pipeline should fail, how quickly the valves can be closed and the distance between the valves are two of the main determinants for how much fuel is released. PHMSA has concluded that whether an operator should install automatic shutoff valves or remote control valves (operated from a far-away control room) in newly constructed or fully replaced pipelines needs to be evaluated on a case-by- case basis.21 Existing pipeline operators subject to integrity management rules must evaluate the type and location of valves as part of their risk assessment.22 Pipelines that operate according to integrity management (due to their location affecting an HCA) have an additional requirement to take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure. Actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection may be warranted based on a risk analysis of the pipeline segment, and could include installing Emergency Flow Restricting Devices (EFRDs) – additional valves – on the pipeline. In determining whether an EFRD is needed, “… an operator must, at least, consider the following factors – the swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities, the type of commodity carried, the rate of potential leakage, the volume that can be released, topography or pipeline profile, the potential for ignition, proximity to power sources, location of nearest response personnel, specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence area, and benefits expected by reducing the spill size” (49 CFR § 195.452(i)(4)). Beyond the specific requirements for valves at certain water crossings and pump stations, etc., noted above, the regulations give the operator wide latitude in determining the necessity and location of additional valves. Nineteen years ago an Edison, New Jersey accident occurred and it took two and a half hours to shut off the flow of gas 19 Valves must also be installed in proximity to pipeline facilities and appurtenances, and on both sides of certain water crossings and drinking water reservoirs. See 49 CFR § 195.260 for details. 20 See 49 CFR § 195.420. This section also contains language about the need for operators to protect valves from unauthorized operation and vandalism, which PHMSA views as doing more than simply chaining and locking the valves. 21 U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements of Automatic and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect to Public and Environmental Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy. 22 See 49 CFR § 195.452(i)(1) and (4). that fed the fireball due to the lack of a remotely controlled shut off valve. After the 2010 San Bruno tragedy where it took the pipeline operator over an hour and a half to drive to and close a manual valve the NTSB recommended that PHMSA “Amend Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 192.935(c) to directly require that automatic shutoff valves or remote control valves in high consequence areas and in class 3 and 4 locations be installed and spaced at intervals that consider the factors listed in that regulation.” Most recently the spill of at least 20,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean near Santa Barbara has again reiterated the need for new rules regarding these types of valves to help limit the damage from pipeline failures. PHMSA conducted a study23 that in 2012 found “installing ASVs and RCVs in pipelines can be an effective strategy for mitigating potential consequences of unintended releases because decreasing the total volume of the release reduces overall impacts on the public and to the environment.” PHMSA is working on rule makings that may address this issue, but as of this report no new or proposed rules have been released for public review. San Jose Pipeline Valves Alamo community members have expressed concerns about the type, spacing, vulnerability and maintenance of the San Jose pipeline valves (or EFRDs) along the Iron Horse Corridor. Until recently, a manual valve was exposed above ground with no protection except a chain; that valve was enclosed within a fence following a vandalism incident in June 2015, but the example serves to justify the community concerns about vulnerability and safety. The community also has concerns about the potential volume released if a hazardous liquid spill were to occur, and the degree to which the valves will minimize the spill volume. The OSFM inspection report discussed earlier describes the Kinder Morgan integrity management and risk assessment process, some of which focuses on this type of detailed analysis. A key piece of the risk assessment that analyzes EFRDs is the operator’s Preventive and Mitigative Measures analysis performed in order to determine what threats exist on a pipeline, and if additional measures should be implemented to manage those threats. The Preventive and Mitigative Measures analysis may or may not determine the need for an additional Engineering Analysis focused on valves, depending on many factors affecting the pipeline: pipeline segment characteristics, proximity to an HCA, time to detect and isolate a leak, location of nearest response personnel, risk assessment results, and desired capabilities and improvements. An 23 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 31, 2012, http://www. phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30568 9E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final% 20Valve_Study.pdf Manual valve inside protective cage in Alamo along Iron Horse Corridor September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 836 Page 18 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California initial Leak Detection System Analysis is completed on each pipeline, determining the maximum potential release volume.24 Kinder Morgan evaluated the need for modification to existing valves on the San Jose line in 2010, and considered the following factors: swiftness of leak detection and pipeline shutdown capabilities; type of commodity carried; rate of potential leakage; volume that can be released; topography or pipeline profile; potential for ignition; proximity to power sources; location of nearest response personnel; specific terrain between the pipeline segment and the high consequence area; and benefits expected by reducing the spill size. The San Jose line has an existing computerized leak detection system that uses line balance, flow deviation, volume balance, thermal monitoring, and volume in and out to alert control room staff to potential leaks. After consideration of these factors, Kinder Morgan determined the existing valves and leak detection system exceeded their requirement that a 15-minute response time and isolation of a leak could be assured on the San Jose line.25 Kinder Morgan’s evaluation necessarily included many assumptions. These are not spelled out in the analysis, but would include such things as how quickly an employee could physically arrive at and close a manual valve, how quickly an operator could install temporary plugs or other means to stop the flow out of the pipe, and how quickly any remote personnel could make a correct decision based on computerized information to shut the pipeline down in the event of a rupture; as well as factors that determine in their eyes what the risks are and what level of risk is acceptable. These assumptions are not transparent to the public, but depending on what is assumed, the outcome of the analysis could vary widely. The assumptions are also necessary to carry out the regulation-required risk analysis and come to conclusions; regulations that require this type of behind-the-scenes decision-making process and lack prescriptive requirements are called performance-based regulations, and they often leave gray areas for the public because we often cannot know what went into the assumptions and decision-making. Unfortunately, like the implementation of most risk- or performance-based regulations, this Kinder Morgan valve and leak detection analysis does little to eliminate the gray area on this issue. The regulations leave the consideration and determination to each operator in the context of an integrity management plan the public will never see. While the public may not be allowed to see the information used to make risk calculations, the public can make rough calculations of the impacts from a spill based on available information. 24 This detailed technical analysis on leak detection that informs the pipeline operator’s risk assessment is not available to the public. 25 See page 12 of the OSFM inspection report dated June 2014 for detailed discussion of the San Jose line/LS-16. The report does not clarify how long of a segment of the pipeline would be isolated in this time - that is, it is not clear whether the operator could close the two closest valves on either side of a failure in that time frame, or just two valves at some unspecified distance. Given the time required to get staff to a manual valve and get it closed, a 15 minute time to isolation appears to be very optimistic. For example, the size of the pipeline means that it holds a little more than 21,000 gallons of product per mile of pipe. If the pipeline should rupture, most all of the product between the rupture site and the next valve that is at a higher elevation than the rupture would drain out between the valves regardless of how quickly the pipeline was shut down or valves were closed, unless the operator is able to install emergency plugs or hot taps very quickly. If the valves are 10 miles apart that could mean that more than 200,000 gallons could be released if the rupture is at the lowest point in that stretch. This figure does not include any additional product continuing to be pushed through the line if valve closing or shut-off is delayed. So Kinder Morgan as part of their risk analysis must have concluded that with the small chance that the pipeline will actually rupture, and their response capabilities, this is an acceptable risk. If they had not come to that conclusion they would have been required to install more valves to decrease the distance and potential spill volume. If informed people in the community were given the same information would they come to the same acceptable risk conclusion? Currently there is no opportunity for the public to review these risk analyses, or to comment on the level of risk to which they are being exposed. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves along the lines of the NTSB recommendations. Pipeline Monitoring and Leak Detection A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is a pipeline computer system designed to gather information such as flow rate through the pipeline, operational status, pressure, and temperature readings. This information allows operators to know what is happening along the pipeline during normal operations, and allows for quicker reactions to equipment malfunctions, failures and releases. Some SCADA systems also incorporate the ability to remotely operate certain equipment, including compressors, pump stations, and valves; allowing operators in a control center to adjust flow rates in the pipeline as well as to isolate certain sections of a pipeline. Many SCADA systems also include leak detection systems – called computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) programs – based on the pressure and mass balance in the pipelines. Unfortunately, remote computerized systems are not yet capable of identifying most leaks; PHMSA data from 2010-present show that only about September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 837 Page 19 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California 11% of U.S. hazardous liquid pipeline significant incidents were initially detected by SCADA or CPM; and that number drops to 2% when looking only at California hazardous liquid pipeline significant incidents in the same timeframe. On- the-ground personnel working for the pipeline operator (as employees or contractors) are the ones most likely to initially identify an incident, but the public and first responders from the local communities are also likely to be the first to identify a significant incident (18% of the time in the U.S.; 25% of the time in California).26 In the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Congress asked the Secretary of Transportation to provide a report within one year on the technical limitations of current leak detection systems, the practicability of developing standards for the capabilities of leak detection systems, and the costs and benefits of requiring pipeline operators to use such systems. PHMSA completed an in-depth study27 of leak detection systems in December of 2013. That study found that for hazardous liquid pipelines: • Emergency responders or a member of the public were currently the most likely means of discovering a pipeline release. • “There is no technical reason why several different leak detection methods cannot be implemented at the same time. In fact, a basic engineering robustness principle calls for at least two methods that rely on entirely separate physical principles.”? • “External sensors have the potential to deliver sensitivity and time to detection far ahead of any internal system.” PHMSA has been working on a rule making that may address this leak detection issue for nearly five years now, but as of this report no new or proposed rules have been released for public review. RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak detection systems in high consequence areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for computational pipeline monitoring systems. Alamo Technical Pipeline Safety Concerns Community members raised concerns about a number of specific issues related to pipeline safety on the San Jose pipeline. Pipeline Safety Trust staff also noticed some issues during their visit. This section details technical issues that warrant particular attention. 26 See PHMSA Incident Reports. Percentages based on PST analysis of PHMSA HL 2002-2009 and 2010-present incident data files (as of Aug 3. 2015). 27 Kiefner & Associates, Inc., Leak Detection Study, December 10, 2012, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_4A77C 7A89CAA18E285898295888E3DB9C5924400/filename/Leak%20 Detection%20Study.pdf Earthquakes – In 2007, the United States Geological Survey collaborated with William Lettis & Associates on a technical report analyzing Northern Calaveras Fault data.28 This fault bisects Contra Costa County, and is not the only fault impacting ground movement in the area. Residents are concerned that hazardous liquid pipelines are properly protected in the event of an earthquake. Hazardous Liquid pipeline operators subject to integrity management are required to consider many threats in the risk assessment that is part of their integrity management plan. A number of these pertain to earthquakes and ground movement, though earthquake risk is not mentioned in the regulations as something that requires its own analysis and mitigation. Earthquakes are listed as one factor for an operator to consider in determining whether a pipeline is likely to affect a high consequence area (and therefor be subject to integrity management at all);29 but for pipelines already clearly affecting a high consequence area (as is the pipeline through Alamo), earthquakes are only included in the context of the broader risk assessment required. For example, in determining the schedule to use in regularly assessing a pipeline segment, geotechnical hazards must be considered;30 and PHMSA offers further guidance on risk factors that should be considered in the frequency of assessment, including “location related to potential ground movement…”31 but the regulations do not specify how they are considered, any technical specifications to use when considering their risk, or specific ways to mitigate that risk. When PHMSA inspectors review a California operator’s risk assessment, 28 Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T. Digital compilation of Northen Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern California Map Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. October 2007. 29 See 49 CFR § 195 Appendix C I.B.(12) 30 See 49 CFR § 195.452(e). 31 See 49 CFR § 195, Appendix C. II.A.(11) The San Jose line inside protective sleeve traveling above ground across a seasonal stream along the Iron Horse Corridor. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 838 Page 20 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California they would expect to see seismic-related activity (ground movement, unstable soils, landslides, etc.) listed as a threat, and if not, they would dig deeper.32 In the 2011 updates to the federal pipeline safety laws, Congress specifically included “seismicity of the area” as one threat that a pipeline operator must consider when evaluating threats to a pipeline segment under Parts 192 and 195 of Title 49.33 We saw no evidence in our review of the OSFM report on Kinder Morgan’s integrity management program that earthquakes factored in to their risk assessment. They did list one action item for most of the intrastate pipelines in the county including the San Jose line that relates to earthquake activity (“monitor wash outs and unstable slopes”), and there may be more listed in the integrity management plan of the operator that is not available for the public to view. Pipelines worldwide have generally performed relatively well in past earthquakes,34 and ‘natural force damage’ (the cause category under which earthquake-related pipeline failures would fall) is the cause of relatively few pipeline failures nationwide (7%) and in California (2%).35 However both old and new pipelines can sustain damage from earthquakes that is “typically concentrated in areas of unstable soils with permanent ground deformation (PGD) and/or liquefaction, including at river crossings and landslides,” according to an Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub submitted in 2012.36 A technical handbook on seismic risk analysis stresses the importance of estimating the extent of permanent ground deformation in assessment of pipeline system vulnerability: “In particular, adequate knowledge of site-specific soil and groundwater conditions is critical to the success of the design and installation of pipelines, as well as in predicting its anticipated performance under field conditions” (page 692).37 Both the technical handbook and the Oregon report list options for mitigation measures to improve the performance of a pipeline. The categories of mitigation measures as summarized by the handbook are: “(a) avoid the hazard by relocation; (b) isolate the pipeline from the hazard; (c) accommodate the hazard by strengthening the pipeline or increasing the flexibility; and (d) mitigate the hazard using ground improvement” (page 702). The Oregon study states mitigation options as: “soil improvement, increasing the load 32 Correspondence with PHMSA Pipeline Safety Western Region Office CATS staff, August 2015. 33 Section 29, Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011. 34 Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B. Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub (Final Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility Commission). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, August 2012. 35 See PHMSA data shown in graphs earlier in report entitled “Causes of HL Significant Incidents.” 36 Wang, et. al. IBID (Page 82). 37 Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda, K. (Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013. carrying capacity of the pipe system, reducing the friction between the pipe and soil, relocating the pipe, anchors to prevent uplift from buoyant forces, or special pipe joints or fittings that allow greater joint deflection, extension, or compression” (Page 84). Seismic vulnerability studies can be conducted on pipelines or pipeline segments to assess pipeline performance and suggest mitigation measures appropriate to the specific situation. We found no evidence that Kinder Morgan or any other operator has conducted such a study related to the pipelines in Contra Costa County. RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS: Contract for an independent technical seismic vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk analysis, and make the study available to the public. Iron Horse Corridor Above-Ground Stream Crossings – In two places along the Iron Horse Corridor in Alamo, the San Jose line spans seasonal streams above-ground. (see photo on page 19) Community members have raised concerns about the adequacy of the span supports, potential vulnerability of these spans and the overall safety of these crossings. Both the above-ground pipeline spans contain a metal sleeve over the pipeline itself, and it is this sleeve that is secured to the supporting infrastructure. These types of above-ground pipeline spans are fairly common, though there are many different types of supportive infrastructure that can secure the pipeline in these situations. One additional concern with supported above-ground spans is the erosion that can occur on either side, potentially increasing the length of the unsupported portion of the span. Some different types of above-ground supports are depicted in the accompanying photos. Examples of other pipelines crossing steam areas in California and Washington States.September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 839 Page 21 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Land Use Planning and Pipelines For the siting of nearly all new pipelines, the pipeline company decides on a general route they prefer for their pipeline, and possibly some alternative routes. Once they feel fairly confident with the feasibility of their chosen route, the more formal process with various government agencies begins. That process is not consistent for various types of pipelines, but varies greatly based on the type of pipeline and where it is to run. Interstate natural gas pipeline companies must apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for construction and route approval. There is no comprehensive federal permitting process for the routing of hazardous liquid pipelines or of intrastate natural gas pipelines. Assuming the pipeline is wholly within the U.S., the responsibility for approval of the pipeline route falls on the individual states. Since California does not have a statute at the time of this writing that addresses pipeline routing and siting, the responsibility falls to the regular land use authority of local governments along the pipeline route, some of which exercise this authority, and others do not. Local governments can also coordinate and regulate new development near existing pipelines with their land use authority. Many pipelines existed prior to development, and housing density has increased in many areas near pipelines that once were predominantly undeveloped rural areas. Local governments can enact regulations governing the type of buildings and construction that can occur near existing pipelines, requiring consultation with the pipeline operator, establishing setbacks or enacting a variety of other land use permit requirements. In 2010, PHMSA published the final report of the Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA), a three-year effort to provide information and recommendations on the types of tools local governments can use to regulate new development near existing pipelines. Forty-three recommended practices are contained in the report, and twenty-nine of them speak specifically to local governments about things they can do to encourage safety near transmission pipelines. Recommendations stress: the need to have a relationship with local pipeline operators that includes open communication, incorporating the existence of pipelines into planning processes and infrastructure projects, and the importance of safe excavation practices. One example of a specific recommendation is the use of consultation areas or zones that require early consultation among stakeholders when any development is proposed within a specified distance from a transmission pipeline. All recommendations and associated documents can be found through the PIPA link at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ comm/pipa/LandUsePlanning.htm. Contra Costa County local government agencies also have a role to play in pipeline safety and oversight. Federal and state regulations generally preclude local governments from adopting any regulations that require a pipeline operator to take any actions regarding the safe operation of a pipeline. That said, pipeline operators might willingly enter into development agreements or mitigation agreements that include additional safety aspects in certain situations, in response to local conditions. There are things that local governments do that are not precluded, such as negotiated rights-of-way agreements, spill and emergency preparations and response, or land use and zoning provisions. Contra Costa County agencies are actively involved in some of these areas, and minimally involved in others. Example of California local authority for new and replaced pipelines: Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County requires pipeline operators to submit a Development Plan permit for new and replaced pipelines, often in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (if located in the Coastal Zone and impacting environmentally sensitive areas).1 The permit review process includes analysis of submitted information (maps, mitigation measures, emergency response plan, etc.) against standards, and requires specific findings as well as an Environmental Impact Review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).2 Pipeline operators with existing lines may need to obtain a grading permit prior to digs that expose pipe,3 and operators with a development permit on file submit results of any anomaly digs to the county. Santa Barbara County is unique in their use of a System Safety Reliability Review Committee4 made up primarily of technical staff who work in collaboration with pipeline operators (and other oil and gas facility operators) to review project information and operations. 1 See Santa Barbara County Land Use & Development Code, Article 35.5. 2 See CA Public Resource Code § 21000 et. seq. 3 See Santa Barbara Grading Code (Chapter 14). 4 For more information on the System Safety Reliability Review Committee, including committee makeup, minutes, and agendas, see http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/ permits/ssrrc.asp. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 840 Page 22 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Right-of-way Franchise and Easement Agreements Easements and franchise agreements specify information about the access the pipeline operator has to land that is owned by private parties or government entities. They are typically negotiated agreements in exchange for payment, and lay out allowed and disallowed activities for the pipeline operator and the landowner within the area covered by the agreement. The area covered may be narrow or wide, depending on the pipeline and the context at the time the agreement was signed. When a pipeline goes through county-owned public property or public rights-of-way, Contra Costa County Public Works Department has authority over the granting of franchise or easement agreements. Agreements between the county and pipeline operator must proceed in accordance with the Pipeline Franchise Ordinance.38 Ordinances that establish regulations for granting these franchise agreements have been in place since 1964, with amendments in 1992 and 2013. As of this writing, the public works department staff is working to get all existing franchise agreements updated to be consistent with the most recent ordinance. The pipeline franchise ordinance covers the unincorporated portions of the county, and individual cities negotiate easements and franchise agreements according to their own ordinances or policies. There are examples from around the country where local governments through these franchise agreements have been able to obtain safety improvements and greater liability insurance and indemnification than is required by state or federal rules.39 The Iron Horse Corridor – Multiple Uses Some pipelines were in place prior to the first county franchise ordinance and operate according to easements that were already in place. This is the situation with most of the Kinder Morgan SFPP- San Jose line along the Iron Horse Corridor, which was constructed in the mid-1960s during the time that the Southern Pacific Railroad owned and operated rail lines. The entire Iron Horse Corridor right-of-way varies from about 30 to 100 feet in width along the route, and contains numerous utilities and facilities through easements, license agreements, and leases, including the easement for the SFPP - San Jose pipeline, which only covers a portion of the corridor right of way. Because of the history of the San Jose line and the Iron Horse Corridor, much of the land through 38 Governed by Contra Costa County Code, Title 10, Chapter 1004-2. 39 See examples of these franchise agreements at: http://pstrust.org/ about-pipelines1/local-governments/franchise-agreements/ which the pipeline travels is public and not private land, so the predominance of the easement area is covered by a single agreement between the pipeline operator and the county, rather than many individual easements between the pipeline operator and private property owners. That easement agreement specifies the property involved (generally a strip of land 10 feet wide, specifically described in the easement documents), and the right of the operator to construct, reconstruct, renew, maintain and operate the pipeline and appurtenances on the easement.40 Landowners have in the past encroached onto the Iron Horse Corridor with fence lines, landscaping, and other property improvements. This type of activity presents a potential safety threat to the pipeline and is against the law. The Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 specifies in § 51014.6: “(a) Effective January 1, 1987, no person, other than the pipeline operator, shall do any of the following with respect to any pipeline easement: (1) Build, erect, or create a structure or improvement within the pipeline easement or permit the building, erection, or creation thereof. (2) Build, erect, or create a structure, fence, wall, or obstruction adjacent to any pipeline easement which would prevent complete and unimpaired surface access to the easement, or permit the building, erection, or creation thereof. (b) No shrubbery or shielding shall be installed on the pipeline easement. This subdivision does not prevent the revegetation of any landscape disturbed within a pipeline easement as a result of constructing the pipeline and does not prevent the holder of the underlying fee interest or the holder’s tenant from planning and harvesting seasonal agricultural crops on a pipeline easement. (c) This section does not prohibit a pipeline operator from performing any necessary activities within a pipeline easement, including, but not limited to, the construction, replacement, relocation, repair, or operation of the pipeline.” Numerous other utilities share the right-of-way with the hazardous liquid pipeline. Operators install utility lines according to specific standards that specify vertical and horizontal separation distances that vary depending on the type of utility.41 Colocation of energy transmission systems within designated energy ROWs is common, but may result in some interference between the systems or other hazards that would not exist except for the physical proximity of the two transmission systems. 40 There are gaps in the easement and memoranda documentation the Trust was able to acquire from the county and Kinder Morgan. We don’t know if this reflects missing documentation or uncertainty about the pipeline right-of-way, but recommend there be a complete set of documentation describing the right-of-way and property affected that is available to the public. 41 See 49 CFR § 195.250; also see operator guidelines for additional specifics on horizontal and vertical separation distances. Multiple utilities exist in the Iron Horse Corridor September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 841 Page 23 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Encroachments into the Iron Horse Corridor may or may not encroach into the portion of the corridor over which Kinder Morgan or other utilities hold an easement. Assessing and remedying these encroachments will require coordination among all parties with ownership interests in the corridor. The community is involved in the management of the corridor, and has numerous public participation opportunities with regard to planning its use.42 Keeping the pipeline and pipeline safety in mind during these public discussions can serve to remind nearby residents that the Iron Horse Corridor needs to be respected as a protective buffer for the utilities within it, as well as enjoyed for its recreational offerings. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachment including the review of setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff, so that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines. Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach (especially along the Iron Horse Corridor), and resources to work in close coordination with other related departments and advisory groups. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: Ensure county has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline Rights of Way. RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS: Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right of Way encroachments to determine whether there are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa County Public Works to resolve encroachments with neighboring property owners. Land Use and Zoning Provisions Land use and zoning authority in the unincorporated portions of the county lies within Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) 42 The East Bay Regional Park District covering Alameda and Contra Costa Counties manages the Iron Horse Trail (with an elected board of directors and an appointed advisory committee), and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors appoints an IHC Advisory Committee with representation from communities along the corridor. The IHC Advisory Committee has embarked on various projects that have involved additional public input opportunities, including the creation of the Management Program and its Landscape Element in 2000. jurisdiction. The county does not address pipelines in the General Plan goals or policies. Apart from limited involvement with certain high-hazard proposals (as rated by Hazardous Materials Program staff), the county does not review pipelines under their land use authority. They have a specific exemption for pipelines and other utilities stating: The use of land for rights-of-way for the construction, maintenance and repair of public utilities and publicly owned utilities and for privately owned pipelines for the transportation of oil, gas, water, and other substances transportable by pipelines, is not regulated or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84. Accessory and appurtenant structures forming a part of public utilities, publicly owned utilities and pipelines are not regulated or restricted by Divisions 82 and 84, except for setback regulations. (Contra Costa County Zoning Code § 82-2.010) Divisions 82 and 84 referred to in the above citation are, respectively, the General Regulations and Land Use Districts divisions of the County Zoning Code.43 There are examples in California of other counties that do not exempt privately owned transmission pipelines from land use regulations (see sidebar on Santa Barbara County on page 21). Using land use and zoning authority to require permits for HL pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment may allow a local government to conduct California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review if warranted, and negotiate conditions and mitigation requirements with certain permits. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: Consider adding goals and policies to the General Plan,44 and amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all privately owned pipelines and appurtenant structures are not exempt, but rather only privately owned gas distribution pipelines under 12” in diameter are exempt from the General and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84).45 Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. 43 See https://www.municode.com/library/ca/contra_costa_county/ codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=TIT8ZO 44 See the Trust’s Local Government Guide to Pipelines for specific suggestions about what kind of General Plan (also called Comprehensive Plan) language may be used relating to pipelines and pipeline safety. 45 Language can be written specifically to exempt most distribution pipelines. For example, “only gas distribution pipelines under 12” in diameter or under an operating pressure of 80 psig are exempt from the zoning code provisions.”September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 842 Page 24 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Damage Prevention and Public Awareness Programs A nationwide utility locator system is available for free in every state, to anyone planning hand or machine excavation, in order to prevent damage to pipelines and other utilities. By calling 811 at least two working days before digging, a utility locator will come identify and mark buried utilities, including cables and pipelines for fuel, water and sewer. This is a requirement by law in California (see GOV Code § 4216 et. seq.) with civil penalties associated with noncompliance, yet California lacks enforcement for this law.46 Pipeline operators must participate in this program. In communities that do not have other types of consultation zones or setback regulations, the “One-Call ticket” (as operators refer to the resulting notification from someone calling 811) is likely to be the first notice the pipeline operator has that someone is intending to dig close to their pipeline. Kinder Morgan has a robust damage prevention program, with membership in the Common Ground Alliance, staff training, and staff encouraged to actively follow up on any observed violations. Pipeline operators also are required by federal law to have a Public Awareness Program.47 This program must describe what the operator does to inform the public of the presence of the pipeline and potential hazards, and how they do it. For instance, the operator must identify and communicate with local emergency personnel, government officials, school districts, businesses, and the public, and tell them specific things such as how to recognize pipeline location markers, what kind of precautions they should take, what kind of properties the commodity being transported in the pipeline has, and how to recognize and respond to a pipeline emergency. RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond to notifications of alleged violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis depending on the damaged utility involved. Local Opportunities for Public Involvment, Education and Awareness The Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Ombudsman is a useful single point of contact for information regarding hazardous materials including pipelines; part of the ombudsman’s role is to help people in the county be good advocates for themselves by providing information. The public can also attend Hazardous 46 California is one of a few states without enforcement for excavation damage prevention – see PHMSA 2014 state damage prevention program characterization. 47 For hazardous liquid pipelines, see 49 CFR § 195.440; for gas pipelines, see 49 CFR § 192.616. Materials Commission meetings or apply to be one of the 13 members (some of these are public seats). All of the agencies discussed in this report also provide additional information on their websites (those addresses are listed in Appendix A). The county also has a Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) group, which is a non-profit public benefit corporation of public emergency response agencies, local government officials and facilities and businesses that use, store, handle, produce or transport hazardous materials. All of these entities can be members of CAER; membership is voluntary, and while most of the waterfront industrial facility operators are members, Kinder Morgan is not. CAER works to actively enhance public health and safety, and includes public representatives on its board of directors. CAER efforts focus on the waterfront areas from Richmond to Antioch where industrial facilities are concentrated but their expertise and public outreach model also support inland areas of county affected by hazardous materials transport through pipelines. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors raised questions and concerns about Kinder Morgan intrastate pipelines in a letter to OSFM dated March 11, 2014. In response to this letter, OSFM staff inspected the Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program related to their intrastate pipelines in Contra Costa County (including the San Jose line / LS-16) in June 2014. This inspection included a review of integrity management procedures, inspections, and associated repairs for the eleven Kinder Morgan intrastate pipelines operating in Contra Costa County, and resulted in a report submitted to the county in the spring of 2015 that details the process Kinder Morgan undergoes to ensure the integrity of these lines. The county has this information, but having this information is not the same as having a clear process and expertise in place to analyze it and make recommendations in coordination with the operators and OSFM. RECOMMENDATION TO OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL: Make information – maps, incident and inspection information – accessible to the public by posting it online. RECOMMENDATIONS TO PIPELINE OPERATORS: Participate as members in CAER with consistent attendance at quarterly meetings by appropriate management staff. Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors and appropriate county departments to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipeline in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 843 Page 25 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Emergency Response, Spill Response & Prevention Oil spill prevention and emergency response authority differs depending on what area the spill is likely to affect (coastal or inland), whether it is part of a larger facility (e.g., a refinery), and what part of the process is the focus (prevention, preparedness, environmental spill response, or emergency assistance to communities). When a spill occurs, many state, federal and local agencies work together under a ‘unified command’ structure on clean-up and response. Hazardous liquid pipeline spill response agencies in California The U.S. EPA has authority to direct cleanup and rehabilitation of areas affected by spills of hazardous liquid releases. The U.S. EPA can also bring actions for civil penalties under the Oil Pollution Act against operators for each barrel of oil where releases have entered navigable waters, as defined under the Clean Water Act. Additional recovery is available to the state and federal governments for damages done to natural resources by a spill. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) also exercises jurisdiction over oil spills. This authority was expanded greatly in 2014 to cover all state surface waters at risk of oil spills from any source, including pipelines and production facilities.48 The development of the regulations for this expanded statutory authority is underway as of this writing, with OSPR coordinating with local, state and federal government along with industry and non- governmental organizations to do so. OSPR requires operators to submit spill response plans for approval, and conducts spill drills (they are authorized to conduct both announced and unannounced drills). Operator spill response plans for pipelines that could effect marine waters are currently posted on the OSPR website, and presumably similar plans will be made available to the public in the future for those operators with pipelines that could effect any waters of the state once the new regulations are completed and implemented. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) regulates hazardous waste and materials through a Unified Program that incorporates a number of local and regional Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) for implementation, of which the Contra Costa County Health Services Department is one. In general, CUPAs are most interested in facilities handling hazardous waste and materials, and not focused at all on the transportation of those materials. However if an incident occurs and hazardous materials spill, a local CUPA will be involved in the response to that spill, whether it comes from a facility or a pipeline. More information about the CUPA role is included in the following section focused on Contra Costa County. 48 Senate Bill 861 authorized the expansion and provided the additional statutory and regulatory authority, for the prevention, preparedness and response activities in the new inland areas of responsibility. See also Cal. GOV Code § 8670. All pipeline operators are required to have an emergency response plan, and to share that plan with local first responders. The plan should contain detailed information about what the pipelines hold, and how pipeline company personnel and emergency response agencies such as fire and sheriff or police departments will implement pre-planned responses in case of an emergency. PHMSA assesses the written procedures contained in these plans during their inspections of interstate operators, and OSFM reviews portions of the plans during their standard inspections (once every five years) for intrastate pipelines, but operators are not required to submit these plans to either PHMSA or OSFM. Operators that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Oil Pollution Act, whose pipelines may significantly harm water bodies if there were to be a release of oil or a refined product, must also prepare a facility response plan, sometimes called a spill response plan, to outline how a release from the facility will be responded to and where response resources will be stored near the pipeline and where staff and contractors will be responding from. These plans must meet the requirements of federal law and regulations and be approved by PHMSA.49 Pipeline accident investigations occur separately from the spill clean-up and response. The National Transportation Safety Board conducts accident investigations of some of the most significant pipeline incidents. PHMSA may conduct a pipeline failure investigation on a pipeline within its jurisdiction, depending on the cause or failure mode, the severity of the consequences, and the history of the pipeline system. OSFM conducts its own investigations, in accordance with Section 13107.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Other agencies may also conduct investigations, including the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or a local Certified Unified Program Agency. Following the May 2015 spill onto Refugio Beach near Santa Barbara, additional changes were proposed to California laws to increase the usage of automatic shut-off systems and improve leak detection technology on hazardous liquid lines, as well as to improve the response times to begin clean up efforts by allowing local fishing boats to be trained as spill responders. At the time of this publication, it was not yet certain whether either of these bills would pass. Contra Costa County Spill and Emergency Preparations and Response Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) is designated as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and their Hazardous Materials Program has been involved in protecting the community from hazardous materials releases for well over two decades. The state and county rules governing hazardous materials apply very little to pipelines, as the state hazardous materials law specifically exempts the transportation of hazardous materials.50 However once hazardous materials are released from a pipeline, they are no longer considered 49 See 49 C.F.R. Part 194. 50 Specific authority given to the HSD as a CUPA is described in CA HS Code, § 25404 and § 25531 et. seq.; the Contra Costa County Industrial Safety Ordinance is found in CCC Code, Title 4, Chapter 450.September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 844 Page 26 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California to be part of the transportation system. In concert with these rules, the Hazardous Materials Program concerns itself with all storage and processing of hazardous materials (including at water treatment facilities, refineries, and the like), but pipelines mainly draw their attention once the hazardous materials are no longer part of the transportation system, i.e., there is an incident where oil is spilled. All releases of hazardous materials (including pipeline releases) are reported on by the Hazardous Materials Program, and available on the department’s website.51 The Health Services Department has a designated staff Hazardous Materials Ombudsman whose job is to respond to questions and concerns from the public, as well as independently and impartially conduct investigations, solve problems, and make recommendations regarding the program. The Department also supports the Hazardous Materials Commission, a group consisting of 13 appointed members representing a diversity of stakeholders. The Commission is tasked with advising the Board of Supervisors on hazardous materials planning, management, and implementation, while obtaining broad public input and working to build consensus.52 The Health Services Department incorporate concerns with pipelines along with facilities as part of a broad focus on protecting the community from dangers of hazardous materials. Contra Costa County is highly populated, and many people live and work in close proximity to the pipelines in the region. A dozen schools are located in very close proximity to the Kinder Morgan pipeline along the section of the Iron Horse Corridor from Concord to San Ramon. While individual schools have emergency or crisis plans in place, we did not see mention of the unique hazard presented by proximity to the pipeline if a pipeline incident were to occur. The California Department of Education (CDE) offers useful guidance to Local Educational Agencies (i.e. school districts and other related entities) in siting new facilities; one piece of this guidance is their “Guidance Protocol for School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis” which is a tool to aid Local Educational Agencies and the CDE in evaluating the suitability of new school sites located near pipelines as defined in the regulations.53 CDE also offers guidance under their “Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management” heading, including suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline product release and for reducing the severity of consequences of pipeline releases on schools.54 These resources could be expanded to offer mitigation and modernization recommendations for existing schools in proximity to pipelines, looking at evacuation routes, coordination with local first responders and pipeline operators, and education of individual school staff using resources such as the School Pipeline Safety Partnership offered by the Danielle 51 As of this writing, website access to the reports had been suspended pending HSD website’s realignment with the CA Environmental Reporting System, but will soon be available again through links here: http://cchealth.org/hazmat/incident-response.php. 52 See http://cchealth.org/hazmat/hmc/ 53 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp 54 See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp Dawn Smalley Foundation.55 In addition, the Contra Costa County Office of Public Education maintains online resources on emergency preparedness,56 and the Contra Costa County CAER has a Model Emergency Plan for Schools,57 both of which can be used as additional resources when developing a comprehensive emergency or crisis plan. These resources do not specifically mention the potential hazards of oil and gas pipelines as something to learn about and pay attention to, or as a potential risk for which to plan and develop mitigation measures, though they do provide helpful guidance for the important process of emergency planning. At a minimum, those agencies who help schools develop safety plans should coordinate with one another (E.G. school districts, the CA Department of Education, county Office of Public Education, and CAER) and suggest each crisis plan include the following information about pipelines: • Where is the pipeline? (include it in any maps, and specify distance from school facilities) • What pipeline markers look like. • Name of pipeline operator, product transported, and both emergency and non-emergency contact information for a pipeline operator representative. • How and where to evacuate in a pipeline emergency, including routes that avoid pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way. • Overview of the indications of a pipeline emergency. At least one of the schools adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor and Kinder Morgan pipeline has no access to emergency services or evacuation except via a single road that crosses the pipeline. Rancho Romero Elementary School is located in Alamo, and can only be reached via Hemme Road off of Danville Boulevard by crossing over the pipeline. In the unlikely event that a pipeline incident occurs adjacent to the school in such a way as to block the Hemme Road access, numerous problems could arise, as all road access to and from the school would be blocked. All emergency services are on the other side of the pipeline; the current relocation site listed in the school’s crisis plan is the Creekside Community Church, also on the other side of the pipeline. The pipeline is not depicted on the emergency map for the school, and is not mentioned in the safety plan where ingress/egress is discussed, or anywhere else in the crisis plan. There may be a timely opportunity to work with developers to address the issue of school and neighborhood connectivity in conjunction with current plans for development in this area. Every effort should be made to create publicly accessible access across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services.58 55 See http://smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools 56 See http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html 57 See http://www.cococaer.org/prepare_plans_school.html 58 The Trust has seen the “Ball Estate” development plan that is currently under review and includes possible gated emergency vehicle access in this area via a private Ironwood Place connector. Contra Costa County should ensure that any emergency vehicle access is sufficient in width and access to have unimpeded passing emergency vehicles and whatever other needs may be requested by the Fire Department.September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 845 Page 27 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California As mentioned earlier, resources exist for school emergency planning. In addition, assistance or funding may be available from those same agencies or the pipeline operator to receive specialized technical assistance to assess the pipeline risks and offer suggested mitigation and evacuation strategies pertinent to the specific school situation. Two fire districts cover the central region of the county that includes the Iron Horse Corridor: the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. As mentioned previously, pipeline operators are required to have both an emergency response plan, and a public awareness plan, and to have a designated liaison and make information available to local first responders such as fire departments and sheriff or police departments. Because of the workload and turnover in most fire districts, it is difficult to have a single point-of-contact who is familiar with the pipeline, the operator and the emergency response plan. While pipeline operators invite district personnel to annual training events, it is up to the district to prioritize planning for a pipeline emergency. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials Commission to provide an ongoing review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans and possible county efforts regarding additional coordinated technical review of pipeline integrity planning. RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Work with the California Department of Education (CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline product release on schools, and reducing the consequences of pipeline releases on schools.59 RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities (i.e. schools, recreation facilities, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) located in close proximity to transmission pipelines; Work with other emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that can include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site- specific considerations. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline-crossing road is the only access for numerous homes and facilities (e.g. Hemme 59 See CDE’s Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/mitigation.asp Road, Camille Road) with the goal of creating public accessibility across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Department of Conservation and Development: Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems. RECOMMENDATION TO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/ Management guidance in coordination with emergency response agencies to offer help for schools that already exist in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum information that should be included in these plans regarding pipelines. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Expand emergency preparedness resources to include information about pipelines and pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis plans and emergency preparedness plans that include pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident. RECOMMENDATION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAER: Include specific reference to oil and gas pipelines in the list of potential hazards listed in the hazard assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools. RECOMMENDATION TO PIPELINE OPERATORS: Reach out to the schools along the pipeline easement and offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents that could occur in close proximity to the schools. RECOMMENDATION TO FIRE DISTRICTS: Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate with pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with the operators’ emergency response and spill response plans, know the facilities where people congregate (schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in close proximity to the pipeline, be involved with any emergency planning done by those facilities, and advise County DCD and PW on sufficiency of proposed ingress/egress for new developments in areas where there is currently single access that crosses the San Jose line. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 846 Page 28 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California APPENDICES Appendix A. Agency listing and Resources for more information Appendix B. Community education meetings Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 847 Page 29 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Appendix A. Agency listing and resources for more information Alamo Improvement Association: www.alamoca.org CA Dept of Education, Guidance Protocol - School Site Pipeline Risk: www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/protocol07.asp CA Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division: osfm.fire.ca.gov/pipeline/pipeline.php CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, Office of Spill Response and Prevention: www.wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR CA Environmental Protection Agency, Unified Program: www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/ Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: www.cccounty.us/193/Board-of-Supervisors Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development: www.cccounty.us/dcd Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Programs: cchealth.org/hazmat/ Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division Iron Horse Corridor Management: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor Franchise Administration: www.contracosta.ca.gov/475/Franchise-Administration Contra Costa County Office of Education, Crisis Planning & Emergency Preparedness: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/resources_emergency.html Contra Costa County Community Awareness & Emergency Response (CAER): www.cococaer.org Danielle Dawn Smalley Foundation, Pipeline Safety and Awareness Training for Schools: smalleyfnd.org/services/pipeline-education/schools Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations: www.ecfr.gov/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49CIsubchapD.tpl National Transportation Safety Board: www.ntsb.gov Pipeline Safety Trust website: pstrust.org Landowner’s Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/log Local Government Guide to Pipelines: pstrust.org/lgg Online “SafePipelines” discussion group: groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/safepipelines U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Incident and Annual Pipeline Data: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats National Pipeline Mapping System: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer Office of Pipeline Safety: phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/pipa/landuseplanning.htm September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 848 Page 30 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Appendix B. Community education meetings The Alamo Improvement Association and the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission jointly sponsored two hazardous liquid pipeline safety workshops in June of 2015, with funding from the PHMSA Community Technical Assistance Grant received by the Alamo Improvement Association. Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman, moderated the meetings, and the following four individuals presented information and slides to the group: • Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust • Bob Gorham, Division Chief of Pipeline Safety, Office of the State Fire Marshal • Pete Murphy, Operations Manager at Kinder Morgan • Carry Ricci, Customer Services Coordinator at Contra Costa County Public Works Department The Pipeline Safety Trust hosts a webpage with all the presentations available for download: http://pstrust.org/trust- initiatives-programs/work-in-other-communities/alamo/. In addition, the second workshop was captured on video by CCTV, and is available to watch here: http://contra-costa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=935921b6-0eea-11e5- b5ce-00219ba2f017. The workshops were held in Alamo and Martinez, with advertising and press coverage in the preceding month. About 70 people attended the June 3rd workshop in Alamo, and about 45 attended the June 6th workshop in Martinez. Three Pipeline Safety Trust staff worked along side the members of the Alamo Improvement Association Technical Assistance Grant, ad-hoc working group to prepare for and carry out these workshops. Audience members submitted written questions throughout the meeting, which were then asked by the moderator to the panelists during a question and answer period at the end of the meeting. This report focuses on questions of concern to local citizens, including those submitted at the workshops or by email to members of the ad-hoc working group. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 849 Page 31 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY WORKSHOP AGENDA June 3, 2015, 6:30 – 8:30 PM in Alamo Creekside Community Church (1350 Danville Blvd) June 6, 2015, 10 AM – 12 PM in Martinez County Administration Building, Board of Suervisors Chambers (651 Pine St) Facilitated by Pipeline Safety Trust staff, and Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Ombudsman Michael Kent Introductions (10 Minutes) Agency, Kinder Morgan, and Pipeline Safety Trust staff Why care about pipeline safety? Pipelines 101 (20 minutes) Pipeline Safety Trust staff Kinder Morgan Presentation (20 Minutes) Pete Murphy, Operations Manager, Kinder Morgan Fire Marshal Presentation (20 Minutes) Bob Gorham, Division Chief, Pipeline Safety, CA Office of the State Fire Marshal Increasing Safety - Pipeline Safety Trust Staff, Michael Kent, & Carrie Ricci (15 Minutes) Communications County involvement – Public Works & Hazardous Materials Advisory Board Faciliated Question & Answer Panel – Michael Kent, facilitator (30 Minutes) Closing (5 Minutes ) AIA - Roger Smith MEETING SPONSORS: Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Commission PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 850 Page 32 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Appendix C. Additional information reviewed for report City of Richmond, Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 27-10 (2010). Online: www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/ Item/3143. Contra Costa County Code (including Industrial Safety Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance). Online: www.municode.com/ library/ca/contra_costa_county/codes/ordinance_code. Contra Costa County, Flood Control & Water Conservation District – PG&E 1994 Easement for 24 inch gas pipeline. Contra Costa County General Plan (2014). Online: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/4732/General-Plan. Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline (vandalism) in Byron 2011 Aug 27 – includes Environmental Site Assessment Report. Contra Costa County Health Services, Hazardous Materials Program – Incident report ConocoPhillips pipeline (corrosion) at MOTC (Marine Ocean Terminal Concord, formerly Naval Weapons Station) 2011 Nov 7. Contra Costa County Health Services memo (Randy Sawyer) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Nov 7, 2014 ConocoPhillips pipeline leak in Concord (crude). Contra Costa County Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Landscape Element (2000). Online: www.co.contra- costa.ca.us/2579/Landscape-Element. Contra Costa County Pipeline Franchise Ordinance 2013-19 & Fee Resolution (2013). Online: http://pstrust.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Pipeline-Franchise-FINALweb-09172013.pdf. Contra Costa County Public Works memo to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recommending requesting the Office of the State Fire Marshal report of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management program review. Approved by Board of Supervisors (2015 Jan 6). Honegger, D.G. and Wijewickreme, D. (2013). Seismic risk assessment for oil and gas pipelines. In Tesfamariam, S., Goda, K. (Eds.), Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems (pages 682-715). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013. Kelson, Keith I. and Sundermann, Sean T (2007). Digital compilation of Northern Calaveras Fault Data for the Northern California Map Database: Collaborative Research with William Lettis & Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Geological Survey. Online: earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/05HQGR0023.pdf National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (2013). Compendium of State Pipeline Safety Requirements and Initiatives Providing Increased Public Safety Levels compared to Code of Federal Regulations – second edition. Online: www.napsr.org/Pages/Comp2013.aspx. Office of the State Fire Marshal Pipeline Failure Investigation Report, 2004 Nov 9 Walnut Creek Kinder Morgan incident. Office of the State Fire Marshal report on review of Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program for pipelines in Contra Costa County (2014 June 2). Office of the State Fire Marshal PowerPoint presentation re: Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Program (2014 Dec 4). Online: 64.166.146.155/docs/2015/BOS/20150106_514/20327_ContraCostaCounty2014.pdf. Office of the State Fire Marshal letter (Bob Gorham) to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors re: Kinder Morgan inspection/audit (2014 May 8). PHMSA corrective action order 2005 Aug 24 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CAO 5-2005-5025H). PHMSA consent agreement 2006 March 29 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online: primis. phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/CPF_NO_5_2005-5025H.pdf. PHMSA closure of consent agreement 2015 May 11 re: Kinder Morgan Pacific Operations (CPF 5-2005-5025H). Online: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520055025H/520055025H_closure%20letter_05112015.pdf. Pipeline and Informed Planning Alliance (2010). Partnering to Further Enhance Pipeline Safety in Communities through Risk-Informed Land Use Planning Final Report of Recommended Practices. Online: primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/ publications/pipa/pipa-report-final-20101117.pdf Southern Pacific Transportation Company – Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. 1979 Easement (for Concord-San Jose pipeline). Southern Pacific Railroad – Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines 1994 Amended Easement (for Concord-San Jose pipeline, references original easement from June 5, 1970 that was not found). September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 851 Page 33 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California U.S. Dept of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (2012). Studies for the Requirements of Automatic and Remotely Controlled Shutoff Valves on Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Pipelines with Respect to Public and Environmental Safety (ORNL/TM-2012/411). Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Dept of Energy. Online: www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_2C1A725B08C5F72F30 5689E943053A96232AB200/filename/Final%20Valve_Study.pdf Wang, Yumei, Bartlett, Steven F., and Miles, Scott B (2012). Earthquake Risk Study for Oregon’s Critical Energy Infrastructure Hub (Final Report to Oregon Department of Energy & Oregon Public Utility Commission). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Online: www.oregongeology.org/sub/earthquakes/cei-hub-report.pdf September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 852 Page 34 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Appendix D. All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County All Reported Incidents in Contra Costa County - 2002 to present (as of 4/1/15) Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow Significant Date Name City Commodity spilled Gallons spilled Fatalities Injuries Property damage Cause Yes 1/8/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 168 0 0 $183,180 Other Yes 3/31/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Diesel fuel 3,360 0 0 $230,290 Material and/or weld failures No 4/21/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Diesel fuel 546 0 0 $9,639 Incorrect operation Yes 6/21/2002 Pacific gas & electric co Concord Natural gas N/a 0 0 $151,000 Damage by outside forces No 7/4/2002 Equilon pipeline co Concord Crude oil 10 0 0 $7,508 Material and/or weld failures No 8/14/2002 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline/diesel fuel 126 0 0 $9,119 Equipment Yes 9/7/2002 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 1,260 0 0 $262,750 Material and/or weld failures No 10/15/02 Venoco, inc Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $24,000 Excavation damage No 3/29/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $10,859 Equipment Yes 4/1/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 22,260 0 0 $162,287 Material and/or weld failures Yes 4/14/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Transmix 30,450 0 0 $1,390,073 Corrosion No 5/30/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline 60 0 0 $230 Incorrect operation No 9/8/2003 Sfpp, lp Concord Turbine fuel 20 0 0 $667 Incorrect operation Yes 11/11/2003 Pacific gas & electric co Walnut creek Natural gas N/a 0 0 $750,000 Other No 9/28/2004 Sfpp, lp Concord Gasoline/ distillate mixture 126 0 0 $54,202 Material and/or weld failures Yes 11/7/2004 Sfpp l.P. Martinez Jet fuel 12,558 0 0 $139,130 Excavation damage Yes 11/9/2004 Sfpp l.P. Walnut creek Gasoline 23,688 5 3 $734,449 Excavation damage Yes 4/30/2006 Sfpp l.P. Concord Gasoline 3,234 0 0 $499,493 Material and/or weld failures No 6/5/06 Venoco inc. Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,000 Corrosion No 6/19/06 Pacific gas & electric co Pittsburg Natural gas N/a 0 0 $65,200 Excavation damage Yes 9/8/2007 Pacific atlantic terminals llc Martinez Gasoline/ reformate 7,056 0 0 $547,084 Incorrect operation No 3/5/2008 Pacific atlantic terminals llc Martinez Gasoline 10 0 0 $3,908 Other Yes 5/23/2008 Sfpp, lp Richmond Gasoline 168 0 0 $114,815 Corrosion No 6/24/2008 Pacific atlantic terminals llc Martinez Hydrotest water/oil mixture 21 0 0 $64,712 Material and/or weld failures No 11/5/2009 Plains marketing, l.P.Martinez Diesel fuel 168 0 0 $34,800 Corrosion Yes 8/23/2011 Sfpp, lp Brentwood Refined product 1,596 0 0 $410,000 Equipment failure Yes 8/27/2011 Conocophillips Byron Crude oil 2,352 0 0 $1,275,040 Excavation damage September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 853 Page 35 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Yes 11/7/2011 Conocophillips Concord Crude oil 1,890 0 0 $1,839,410 Corrosion failure Yes 7/3/2012 Shell pipeline co., L.P.Martinez Refined product 546 0 0 $176,000 Equipment failure No 10/17/2012 Chevron pipe line co Byron Refined product 10 0 0 $26,200 Equipment failure Yes 8/8/2013 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 57 0 0 $427,913 Material failure of pipe or weld No 6/20/14 Pacific gas & electric co Antioch Natural gas N/a 0 0 $70,021 Excavation damage No 6/21/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 302 0 0 $34,453 Incorrect operation No 6/21/2014 Nustar terminals Crockett Refined product 1,554 0 0 $52,000 Incorrect operation No 9/14/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 536 0 0 $80,967 Incorrect operation Yes 9/15/14 Pacific gas & electric co Lafayette Natural gas N/a 0 0 $115,315 Excavation damage No 9/17/2014 Phillips 66 pipeline llc Richmond Refined product 89 0 0 $5,000 Equipment failure Yes 12/9/2014 Sfpp, lp Concord Refined product 0.42 0 0 $150,501 Equipment failure Yes 1/12/2015 Sfpp, lp Richmond Refined product 2,474 0 0 $550,497 Equipment failure Totals 116,716 5 3 $10,732,712 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 854 Page 36 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Appendix E. All Reported Incidents on Kinder Morgan’s SFPP Pipeline System All incidents, 2006 - present. Significant Incidents are highlighted in yellow. Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries Property Damage Gallons Spilled 5/23/2015 Rocklin Ca Placer Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $5,578 0 2/23/2015 Long beach Ca Los angeles Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $178,131 0 1/12/2015 Richmond Ca Contra costa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $550,497 2,436 12/9/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $150,501 0 10/6/2014 Brisbane Ca San mateo Incorrect operation 0 0 $16,169 0 9/14/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $80,967 504 6/21/2014 Concord Ca Contra costa Incorrect operation 0 0 $34,453 294 8/8/2013 Concord Ca Contra costa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $427,913 42 1/8/2013 West sacramento Ca Yolo Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $2,429 0 10/16/2012 Long beach Ca Los angeles Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $16,012 252 8/23/2011 Brentwood Ca Contra costa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $410,000 1,596 8/10/2011 Colfax Ca Placer Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $2,046 0 4/25/2011 Live oak Ca Sutter Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $27,301 336 11/4/2010 Pomona Ca Los angeles Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $64,964 84 7/19/2010 Rocklin Ca Placer Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $49,500 0 3/16/2010 Sacramento Ca Sacramento Corrosion 0 0 $480,000 2,016 5/18/2009 Bloomington Ca San bernardino Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $72,147 462 5/1/2009 Phoenix Az Maricopa All other causes 0 0 $33,684 714 9/18/2008 Deming Nm Luna Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $2,431 0 6/4/2008 Indio Ca Riverside Excavation damage 0 0 $222,245 31,542 5/23/2008 Richmond Ca Contra costa Corrosion 0 0 $114,815 168 3/29/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $5,212 42 2/15/2008 Phoenix Az Maricopa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $7,172 84 10/2/2007 Reno Nv Washoe Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $4,055,353 35,742 4/8/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $8,209 84 2/26/2007 El paso Tx El paso Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $47,066 0 2/26/2007 Long beach Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $144,063 126 1/12/2007 Rocklin Ca Placer Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $249 0 11/28/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $5,030 0 10/23/2006 El paso Tx El paso Incorrect operation 0 0 $0 0 9/27/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $6,421 126 9/27/2006 El paso Tx El paso Corrosion 0 0 $177,110 84 9/11/2006 Carson Ca Los angeles All other causes 0 0 $11,158 0 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 855 Page 37 Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California Date City State County Cause Fatalities Injuries Property Damage Gallons Spilled 8/24/2006 Soda springs Ca Nevada Corrosion 0 0 $1,608,202 4,074 8/23/2006 West sacramento Ca Yolo Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $52,488 0 7/24/2006 Stockton Ca San joaquin Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $223,391 504 6/22/2006 Dublin Ca Alameda Other outside force damage 0 0 $1,845,651 672 6/10/2006 El paso Tx El paso Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $557 84 6/9/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $520 0 5/26/2006 Long beach Ca Los angeles Incorrect operation 0 0 $32,937 1,134 5/21/2006 Rocklin Ca Placer All other causes 0 0 $50,512 168 5/16/2006 Deming Nm Luna Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $5,142 84 4/30/2006 Concord Ca Contra costa Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $499,493 3,234 3/17/2006 El paso Tx El paso Material/weld/equip failure 0 0 $25,093 42 3/13/2006 Tucson Az Pima Incorrect operation 0 0 $173 0 1/27/2006 Portland Or Multnomah Corrosion 0 0 $30,145 84 Totals 0 0 $11,783,130 86,814 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 856 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 857 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 858 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 859 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 860 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date: 06/09/2016 Subject: CONSIDER Department responses to the Pipeline Safety Report and DIRECT staff on next steps. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, Department: Conservation & Development Referral No.: 15 Referral Name: Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Program Presenter: Carrie Ricci, Department of Public Works, and John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development Contact: Carrie Ricci (925)313-2235 Referral History: At the April meeting of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC), Michael Kent, Executive Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission presented the Pipeline Safety Report that was developed by the Pipeline Safety Trust. The Hazardous Materials Commission supported seven of the nine recommendations moving forward. TWIC directed staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works to review the recommendations and report on how they could be implemented within the County. Referral Update: On May 23, 2016 staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works met with staff from the Office of Emergency Services, Health Services, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District to discuss the following recommendations, what is currently being performed and any additional steps that can be taken to improve in these areas. Recommendation: Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems. Response: The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District review development applications to determine based on the size of the development whether a second access is required. Access requirements are determined by the Contra Costa County Fire Code. Recommendation: Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and Page 1 of 4Print Agenda Item 8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 861 the Iron Horse Corridor where a single pipeline crossing road is the only access for numerous homes and facilities with the goal of creating public accessibility across these “dead-end” neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services. Response: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is in the preliminary phase of developing evacuation maps for neighborhoods on the west side of the trail in the Danville area. They have requested feedback from the Danville Police Department and will look at the Alamo area next. The information will be incorporated into a mailer and is anticipated to be sent to residents in fiscal year 2016-17. In some emergency situations, Shelter in Place may be the most appropriate option. Recommendation: Ensure the County has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline rights of way. Response: The County has current maps that show property lines and utility easements. Staff continues to work with the utilities and property owners to address encroachments. Recommendation: Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach (especially along the Iron Horse Trail Corridor), and resources to work in close coordination with other related departments and advisory groups. Response: The Public Works Department has a single staff contact for the corridor who is the Iron Horse Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager works with the utilities, County Survey staff and property owners to address right of way questions. The Corridor Manager interacts with other departments to address corridor concerns and attends advisory committee meetings, as needed to share information with the community. The Department has contacts with all of the utilities and the State Fire Marshal so they can provide expertise, as needed. Recommendation: Request appropriate staff conducts an analysis of all congregate facilities located in close proximity to transmission pipelines. Work with other emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-specific considerations. Response: The Fire District and Health Services discussed working with Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) to develop a fact sheet to send to the congregate facilities that describes what to consider regarding pipelines when they’re developing their emergency plans. The term congregate will need to be further defined to determine what facilities would receive this information. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has an evacuation video developed for this type of scenario that has been promoted to surrounding jurisdictions. Recommendation: Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachments including review of setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff, so that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines. Response: The County has clear policies that prevent encroachments. Property owners and contractors are required to apply for a permit to access and/or perform work in the Iron Horse Corridor. The Public Works Department is looking into different methods to communicate this information to property owners adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor, such as informational letters Page 2 of 4Print Agenda Item 8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 862 that remind residents of the corridor property lines, utilities in the corridor and the requirement to call Underground Service Alert when digging. Other possibilities include Board of Supervisors email communication and markers in the corridor designating the property line in various locations. The County and cities along the corridor have setback requirements in place. Utilities companies, specifically Kinder Morgan routinely clears vegetation over their easement. When property owners apply for a setback variance the application may go to the appropriate municipal advisory committee for review and a recommendation. Recommendation: Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa County Zoning code 82.2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be subject to land use regulations. Consider additional ordinances pertaining to zoning and land use that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Response: The Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Open Space, and Safety elements of the County General Plan contain references to pipelines that transport hazardous materials. The Land Use and Safety elements also contain policies, though they are few and their nature is more suggestive than directive. Because the County does not always have jurisdiction over pipeline projects, amending the General Plan to add goals and policies pertaining directly to pipeline development may have limited value. However, adding policies addressing the relationship of other land uses to pipelines could be useful. Examples of such policies could include, but not be limited to: •Discouraging placement of uses and facilities which primarily house or serve vulnerable or sensitive populations (elderly, ill, children, etc.) within X feet of a hazardous materials pipeline right-of-way. •Requiring deed notifications for all newly subdivided lots within X feet of a hazardous materials pipeline right-of-way. •Encouraging new buildings to be located away from hazardous materials pipeline rights-of- way when such design flexibility exists on the project site. Ordinance Code Section 82-2.010 currently states that pipelines are exempt from the County’s zoning regulations. However, on May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to Section 82-2.010 clarifying that pipelines are subject to Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials. The amendment becomes effective 30 days after adoption. Staff believes the Ordinance Code provides for proper review of pipelines and sees no compelling need for additional regulation of pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Statutory exemptions exist for replacement/modification of pipelines and often these activities take place under order from a federal or state agency. Pursuant to Chapter 84-63, pipeline projects located more than 300 feet from residential or commercial properties are not “development projects” and therefore do not require a land use permit. If a pipeline is located Page 3 of 4Print Agenda Item 8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 863 within 300 feet of such properties and has a hazard score[1]of 80 or higher, then a land use permit is required and an environmental review will be performed. The Transportation Risk component of hazard scoring rates pipelines as the preferred method for transporting hazardous materials, relative to truck, rail, and marine vessels. Discouraging pipeline development through unnecessary regulation could have the unintended consequence of incentivizing the use of less safe transportation methods, especially since increasing the frequency of truck, rail or vessel deliveries typical would not require a County review. [1]The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project-specific risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses): Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER Department responses to the Pipeline Safety Report and DIRECT staff on next steps. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Page 4 of 4Print Agenda Item 8/2/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=25885&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 864 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date: 08/11/2016 Subject: CONSIDER report summarizing the Pipeline Safety Trust Report and DIRECT staff to submit the full report to the Board of Supervisors for consideration Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Department: Public Works Referral No.: 15 Referral Name: Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Program Presenter: Carrie Ricci, PWD and John Cunningham, DCD Contact: Carrie Ricci (925)313-2235 and John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: The Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) was awarded a Technical Assistance Grant by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The grant included pipeline safety public outreach and education, and training for local first responders, and outreach regarding the 811 Call Before You Dig Program. The grant period was from October 2014 through September 2015. AIA contracted with the Pipeline Safety Trust in 2015 to provide services intended to educate and inform the community about hazardous liquid pipelines and pipeline safety. The contract included presentation at two community workshops in June 2015 and the production of a report. The report, Pipeline Safety in Alamo, and surrounding areas within Contra Costa County, California (the Report) is attached as Appendix A and includes a summary of the work completed and recommendations. The Hazardous Materials Commission reviewed the Report at their January 2016 and April 2016 meetings. The Planning and Policy Development Committee of the Hazardous Materials Commission reviewed the Report and recommendations at their October 2015, December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016 meetings. At the January 2016 meeting, the Commission agreed that 7 of the recommendations contained in the report merit further consideration by the Board of Supervisors. Michael Kent, Executive Assistant to the Hazardous Materials Commission summarized the Hazardous Materials Commission’s discussion and the recommendations at the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure (TWIC) Committee Meeting on April 14, 2016. The April 14, 2016 TWIC report is attached as Appendix B. At the April 14, 2016 TWIC meeting, staff from the Departments of Conservation and Development and Public Works were directed to review the recommendations and report on how they could be implemented within the County. On May 23, 2016 staff from Conservation and Development, Public Works, the Office of Emergency Services, Health Services, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District met to Page 1 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 865 discuss the recommendations, what is currently being performed and any additional steps that can be taken to improve in these areas. Staff reported back to TWIC on June 9, 2016. The June 9, 2016 TWIC report is attached as Appendix C. At that meeting staff were directed to bring a comprehensive report back to TWIC with an update on how we are implementing the recommendations of the Pipeline Safety Report, what we’re currently doing or have planned for each of the recommendations, and what other Counties with hazardous materials pipelines are doing regarding land use restrictions for pipelines located near congregate facilities. Referral Update: Below are the recommendations from the Report’s Executive Summary, what the County currently does and what additional steps can be taken. The Federal Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Could: • Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to the public. • Adopt regulations to implement the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management requirements for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. • Adopt stronger regulations requiring automated valves consistent with the NTSB recommendations. • Adopt stronger regulations that require better leak detection systems in hazardous liquid pipelines that could affect high consequence areas, and provide a clear performance standard for computational pipeline monitoring systems. Response: When the County has an opportunity to provide input on state and federal legislation, the County may take a position and provide comments to the appropriate agency. The Public Works Department sent the report to PHMSA on August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration. The State of California Could: • Enforce excavation damage prevention laws. Currently authority is held with the Attorney General’s office, but there is not adequate staffing or resources to respond to notifications of alleged violations or to investigate. Other agencies respond on a fragmented basis depending on the damaged utility involved. • Work with the California Department of Education (CDE) on ways to implement CDE’s suggestions for reducing the probability of a pipeline product release on schools, and reducing the severity and consequences of pipeline releases on schools. Response: When the County has an opportunity to provide input on state and federal legislation, the County may take a position and provide comments to the appropriate agency. The Public Works Department sent the report to the State Attorney General and Department of Education on August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration. The California Office of the State Fire Marshal Could: • Make their maps, incident and inspection information accessible to the public by posting it online. • Make information about a pipeline’s High Consequence Area designation easily available to the public. • Adopt regulations to implement the NTSB recommendations regarding needed improvements to the Integrity Management requirements that apply to intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines. Page 2 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 866 • Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines requiring automated valves that apply to hazardous liquid pipelines along the lines of the NTSB recommendations. • Adopt stronger regulations for intrastate pipelines that require better leak detection systems in high consequence areas, and that provide a clear performance standard for computational pipeline monitoring systems. Response: The Public Works Department sent the report to the Office of the State Fire Marshal on August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration. The California Department of Education Could: • Expand School Site Pipeline Risk Analysis and the Potential Pipeline Hazard Mitigation/Management guidance in coordination with emergency response agencies to offer help for schools that already exist in close proximity to pipelines. Lead coordination efforts among the myriad of agencies that offer crisis planning assistance to schools, and suggest minimum information that should be included in these plans regarding pipelines. Response: The Public Works Department sent the report to the California Department of Education on August 2, 2016 for their review and consideration. The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Could: • Ensure the single staff point-of-contact for citizens with concerns about multiple utility issues and right of way questions has technical training on safety concerns, adequate resources to conduct regular and broad community outreach (especially along the Iron Horse Trail Corridor), and resources to work in close coordination with other related departments and advisory groups. Response: The Public Works Department has a single staff contact[1]for the corridor who is the Iron Horse Corridor Manager. The Corridor Manager works with the utilities, County Survey staff and property owners to address right of way questions. The Corridor Manager interacts with other departments to address corridor concerns and attends advisory committee meetings, as needed to share information with the community. The Department has contacts with all of the utilities and the State Fire Marshal so they can provide expertise, as needed. The Iron Horse Corridor utility contacts are posted on the Iron Horse Corridor website. [1]http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor • Request appropriate staff conduct an analysis of all congregate facilities located in close proximity to transmission pipelines. Work with other emergency response agencies to develop a list of resources for emergency and evacuation planning expertise for congregate facilities near pipelines that include potential hazards from a pipeline incident, and mitigation strategies for those hazards based on site-specific considerations. Response: The Fire District and Health Services will work with Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) to develop a fact sheet to send to the congregate facilities that describes what to consider regarding pipelines when they’re developing their emergency plans. Page 3 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 867 The term congregate will need to be further defined to determine what facilities would receive this information. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has an evacuation video developed for this type of scenario that has been promoted to surrounding jurisdictions. • Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82.2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be subject to land use regulations. Consider additional ordinances pertaining to zoning and land use that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Response: The Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Open Space, and Safety elements of the County General Plan contain references to pipelines that transport hazardous materials. The Land Use and Safety elements also contain policies, though they are few and their nature is more suggestive than directive. Because the County does not always have jurisdiction over pipeline projects, amending the General Plan to add goals and policies pertaining directly to pipeline development may have limited value. However, adding policies addressing the relationship of other land uses to pipelines could be useful. Examples of such policies could include, but not be limited to: •Discouraging placement of uses and facilities which primarily house or serve vulnerable or sensitive populations (elderly, ill, children, etc.) within X feet of a hazardous materials pipeline right-of-way. •Requiring deed notifications for all newly subdivided lots within X feet of a hazardous materials pipeline right-of-way. •Encouraging new buildings to be located away from hazardous materials pipeline rights-of- way when such design flexibility exists on the project site. Ordinance Code Section 82-2.010 currently states that pipelines are exempt from the County’s zoning regulations. However, on May 24, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to Section 82-2.010 clarifying that pipelines are subject to Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials. The amendment becomes effective 30 days after adoption. Staff believes the Ordinance Code provides for proper review of pipelines and sees no compelling need for additional regulation of pipeline construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Statutory exemptions exist for replacement/modification of pipelines and often these activities take place under order from a federal or state agency. Pursuant to Chapter 84-63, pipeline projects located more than 300 feet from residential or commercial properties are not “development projects” and therefore do not require a land use permit. If a pipeline is located within 300 feet of such properties and has a hazard score [2]f 80 or higher, then a land use permit is required and an environmental review will be performed. The Transportation Risk component of the hazard scoring rates pipelines as the preferred method for transporting hazardous materials relative to truck, rail, and marine vessel. Page 4 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 868 Discouraging pipeline development through unnecessary regulation could have the unintended consequence of incentivizing the use of less safe transportation methods, especially since increasing the frequency of truck, rail or vessel deliveries typical would not require a County review. [2] The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project- specific risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses): Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3). • Adopt clear policies and deterrents regarding preventing encroachments including review of setback variances by municipal advisory councils or committees and department staff, so that properties and vegetation along utility corridors do not encroach on pipelines. Response: The County has clear policies that prevent encroachments. Property owners and contractors are required to apply for a permit to access and/or perform work in the Iron Horse Corridor. The Public Works Department is looking into different methods to communicate this information to property owners adjacent to the Iron Horse Corridor, such as informational letters that remind residents of the corridor property lines, utilities in the corridor and the requirement to call Underground Service Alert when digging. Other possibilities include Board of Supervisors email communication and markers in the corridor designating the property line in various locations. The County and cities along the corridor have setback requirements in place. Utilities companies, specifically Kinder Morgan routinely clears vegetation over their easement. When property owners apply for a setback variance the application may go to the appropriate municipal advisory committee for review and a recommendation. • Work in coordination with pipeline operators to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plans (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. Response: The Hazardous Materials Commission discussed this recommendation and did not support it. The Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Could: • Consider adding goals and policies regarding pipelines to the General Plan, and amending Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-2.010 so that all gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines would be subject to (and not exempt from) the General and Land Use District regulations (divisions 82 and 84). Consider additional ordinance(s) pertaining to zoning and land use permitting for hazardous liquid pipelines and possibly also intrastate gas transmission pipelines that are proposed for construction, replacement, modification, or abandonment. Response: See response to the same recommendation under Board of Supervisors Page 5 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 869 recommendations. • Review all development applications for opportunities to improve existing ingress/egress where currently limited, and where possible, include conditions on approvals to improve connectivity and avoid exacerbation of access problems. Response: The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and San Ramon Valley Fire District review development applications to determine based on the size of the development whether a second access is required. Access requirements are determined by the Contra Costa County Fire Code. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department Could: • Expand the scope of the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman and the Hazardous Materials Commission regarding pipelines to provide an ongoing review of pipeline operators’ emergency plans and an active role in possible county efforts regarding additional coordinated technical review of pipeline integrity management planning. Response: The Hazardous Materials Commission discussed this recommendation and did not support it. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department Could: • Plan emergency evacuation ingress/egress for areas in Alamo west of Danville Boulevard and the Iron Horse Corridor where a single east-west pipeline crossing road is the only access for numerous homes and facilities (e.g., Hemme Road, Camille Road) with the goal of creating public accessibility across these ‘dead-end’ neighborhoods that necessitate crossing the pipeline to access any services. Response: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is in the preliminary phase of developing evacuation maps for neighborhoods on the west side of the trail in the Danville area. They have requested feedback from the Danville Police Department and will look at the Alamo area next. The information will be incorporated into a mailer and is anticipated to be sent to residents in fiscal year 2016-17. In some emergency situations, Shelter in Place may be the most appropriate option. • Ensure the county has complete and accurate records of corridor and right of way locations and widths. Continue to coordinate with Kinder Morgan and other utilities on resolution of encroachments into pipeline rights of way. Response: The County has current maps that show property lines and utility easements. Staff continues to work with the utilities and property owners to address encroachments. The Contra Costa County Office of Public Education and Local School Districts Could: Page 6 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 870 • Expand emergency preparedness resources to include information about pipelines and pipeline-specific risks. Assist individual schools in developing crisis plans and emergency preparedness plans that include pipelines on the emergency maps and assess how ingress/egress may be affected by a pipeline incident. Response: As stated in the previous response, CAER will include pipeline information in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools which can be used to prepare school site specific emergency preparedness plans. The Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Group Could: • Include specific reference to oil and gas pipeline in the list of potential hazards listed in the hazard assessment in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools. Response: CAER will address this in the next update to the Model Emergency Plan for Schools. Pipeline Operators Could: • Reach out to the schools along pipeline easements and offer to provide technical assistance assessing pipeline risks and evacuation strategies given possible incidents that could occur in close proximity to the schools. • Consistently undertake assessments of existing Right of Way encroachments to determine whether there are safety implications. Coordinate with Contra Costa County to resolve encroachments with neighboring property owners. • Become members of the Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response Group, and participate consistently in quarterly meetings and responses. • Contract for an independent technical seismic vulnerability study on HCA pipelines affected by potentially active faults to feed into the pipeline risk analysis, and make the study available to the public. • Work in coordination with the Board of Supervisors to develop a technical advisory body that can review the integrity management plan (similar to the Santa Barbara County System Safety Reliability Review Committee) and other technical assessments of the pipelines in order to cultivate informed technical expertise in the county and increase public trust and awareness. As stated in the TWIC report dated April 14, 2016, the Hazardous Materials Commission did not support this recommendation. Response: The Public Works Department sent the report on August 2, 2016 to all of the pipeline operators that have franchise agreements with Contra Costa County for their review and consideration. Local Fire Districts Could: • Designate a single point-of-contact to coordinate with pipeline operators, familiarize themselves with the operators’ emergency response and spill response plans, know the facilities where people congregate (schools, churches, hospitals, nursing facilities, etc.) in close proximity to the pipeline, and be involved with any emergency planning done by those facilities. Page 7 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 871 Response: The local Fire Districts will coordinate pipeline operators as determined by each local agency, to exchange information regarding emergency response plans. Local Fire Districts will support facilities located in close proximity to the pipeline with emergency planning resources when requested by the facility administrator. At the June TWIC meeting the Committee directed staff to research how other Counties are restricting or managing pipelines. Below is a sample of policies from Sonoma, Solano, San Joaquin, Kern, and Sacramento Counties: Sonoma County: 1.County Zoning Ordinance section 29-7– requires a consolidated permit to store or handle hazardous materials. Consolidated permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall be valid for 3 years. Facilities must submit updated information and fees annually. 2.General Plan Public Facilities and services element, Policy PF-2T – Review proposals for new transmission lines or acquisition of easements for new transmission lines for consistency with GP. Request wherever feasible that such facilities not be located within designated community separators or biotic resource areas. Give priority to the use of existing utility corridors over new ones. 3.General Plan Open Space and Resource Conservation Element – Review and condition proposed natural gas wells through use permit process. Solano County: 1.County Zoning Ordinance Section 28.78.20 (B) (8) Pipeline… inside of R.O.W.- Public utility, electric, gas, water, oil, and telephone transmission and distribution lines shall be permitted in any district without the necessity of first obtaining a use permit; provided, that maps showing proposed routes of such heights and right-of-way widths, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission, and routes mutually acceptable to the Planning Commission and utility agencies concerned shall be determined in writing prior to acquisition of any rights-of-way. Each transmission line route proposal submitted in accordance herewith shall be accompanied by a fee or fees as may be set by the Board of Supervisors by resolution pursuant to Section 11-111 of this Code. No part of such fee shall be refundable. 2.County Zoning Ordinance Section 28.78.20 (B) (9) Pipeline… outside of R.O.W.- All utility accessory uses and structures for transmission or distribution of electricity, gas, water, oil, gasoline, telephone, television or other utility services may be permitted in any district. Utility accessory uses and structures include, but are not limited to, compression, drying, regeneration stations, substations, or pumping stations. 3.County General Plan Resources Element, Policy RSP-55 – Require responsible extraction, storage and transportation of natural gas resources that minimize impacts on the environment. San Joaquin County: 1.Zoning Ordinance Section 9-1155.2(b)Location for Underground Facilities - Underground distribution facilities for public utilities shall be located in a public right-of-way or public utility easement. No public utility distribution facilities shall be located outside a public right-of-way or public utility easement except in providing service to the parcel on which they are located. 2. General Plan Vol 3, Ch. 2. Section D, pages 35-36 – Policies on oil and natural gas lines – Concerns over the hazardous nature of the product being transported require pipeline systems be constantly monitored and accessible. Major pipelines, particularly pumped systems, require periodic control centers which function as monitoring stations as well as flow regulation and service access points. Physical access to the system is assured through dedicated R.O.W. and visual inspection of the system over difficult terrain is accomplished Page 8 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 872 by aerial patrolling….A major source of natural gas within the county is in the form of several local gas fields. Pipes conveying gas after odorizing and dehydration at source vary from 4”-12” in diameter. The operation of these fields is undertaken by private concerns with PG&E contracting to buy and distribute… The design and operation guidelines of such systems is subject to conformity with CPUC General Order #112D. Kern County: 1.County Ordinance Chapter 19.98 – Oil and Gas Production – Oil and gas activities in the County are divided into 5 tier areas. •Tier 1 Area is defined as all areas in which oil and gas activity is the primary land use. The existing well and activity densities preclude almost all other uses except for passive uses such as grazing. • Tier 2 Area is defined as all areas that are classified exclusive agriculture (A) or limited agriculture (A-1) districts, have agriculture as the primary surface land use, and are not included in Tier 1. • Tier 3 Area is defined as other areas not within a Tier 1 Area that are located in one (1) of the following zone districts: Natural resources, recreational forestry, light industrial, medium industrial, heavy industrial, floodplain primary, drilling island, petroleum extraction combining districts • Tier 4 Area is defined as areas not within Tier 1, 2, or 3, that include at least one (1) of the following zone districts: estate, low/med/high density residential, commercial zoning districts, mobile home park • Tier 5 are areas including all current and future specific plan boundaries either adopted with a Special Planning (SP) District or which include specific provisions for oil and gas operations. Oil or gas exploration and production activities would be allowed with a conditional use permit or as permitted by the regulations contained within the adopted specific plan in Tier 5 areas. Ministerial permits for tiers 1,2,3, 5 available after applying for oil and gas conformity review or minor activity review (applies only to first 3,647 new well permits in a calendar year, 3,648th such permit requires conditional use permit) Conditional use permit required for tier 4. *Pipelines subject to Minor activity review, no conditional use permit required Sacramento County: 1.County Zoning Ordinance Section 301-13 – If not otherwise authorized as a permitted or conditional use... in this code, the project planning commission may, after public hearings…, permit a public utility or public service use as a conditional use in any zone if the commission determines that the use is necessary for the public health, convenience, safety, or public welfare. 2.County Zoning Ordinance Section 301-19 – Oil and/or gas sites proposed to be developed on either industrial or agriculturally zoned land shall not be located within 1000 feet of the boundary of property zoned for residential, interim residential, interim estate, or recreational purposes. Additionally, no proposed oil and/or gas well site shall be located within 300 feet of a structure used for human habitation. 3.General Plan Public Facilities Element Policy PF-112 – New natural gas wells are subject to permitting process as regulated by the State Conservation Department, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal resources, as well as Sacramento County Zoning Code 301-19 4.General Plan Public Facilities Element Policy PF-113 – Route new gas mains within existing railway and electric transmission corridors, along collector roads and, whenever possible, within existing easements. If not feasible, gas mains shall be placed as close to easements as possible. Page 9 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 873 [1]http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/413/Iron-Horse-Corridor [2]The hazard score is calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 and represents a project- specific risk assessment based on the following factors (possible points for each factor are indicated in parentheses): Transportation Risk (0-10); Community Risk – Distance from Receptor (1-30); Community Risk – Type of Receptor (4-7); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Total Amount Change in Tons; 0-30); Facility Risk – Size of Project (Percentage Change; 0-6); and Hazard Category of Material or Waste (1-3). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report summarizing the Pipeline Safety Trust Report and staff reports in response to the recommendations, and DIRECT staff to submit the full report to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Fiscal Impact (if any): No fiscal impact. Attachments-Y Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Page 10 of 10Print Agenda Item 9/7/2016http://64.166.146.245/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=26664&rev_num=0&mode=External&reloaded=true&id= September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 874 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 875 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 876 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 877 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 878 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 879 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with ECS Imaging, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $307,908, to implement Laserfiche, an electronic records content management system, for the period of October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract will be funded by various Public Works funds, including the General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is heavily reliant on paper records, such as: project files, as-built maps, flood control maps, and road right-of-way maps. Currently these records are stored physically, but can be difficult or tedious to find. The Department has developed the following priorities and long-term goals regarding records storage: Create a consistent process for management of electronic documents; Generate less paper; Replace at-risk data assets (such as paper, microfilm, vellum) with electronic versions; APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Carrie Ricci, (925) 313-2235 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE a contract with ECS Imaging, Inc. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 880 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Develop workflows for efficiency; Implement a records retention policy; and Provide a public portal for records access. On May 1, 2014, the Public Works Department entered into a contract with ECS to conduct a preliminary needs assessment for the Department, develop a Project Plan based on the findings from the needs assessment, and implementation of Laserfiche for two Department Divisions (Capital Projects and Maintenance). The Department then entered into a contract that focused on implementation of the Project Plan for the thirteen additional divisions, upgrading the existing Laserfiche software and purchase of 100 additional licenses and annual support. When the Public Works Department selected ECS Imaging, Inc. in 2014, the Department had recently merged with the General Services Department which was on a different computer network and not included in the Laserfiche implementation. Now that all former General Services divisions are on the Public Works network we are entering into a contract with ECS to implement Laserfiche within those divisions. We will have the same ECS Imaging project manager who is working with each division to ensure consistency in how we manage records department wide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval of the contract, Public Works will continue to be heavily reliant on paper records. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 881 RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the Annual Report on Revolving and Cash Difference Funds, Overage Fund, and Shortages for fiscal year 2015/2016. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Provisions of Government Code Sections 29321.1 and 29370.1 and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 92/525 authorize the County Auditor-Controller to establish, increase, reduce, or discontinue Revolving Funds and Cash Difference Funds. Provisions of Government Code Sections 29380.1 and 29390.1 and Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 83/1062 authorize the County Auditor-Controller to replenish the Cash Difference Funds and to transfer money in the Overage Fund to the General Fund. With respect to those authorities and to conform with Government Code Sections 29321.1, 29370.1, 29380.1, and 29390.1, the County Auditor-Controller submits this report showing the officers and details of the balances of the Revolving and Cash Difference Funds, Overage Fund, and Shortages for fiscal year 2015/2016. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County Auditor-Controller would not comply with Government Code Sections 29321.1, 29370.1, 29380.1, and 29390.1. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Joanne Bohren, 925-335-8640 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept Annual Report on Revolving and Cash Difference Funds, Overage Fund, and Shortages for fiscal year 2015/2016 from the County Auditor-Controller September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 882 ATTACHMENTS 2015-2016 Report on Revolving and Cash Difference Funds, Overages, Shortages September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 883 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 884 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 885 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 886 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 887 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 888 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the demolition projects located at 3939 Bissell Avenue, Richmond and 343 Rodeo Avenue, Rodeo (Project No. WLP130 & WLP131, DCD-CP#16-44), and DETERMINE the projects are a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 1(l) and Class 12 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 (l) and Section 15312 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 Department of Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% General Fund BACKGROUND: The structures located at 3939 Bissell Avenue, Richmond, were previously leased to Ujima Family Recovery Services, a non-profit APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Jewel Lopez, (925) 313-2337 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve Demolition of 3939 Bissell Avenue, Richmond and 343 Rodeo Avenue, Rodeo and Related Actions Under CEQA September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 889 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) agency dedicated to helping families recover from alcoholism, drug addiction and behavioral health problems. In 2014 Ujima relocated and the structures have been vacant. On August 15, 2016, a fire occurred due to trespassers. The structures have since been red tagged and have now become a health and safety issue. General Plan Conformance was obtained from the City of Richmond. The structure located at 343 Rodeo Avenue in Rodeo, also known as the Rodeo Veterans Memorial Building, has been vacant since the War Memorial Hall Association terminated the lease on November 18, 2008. Due to significant damages throughout the interior and flooding in the basement, County staff recommends demolishing the building. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The structures will continue to be a health and safety issue due to their deteriorating conditions and the County would continue to own and maintain these structures. ATTACHMENTS CEQA, 3939 Bissell & 343 Rodeo Maps, 3939 Bissell & 343 Rodeo September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 890 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 891 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 892 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 893 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 894 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 895 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 896 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 897 RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to issue vendor payment and reimburse employees for expenses incurred upon the approval of the County Administrator not to exceed $5,000 per request. FISCAL IMPACT: Any expenses incurred will be absorbed by the operating department. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an action authorizing "the Auditor-Controller to reimburse employees for expenses incurred at the request of the County Administrator not to exceed $500". The County Administrator has been using the authority of the December 15, 1992 Board order since that date. The Auditor-Controller reviewed his practices and asked the County Administrator's Office to request new authority making it clear that the $500 was for each incident and not intended to be cumulative. Upon review staff confirmed that, although infrequently, employees and departments do still submit demands to the Auditor-Controller for expenses that are not explicitly authorized by existing County policy. These exceptions occur because policies can't be written to account for every possible business and/or public purpose. Therefore, the County Administrator is requesting special authority to approve exceptional expenses upon his signature (without designation) for any expense that may occur, up to $5,000 per incident. This approval is meant to carryover year-to-year with no specified annual maximum reimbursement/payment. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, County Auditor-Controller C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Reimbursement and Payment for Expenses September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 898 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, individual board orders will have to be written and approved for each reimbursement/payment. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 899 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/530 approving the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") by the California Public Finance Authority (the "CalPFA") in an amount not to exceed $17,000,000 for the benefit of Willowbrook Affordable Communities, L.P., or a partnership created by Islas Development LLC (the "Developer"), to provide financing for the costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a multifamily housing development commonly known as Willowbrook Apartments, a 72-unit residential rental housing development located at 110 Bailey Road, Bay Point, California (the "Development"). Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the public approval requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and following). FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the General Fund. The County will be reimbursed for any costs incurred in the process of conducting the TEFRA hearing. The CalPFA will issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the Developer. Repayment of the bonds is solely the responsibility of the Developer. BACKGROUND: Islas Development LLC (the "Developer") requested the County conduct a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) hearing for the California Public Finance Authority (CalPFA) issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $17,000,000 to be used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: Kara Douglas, 925-674-7880 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds - Willowbrook, Bay Point September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 900 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) improvement and equipping of a multifamily housing development commonly known as Willowbrook Apartments, a 72-unit residential rental housing development located at 110 Bailey Road, Bay Point, California (the "Development"). A TEFRA hearing must be held by an elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project is located in order for all or a portion of the Bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Development. The County is a member of CalPFA and qualifies as an elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the area where the project is located. On July 18, 2016, the County's Community Development Bond Manager held a hearing for the Development. On August 9, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 2016/474 acknowledging that a public hearing was held for the issuance of $12,000,000 for the Development. The Developer has since requested that a second public hearing be held to increase the amount of the potential bond issuance from $12,000,000 to $17,000,000. The main purpose of the proposed Resolution is to acknowledge that a public hearing was held by the County's Community Development Bond Program Manager on September 12, 2016, where members of the community were given an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of $17,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the Development. No public comments were received. A notice of the hearing was published in the East Bay Times (proof of publication attached) on August 29, 2016. The County's only role in this transaction was to hold the TEFRA hearing. Additional actions related to the bond issuance will be the responsibility of CalPFA. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action would prevent CalPFA from providing tax-exempt financing for the Developer's Willowbrook Apartments project in Bay Point. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Willowbrook Apartments provide 72 units of affordable rental housing appropriate for families. This supports outcome #3: Families are Economically Self Sufficient. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/530 Proof of Publication MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/530 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 901 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/530 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $17,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF WILLOWBROOK APARTMENTS AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, Willowbrook Affordable Communities, L.P. or a partnership created by Islas Development, LLC (the “Developer”), consisting at least of the Developer or a related person to the Developer and one or more limited partners, has requested that the California Public Finance Authority (the “Authority”) participate in the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such revenue bonds in one or more series from time to time, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $17,000,000 (the “Bonds”) for the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a 72-unit multifamily rental housing project located at 110 Bailey Road, Bay Point, California, generally known as Willowbrook Apartments (the “Project”) and operated by Logan Property Management, Inc.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the County of Contra Costa (the "County") because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the County; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board of Supervisors”) is the elected legislative body of the County and is the applicable elected representative under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the Board of Supervisors approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 12 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Public Finance Authority, dated as of May 12, 2015 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the Board of Supervisors has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors understands that its actions in holding this public hearing and in approving this Resolution do not obligate the County in any manner for payment of the principal, interest, fees or any other costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds, and said Board of Supervisors expressly conditions its approval of this Resolution on that understanding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa as follows: Section 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purposes of financing the Project. It is the purpose and intent of the Board of Supervisors that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 12 of the Agreement. 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 902 Section 12 of the Agreement. Section 2. The officers of the Board of Supervisors are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and execute and deliver any and all documents, certificates and other instruments which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. Any actions heretofore taken by such officers are hereby ratified and approved. Section 3. The Board of Supervisors expressly conditions its approval of this Resolution on its understanding that the County shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay any principal, interest, fees or any other costs associated with the Authority's issuance of the Loan for the financing of the Project. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its passage and approval. Contact: Kara Douglas, 925-674-7880 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 903 C.64 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 904 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 905 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 906 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2016/555 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Walnut Creek School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016)" in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 by the Walnut Creek School District on its own behalf pursuant to Section 15140(b) of the Education Code, as recommended by the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Walnut Creek School District intends to issue General Obligation bonds to fund capital improvements throughout the District. The District has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution authorizing the direct issuance and sale of bonds by the District on its own behalf as authorized by Section 15140(b) of the Education Code. The District adopted a resolution on September 19, 2016 authorizing the sale and issuance of the bonds (copy attached). This issuance was approved by the voters as part of a $60,000,000 bond measure listed on the June 7, 2016 ballot. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Walnut Creek School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 907 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the School District would not be able to issue the bonds as proposed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following Children's Report Card outcome: Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2016/555 Resolution No. 2016/555 District Resolution MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2016/555 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 908 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: John Gioia Candace Andersen Mary N. Piepho Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/555 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONSENTING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES A (2016) ON ITS OWN BEHALF RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of Contra Costa County (the “County”), State of California: WHEREAS, sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code, including section 53508.7 thereof, provide that California public school district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at private sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code the Education Code; WHEREAS, section 15140(b) of the California Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of county may authorize California public school district in the county to issue and sell its own bonds without the further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county; WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Creek School District (the “District”), a California public school district under the jurisdiction of the County, has heretofore adopted and filed with the Clerk of this Board, a resolution (the “2016A Bond Resolution”) providing for the issuance and sale of its Walnut Creek School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “2016A Bonds”), by competitive sale pursuant to sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, it has been requested on behalf of the District that this Board consent to such issuance of the 2016A Bonds and authorize the District to issue and sell the 2016A Bonds by competitive sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Consent and Authorization of Negotiated Sale. This Board hereby consents to and authorizes the issuance and negotiated sale by the District on its own behalf of the 2016A Bonds pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code, as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms and conditions set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution. This consent and authorization set forth herein shall only apply to the 2016A Bonds. Section 3. Source of Payment. The County acknowledges receipt of the 2016A Bond Resolution as adopted and the requests made by the District to levy collect and distribute ad valorem tax revenues pursuant to section 15250 et seq. of the California Education Code to pay for principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when and if sold. Correspondingly, and subject to the issuance and sale of the 2016A Bonds and transmittal of information concerning the debt service requirements thereof to the appropriate County officers, there shall be levied by the County on all of the taxable property in the District in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem tax annually during the period the 2016A Bonds are outstanding commencing with fiscal year 2016-17 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when due which tax revenues 5 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 909 fiscal year 2016-17 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when due which tax revenues when collected will be placed in the Interest and Sinking Fund of the District, as defined in the 2016A Bond Resolution, which Interest and Sinking Fund has been irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when and as the same fall due. The monies in the Interest and Sinking Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent, as defined in the 2016A Bond Resolution, as necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds as set out in California law and in the 2016A Bond Resolution. Section 4. Approval of Actions. Officers of the Board and County officials and staff are authorized to do any and all things and are hereby authorized and directed jointly and severally to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to assist the District with the issuance of the 2016A Bonds and otherwise carry out give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers officials and staff are hereby ratified confirmed and approved. Section 5. Indemnification of County . The County acknowledges and relies upon the fact that the District has represented that it shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of this resolution, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the 2016A Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District’s resolution and that the District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. Section 6. Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither the Board nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the 2016A Bonds (the “Official Statement”) and this Board and the various officers of the County take no responsibility for the contents or distribution thereof; provided, however, that solely with respect to a section contained or to be contained therein describing the County’s investment policy, current portfolio holdings and valuation procedures, as they may relate to funds of the District held by the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the Official Statement and in a preliminary official statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the 2016A Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein in the light of the circumstances under which they are made not misleading. Section 7. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein in the 2016A Bonds or in any other document mentioned herein, neither the County nor the Board shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the 2016A Bonds shall be payable solely from the moneys of the District available therefore as set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution and herein. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy cc: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 910 C.65 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 911 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 912 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/27/2016 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2016/555 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONSENTING TO AND AUTHORIZING THE WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES A (2016) ON ITS OWN BEHALF RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of Contra Costa County (the “County”), State of California: WHEREAS, sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code, including section 53508.7 thereof, provide that California public school district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at private sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code the Education Code; WHEREAS, section 15140(b) of the California Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of county may authorize California public school district in the county to issue and sell its own bonds without the further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county; WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Creek School District (the “District”), a California public school district under the jurisdiction of the County, has heretofore adopted and filed with the Clerk of this Board, a resolution (the “2016A Bond Resolution”) providing for the issuance and sale of its Walnut Creek School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “2016A Bonds”), by competitive sale pursuant to sections 53506 et seq. of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, it has been requested on behalf of the District that this Board consent to such issuance of the 2016A Bonds and authorize the District to issue and sell the 2016A Bonds by competitive sale pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Consent and Authorization of Negotiated Sale. This Board hereby consents to and authorizes the issuance and negotiated sale by the District on its own behalf of the 2016A Bonds pursuant to sections 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code, as permitted by section 53508.7 of the California Government Code and the terms and conditions set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution. This consent and authorization set forth herein shall only apply to the 2016A Bonds. Section 3. Source of Payment. The County acknowledges receipt of the 2016A Bond Resolution as adopted and the requests made by the District to levy collect and distribute ad valorem tax revenues pursuant to section 15250 et seq. of the California Education Code to pay for principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when and if sold. Correspondingly, and subject to the issuance and sale of the 2016A Bonds and transmittal of information concerning the debt service requirements thereof to the appropriate County officers, there shall be levied by the County on all of the taxable property in the District in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem tax annually during the period the 2016A Bonds are outstanding commencing with fiscal year 2016-17 in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when due which tax revenues when collected will be placed in the Interest and Sinking Fund of the District, as defined in the 2016A Bond Resolution, which Interest and Sinking Fund has been irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds when and as the same fall due. The monies in the Interest and Sinking Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 913 interest on the 2016A Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent, as defined in the 2016A Bond Resolution, as necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the 2016A Bonds as set out in California law and in the 2016A Bond Resolution. Section 4. Approval of Actions. Officers of the Board and County officials and staff are authorized to do any and all things and are hereby authorized and directed jointly and severally to execute and deliver any and all documents which they may deem necessary or advisable in order to assist the District with the issuance of the 2016A Bonds and otherwise carry out give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution. Such actions heretofore taken by such officers officials and staff are hereby ratified confirmed and approved. Section 5. Indemnification of County . The County acknowledges and relies upon the fact that the District has represented that it shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject because of action or inaction related to the adoption of this resolution, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the 2016A Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District’s resolution and that the District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. Section 6. Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither the Board nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the 2016A Bonds (the “Official Statement”) and this Board and the various officers of the County take no responsibility for the contents or distribution thereof; provided, however, that solely with respect to a section contained or to be contained therein describing the County’s investment policy, current portfolio holdings and valuation procedures, as they may relate to funds of the District held by the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the Official Statement and in a preliminary official statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the 2016A Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein in the light of the circumstances under which they are made not misleading. Section 7. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein in the 2016A Bonds or in any other document mentioned herein, neither the County nor the Board shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the 2016A Bonds shall be payable solely from the moneys of the District available therefore as set forth in the 2016A Bond Resolution and herein. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 914 Quint & Thimmig LLP 08/08/16 09/12/16 23005.11 BOARD OF TRUSTEES WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 16-17-04 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE DISTRICT’S GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES A (2016), IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 Adopted September 19, 2016 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 915 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY Section 1.01. Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 1.02. Authority for this Resolution ............................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE II THE SERIES A BONDS Section 2.01. Authorization ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2.02. Terms of Series A Bonds ...................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2.03. Redemption ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Section 2.04. Form of Series A Bonds ........................................................................................................................ 7 Section 2.05. Execution of Series A Bonds ................................................................................................................ 7 Section 2.06. Transfer of Series A Bonds ................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2.07. Exchange of Series A Bonds ................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2.08. Bond Register ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2.09. Temporary Series A Bonds .................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2.10. Series A Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen ...................................................................... 8 Section 2.11. Book Entry System ................................................................................................................................ 9 ARTICLE III ISSUE OF SERIES A BONDS; APPLICATION OF SERIES A BOND PROCEEDS; SECURITY FOR THE SERIES A BONDS Section 3.01. Issuance, Award and Delivery of Series A Bonds .......................................................................... 11 Section 3.02. Funds and Accounts ........................................................................................................................... 11 Section 3.03. Application of Proceeds of Sale of Series A Bonds ........................................................................ 12 Section 3.04. Security for the Series A Bonds ......................................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE IV SALE OF BONDS; APPROVAL OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT; APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT Section 4.01. Sale of the Series A Bonds .................................................................................................................. 14 Section 4.02. Approval of Paying Agent Agreement ............................................................................................ 14 Section 4.03. Official Statement ................................................................................................................................ 15 Section 4.04. Official Action ...................................................................................................................................... 15 ARTICLE V OTHER COVENANTS OF THE DISTRICT Section 5.01. Punctual Payment ............................................................................................................................... 16 Section 5.02. Extension of Time for Payment ......................................................................................................... 16 Section 5.03. Protection of Security and Rights of Bondowners ......................................................................... 16 Section 5.04. Further Assurances ............................................................................................................................. 16 Section 5.05. Tax Covenants ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Section 5.06. Acquisition, Disposition and Valuation of Investments ............................................................... 17 Section 5.07. Continuing Disclosure ........................................................................................................................ 17 Section 5.08. Requirements of Section 15146(b) of the California Education Code .......................................... 17 ARTICLE VI THE PAYING AGENT Section 6.01. Appointment of Paying Agent .......................................................................................................... 18 Section 6.02. Paying Agent May Hold Series A Bonds ......................................................................................... 18 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 916 -ii- Section 6.03. Liability of Agents ............................................................................................................................... 18 Section 6.04. Notice to Agents .................................................................................................................................. 19 Section 6.05. Compensation, Indemnification ........................................................................................................ 19 ARTICLE VII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF BONDOWNERS Section 7.01. Events of Default ................................................................................................................................. 20 Section 7.02. Other Remedies of Bondowners ....................................................................................................... 20 Section 7.03. Non-Waiver .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Section 7.04. Remedies Not Exclusive ..................................................................................................................... 21 ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTIONS Section 8.01. Supplemental Resolutions Effective Without Consent of the Owners ........................................ 22 Section 8.02. Supplemental Resolutions Effective With Consent to the Owners ............................................. 22 ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.01. Benefits of Resolution Limited to Parties ......................................................................................... 23 Section 9.02. Defeasance ............................................................................................................................................ 23 Section 9.03. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Bondowners ............................................ 25 Section 9.04. Waiver of Personal Liability .............................................................................................................. 25 Section 9.05. Destruction of Canceled Series A Bonds ......................................................................................... 25 Section 9.06. Partial Invalidity .................................................................................................................................. 25 Section 9.07. Effective Date of Resolution .............................................................................................................. 25 EXHIBIT A: FORM OF SERIES A BOND EXHIBIT B: FORM OF NOTICE OF INTENTION EXHIBIT C: FORM OF NOTICE OF SALE EXHIBIT D: FORM OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E: FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT F: ESTIMATED COSTS OF ISSUANCE September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 917 BOARD OF TRUSTEES WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 16-17-04 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE DISTRICT’S GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES A (2016), IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,000 RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees (the “Board of Trustees”) of the Walnut Creek School District (the “District”), as follows: WHEREAS, a duly called special municipal election was held in the District on June 7. 2016, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law; WHEREAS, at such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty- five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to address critical renovation, modernization and safety needs at District schools, upgrade classrooms, libraries and computer networks to provide students with 21st Century classrooms, improve energy efficiency of classrooms and buildings, and replace, acquire, construct and renovate school facilities (the “Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $60,000,000 (the “Bonds”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District (the “Authorization”); WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 1, Division 1, Part 10, Chapter 2 (commencing with section 15100) of the California Education Code and Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code, the District is empowered to issue General Obligation Bonds; WHEREAS, the District wishes at this time to authorize the issuance and sale of the first series of General Obligation Bonds under the Authorization in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $20,000,000, its Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “Series A Bonds”) for the purpose of raising moneys for the Project and other authorized costs; and NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Creek School District, as follows: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 918 -2- ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS; AUTHORITY Section 1.01. Definitions. The terms defined in this Section 1.01, as used and capitalized herein, shall, for all purposes of this Resolution, have the meanings ascribed to them below, unless the context clearly requires some other meaning. “Act” means Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1, of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code, as is in effect on the date of adoption hereof and as amended hereafter. “Articles,” “Sections” and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Resolution, and the words “herein,” “hereof,” “hereunder” and other words of similar import refer to this Resolution as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. “Authorized Investments” means any investments permitted by law to be made with moneys belonging to, or in the custody of, the District, but only to the extent that the same are acquired at Fair Market Value. “Board” means the Board of Trustees of the District. “Bond Counsel” means any attorney or firm of attorneys nationally recognized for expertise in rendering opinions as to the legality and tax exempt status of securities issued by public entities. “Bond Register” means the registration books for the Series A Bonds maintained by the Paying Agent. “Closing Date” means the date upon which there is an exchange of the Series A Bonds for the proceeds representing the purchase of the Bonds by the Original Purchaser. “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on the date of issuance of the Series A Bonds or (except as otherwise referenced herein) as it may be amended to apply to obligations issued on the date of issuance of the Series A Bonds, together with applicable temporary and final regulations promulgated, and applicable official public guidance published, under the Code. “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” shall mean that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate executed by the District and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Series A Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof. “Costs of Issuance” means all items of expense directly or indirectly reimbursable to the District relating to the issuance, execution and delivery of the Series A Bonds including, but not limited to, filing and recording costs, settlement costs, printing costs, reproduction and binding costs, legal fees and charges, fees and expenses of the Paying Agent, financial and other professional consultant fees, costs of obtaining credit ratings, fees for execution, transportation and safekeeping of the Series A Bonds and charges and fees in connection with the foregoing. “County” means Contra Costa County, California. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 919 -3- “Debt Service” means the scheduled amount of interest and amortization of principal payable on the Series A Bonds during the period of computation, excluding amounts scheduled during such period which relate to principal which has been retired before the beginning of such period. “Treasurer-Tax Collector” means the County Treasurer-Tax Collector. “District Representative” means the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, or any other person authorized by resolution of the Board of Trustees of the District to act on behalf of the District with respect to this Resolution and the Series A Bonds. “Fair Market Value” means the price at which a willing buyer would purchase the investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm’s length transaction (determined as of the date the contract to purchase or sell the investment becomes binding) if the investment is traded on an established securities market (within the meaning of section 1273 of the Code) and, otherwise, the term “Fair Market Value” means the acquisition price in a bona fide arm’s length transaction (as referenced above) if (i) the investment is a certificate of deposit that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (ii) the investment is an agreement with specifically negotiated withdrawal or reinvestment provisions and a specifically negotiated interest rate (for example, a guaranteed investment contract, a forward supply contract or other investment agreement) that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (iii) the investment is a United States Treasury Security—State and Local Government Series that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Bureau of Public Debt, or (iv) any commingled investment fund in which the District and related parties do not own more than a ten percent (10%) beneficial interest therein if the return paid by the fund is without regard to the source of the investment. “Federal Securities” means United States Treasury Bonds, bills or certificates of indebtedness or those for which the faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. “Financial Advisor” means Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Inc., as financial advisor to the District in connection with the issuance of the Series A Bonds. “Interest Payment Date” means with respect to interest, March 1 and September 1 of each year commencing on March 1, 2017, and with respect to principal, September 1, of each year commencing on September 1 in such year as shall be set forth in the Notice of Sale. “Net Proceeds,” when used with reference to the Series A Bonds, means the face amount of the Series A Bonds, plus accrued interest and premium, if any, less original issue discount, if any. “Original Purchaser” means the first purchaser of the Series A Bonds from the District. “Outstanding” means, when used as of any particular time with reference to Series A Bonds, all Series A Bonds except: (a) Series A Bonds theretofore canceled by the Paying Agent or surrendered to the Paying Agent for cancellation; (b) Series A Bonds paid or deemed to have been paid within the meaning of Section 9.02 hereof; and September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 920 -4- (c) Series A Bonds in lieu of or in substitution for which other Series A Bonds shall have been authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the District pursuant to this Resolution. “Notice of Intention” means the notice of intention to be used to advertise the offering of the Series A Bonds as required by section 53692 of the California Government Code. “Notice of Sale” means the official notice of sale relating to the Series A Bonds. “Owner” or “Bondowner” mean any person who shall be the registered owner of any Outstanding Series A Bond. “Participating Underwriter” shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. “Paying Agent” means The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., the Paying Agent appointed by the District and acting as paying agent, registrar and authenticating agent for the Series A Bonds, or such other paying agent as shall be appointed by the District prior to the delivery of the Series A Bonds, its successors and assigns, and any other corporation or association which may at any time be substituted in its place, as provided in Section 6.01 hereof. “Paying Agent Agreement” means the Paying Agent/Bond Registrar/Costs of Issuance Agreement, dated the Closing Date, by and between the District and the Paying Agent. “Principal Office” means the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent in Dallas, Texas. “Record Date” means the 15th day of the month preceding each Interest Payment Date. “Regulations” means temporary and permanent regulations promulgated under the Code. “Resolution” means this Resolution, including all amendments hereto and supplements hereof which are duly adopted by the Board of Trustees from time to time in accordance herewith. “Series A Bonds” means the Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016), issued and at any time Outstanding pursuant to this Resolution. “Supplemental Resolution” means any resolution supplemental to or amendatory of this Resolution, adopted by the District in accordance with Article VIII hereof. “Term Bonds” means those Series A Bonds for which mandatory redemption dates have been established pursuant to the Notice of Sale. “Written Request of the District” means an instrument in writing signed by the District Representative or by any other officer of the District duly authorized by the District and listed on a Written Request of the District for that purpose. Section 1.02. Authority for this Resolution. This Resolution is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 921 -5- ARTICLE II THE SERIES A BONDS Section 2.01. Authorization. Series A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) are hereby authorized to be issued by the District under and subject to the terms of the Act and this Resolution. The amount of Series A Bonds shall be determined on the date of sale thereof in accordance with the Notice of Sale. This Resolution constitutes a continuing agreement with the Owners of all of the Series A Bonds issued or to be issued hereunder and then Outstanding to secure the full and final payment of principal of and the interest on all Series A Bonds which may from time to time be executed and delivered hereunder, subject to the covenants, agreements, provisions and conditions herein contained. The Series A Bonds shall be designated the “Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016).” Section 2.02. Terms of Series A Bonds. (a) Form; Numbering. The Series A Bonds shall be issued as fully registered Series A Bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, but in an amount not to exceed the aggregate principal amount of Series A Bonds maturing in the year of maturity of the Series A Bond for which the denomination is specified. Series A Bonds shall be lettered and numbered as the Paying Agent shall prescribe. (b) Date of Series A Bonds. The Series A Bonds shall be dated as of the Closing Date. (c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. “CUSIP” identification numbers shall be imprinted on the Series A Bonds, but such numbers shall not constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the Series A Bonds and any error or omission with respect thereto shall not constitute cause for refusal of any purchaser to accept delivery of and pay for the Series A Bonds. In addition, failure on the part of the District to use such CUSIP numbers in any notice to Owners of the Series A Bonds shall not constitute an Event of Default (hereinafter defined) or any violation of the District’s contract with such Owners and shall not impair the effectiveness of any such notice. (d) Maturities; Interest. The Series A Bonds shall mature (or, alternatively, be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption as hereinafter provided) and become payable on September 1 in the years and in the amounts set forth in, and subject to the alteration thereof permitted by, the Notice of Sale. The Series A Bonds shall bear interest at such rate or rates as shall be determined upon the sale thereof, payable semi-annually on each Interest Payment Date. Each Series A Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date next preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless (i) it is registered and authenticated as of an Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such date, or (ii) it is registered and authenticated prior to an Interest Payment Date and after the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding such Interest Payment Date, in which event it shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date, or (iii) it is registered and authenticated prior to February 15, 2017, in which event it shall bear interest from the date described in paragraph (b) of this Section 2.02; provided, however, that if at the time of authentication of a Series A Bond, interest is in default thereon, such Series A Bond shall bear interest from the Interest Payment Date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment thereon. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 922 -6- Interest on the Series A Bonds shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. (e) Payment. Interest on the Series A Bonds (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check of the Paying Agent mailed via first-class mail to the Owner thereof at such Owner’s address as it appears on the Bond Register on each Record Date or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an account in the United States of America to any Owner of Series A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more who shall furnish written wire instructions to the Paying Agent at least five (5) days before the applicable Record Date. Principal of the Series A Bonds is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the Principal Office. Section 2.03. Redemption. (a) Optional Redemption. The Series A Bonds maturing on and prior to September 1, 2026, are not callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date. The Series A Bonds maturing on and after September 1, 2027, are callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date at the option of the District, in whole or in part on any date on or after September 1, 2026 (in such order as the District shall designate and, in the absence of such designation, in inverse order of maturity and by lot with a maturity), from any source lawfully available therefor, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Series A Bonds called for redemption, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption without premium. (b) Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. In the event and to the extent specified in the Notice of Sale, any maturity of Series A Bonds may be designated as “Term Bonds” and shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption. If some but not all of such Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to the preceding subsection (a) of this Section 2.03, the aggregate principal amount of such Term Bonds to be redeemed in each year pursuant to this subsection (b) shall be reduced on a pro rata basis in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the District with the Paying Agent. (c) Notice of Redemption. The Paying Agent on behalf and at the expense of the District shall mail (by first class mail) notice of any redemption to: (i) the respective Owners of any Series A Bonds designated for redemption, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption date, at their respective addresses appearing on the Bond Register, and (ii) the Securities Depositories and to one or more Information Services, at least thirty (30) but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the redemption; provided, however, that neither failure to receive any such notice so mailed nor any defect therein shall affect the validity of the proceedings for the redemption of such Series A Bonds or the cessation of the accrual of interest thereon. Such notice shall state the date of the notice, the redemption date, the redemption place and the redemption price and shall designate the CUSIP numbers, the Series A Bond numbers and the maturity or maturities (in the event of redemption of all of the Series A Bonds of such maturity or maturities in whole) of the Series A Bonds to be redeemed, and shall require that such Series A Bonds be then surrendered at the Principal Office for redemption at the redemption price, giving notice also that further interest on such Series A Bonds will not accrue from and after the redemption date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of any optional redemption of the Series A Bonds, the notice of redemption shall state that the redemption is conditioned upon receipt by the Paying Agent of sufficient moneys to redeem the Series A Bonds on the scheduled redemption date, and that the optional redemption shall not occur if, by no later than the scheduled redemption date, sufficient moneys to redeem the Series A Bonds have not been September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 923 -7- deposited with the Paying Agent. In the event that the Paying Agent does not receive sufficient funds by the scheduled optional redemption date to so redeem the Series A Bonds to be optionally redeemed, the Paying Agent shall send written notice to the Owners, to the Securities Depositories and to one or more of the Information Services to the effect that the redemption did not occur as anticipated, and the Series A Bonds for which notice of optional redemption was given shall remain Outstanding for all purposes. (d) Selection of Series A Bonds for Redemption. Whenever provision is made for the redemption of Series A Bonds of more than one maturity, the Series A Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the District evidenced by a Written Request of the District filed with the Paying Agent or, absent such selection by the District, on a pro rata basis among the maturities subject to redemption; and in each case, the Paying Agent shall select the Series A Bonds to be redeemed within any maturity by lot in any manner which the Paying Agent in its sole discretion shall deem appropriate and fair. For purposes of such selection, all Series A Bonds shall be deemed to be comprised of separate $5,000 portions and such portions shall be treated as separate Series A Bonds which may be separately redeemed. (e) Partial Redemption of Series A Bonds. In the event only a portion of any Series A Bond is called for redemption, then upon surrender of such Series A Bond the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver to the Owner thereof, at the expense of the District, a new Series A Bond or Bonds of the same maturity date, of authorized denominations in aggregate principal amount equal to the unredeemed portion of the Series A Bond to be redeemed. Series A Bonds need not be presented for mandatory sinking fund redemptions. (f) Effect of Redemption. From and after the date fixed for redemption, if funds available for the payment of the principal of and interest (and premium, if any) on the Series A Bonds so called for redemption shall have been duly provided, such Series A Bonds so called shall cease to be entitled to any benefit under this Resolution other than the right to receive payment of the redemption price, and no interest shall accrue thereon from and after the redemption date specified in such notice. All Series A Bonds redeemed pursuant to this Section 2.03 shall be canceled and shall be destroyed by the Paying Agent. Section 2.04. Form of Series A Bonds. The Series A Bonds, the form of the Paying Agent’s certificate of authentication and registration and the form of assignment to appear thereon shall be substantially in the forms, respectively, with necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions, as permitted or required by this Resolution, as are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 2.05. Execution of Series A Bonds. The Series A Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the District by the facsimile signatures of the President of its Board of Trustees and its Clerk who are in office on the date of adoption of this Resolution or at any time thereafter. If any officer whose signature appears on any Series A Bond ceases to be such officer before delivery of the Series A Bonds to the purchaser, such signature shall nevertheless be as effective as if the officer had remained in office until the delivery of the Series A Bonds to the purchaser. Any Series A Bond may be signed and attested on behalf of the District by such persons as at the actual date of the execution of such Series A Bond shall be the proper officers of the District although at the nominal date of such Series A Bond any such person shall not have been such officer of the District. Only such Series A Bonds as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication and registration in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, executed and dated by the Paying Agent, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Resolution, and such certificate of the Paying Agent shall be conclusive evidence that the Series A Bonds so September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 924 -8- registered have been duly authenticated, registered and delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this Resolution. Section 2.06. Transfer of Series A Bonds. Any Series A Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the books required to be kept pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.08 hereof, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Series A Bond for cancellation at the Principal Office, accompanied by delivery of a written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Paying Agent, duly executed. The Paying Agent shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. Whenever any Series A Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer, the District shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a new Series A Bond or Bonds, for like aggregate principal amount. No transfers of Series A Bonds shall be required to be made (a) fifteen days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of Series A Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a Series A Bond after such Series A Bond has been selected for redemption. Section 2.07. Exchange of Series A Bonds. Series A Bonds may be exchanged at the Principal Office for a like aggregate principal amount of Series A Bonds of authorized denominations and of the same maturity. The Paying Agent shall require the payment by the Owner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. No exchanges of Series A Bonds shall be required to be made (a) fifteen days prior to the date established by the Paying Agent for selection of Series A Bonds for redemption or (b) with respect to a Series A Bond after such Series A Bond has been selected for redemption. Section 2.08. Bond Register. The Paying Agent shall keep or cause to be kept sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Series A Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the District upon reasonable notice; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Paying Agent shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, register or transfer or cause to be registered or transferred, on said books, Series A Bonds as herein before provided. Section 2.09. Temporary Series A Bonds. The Series A Bonds may be initially issued in temporary form exchangeable for definitive Series A Bonds when ready for delivery. The temporary Series A Bonds may be printed, lithographed or typewritten, shall be of such denominations as may be determined by the District, and may contain such reference to any of the provisions of this Resolution as may be appropriate. Every temporary Series A Bond shall be executed by the District upon the same conditions and in substantially the same manner as the definitive Series A Bonds. If the District issues temporary Series A Bonds it will execute and furnish definitive Series A Bonds without delay, and thereupon the temporary Series A Bonds may be surrendered, for cancellation, in exchange therefor at the Principal Office and the Paying Agent shall deliver in exchange for such temporary Series A Bonds an equal aggregate principal amount of definitive Series A Bonds of authorized denominations. Until so exchanged, the temporary Series A Bonds shall be entitled to the same benefits pursuant to this Resolution as definitive Series A Bonds executed and delivered hereunder. Section 2.10. Series A Bonds Mutilated, Lost, Destroyed or Stolen. If any Series A Bond shall become mutilated the District, at the expense of the Owner of said Series A Bond, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new Series A Bond of September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 925 -9- like maturity and principal amount in exchange and substitution for the Series A Bond so mutilated, but only upon surrender to the Paying Agent of the Series A Bond so mutilated. Every mutilated Series A Bond so surrendered to the Paying Agent shall be canceled by it and delivered to, or upon the order of, the District. If any Series A Bond shall be lost, destroyed or stolen, evidence of such loss, destruction or theft may be submitted to the District and, if such evidence be satisfactory to the District and indemnity satisfactory to it shall be given, the District, at the expense of the Owner, shall execute, and the Paying Agent shall thereupon authenticate and deliver, a new Series A Bond of like maturity and principal amount in lieu of and in substitution for the Series A Bond so lost, destroyed or stolen. The District may require payment of a sum not exceeding the actual cost of preparing each new Series A Bond issued under this Section and of the expenses which may be incurred by the District and the Paying Agent in the premises. Any Series A Bond issued under the provisions of this Section 2.10 in lieu of any Series A Bond alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen shall constitute an original additional contractual obligation on the part of the District whether or not the Series A Bond so alleged to be lost, destroyed or stolen be at any time enforceable by anyone, and shall be equally and proportionately entitled to the benefits of this Resolution with all other Series A Bonds issued pursuant to this Resolution. Section 2.11. Book Entry System. Except as provided below, the owner of all of the Series A Bonds shall be The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), and the Series A Bonds shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. The Series A Bonds shall be initially executed and delivered in the form of a single fully registered Series A Bond for each maturity date of the Series A Bonds in the full aggregate principal amount of the Series A Bonds maturing on such date. The Paying Agent and the District may treat DTC (or its nominee) as the sole and exclusive owner of the Series A Bonds registered in its name for all purposes of this Resolution, and neither the Paying Agent nor the District shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Paying Agent and the District shall not have any responsibility or obligation to any participant of DTC (a “Participant”), any person claiming a beneficial ownership interest in the Series A Bonds under or through DTC or a Participant, or any other person which is not shown on the register of the District as being an owner, with respect to the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC or any Participant or the payment by DTC or any Participant by DTC or any Participant of any amount in respect of the principal or interest with respect to the Series A Bonds. The Paying Agent shall cause to be paid all principal and interest with respect to the Series A Bonds received from the District only to DTC, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the District’s obligations with respect to the principal and interest with respect to the Series A Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Except under the conditions noted below, no person other than DTC shall receive a Series A Bond. Upon delivery by DTC to the District of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the term “Cede & Co.” in this Resolution shall refer to such new nominee of DTC. If the District determines that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners that they be able to obtain Series A Bonds and delivers a written certificate to DTC to that effect, DTC shall notify the Participants of the availability through DTC of Series A Bonds. In such event, the District shall issue, transfer and exchange Series A Bonds as requested by DTC and any other owners in appropriate amounts. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Series A Bonds at any time by giving notice to the District and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. Under such circumstances (if there is no successor securities depository), the District shall be obligated to deliver Series A Bonds as described in this Resolution. Whenever DTC requests the District to do so, the District will cooperate with DTC in taking appropriate action after reasonable notice to (a) make available one or more separate Series A Bonds evidencing the Series A Bonds to any DTC Participant having Series A Bonds credited to its DTC account or (b) arrange for another securities depository to maintain custody of certificates evidencing the Series A Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 926 -10- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, so long as any Series A Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, all payments with respect to the principal and interest with respect to such Series A Bond and all notices with respect to such Series A Bond shall be made and given, respectively, to DTC as provided as in the representation letter delivered on the date of issuance of the Series A Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 927 -11- ARTICLE III ISSUE OF SERIES A BONDS; APPLICATION OF SERIES A BOND PROCEEDS; SECURITY FOR THE SERIES A BONDS Section 3.01. Issuance, Award and Delivery of Series A Bonds. At any time after the execution of this Resolution the District may issue and deliver Series A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed twenty million dollars ($20,000,000). The District Representatives shall be, and are hereby, directed to cause the Series A Bonds to be printed, signed and delivered to the Original Purchaser on receipt of the purchase price therefor and upon performance of the conditions contained in the Notice of Sale. The Paying Agent is hereby authorized to deliver the Series A Bonds to the Original Purchaser, upon receipt of a Written Request of the District. Section 3.02. Funds and Accounts. (a) Building Fund. The fund, known as the “Walnut Creek School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) Building Fund” (the “Building Fund”), is hereby established and maintained by the Treasurer-Tax Collector for the Series A Bonds. Moneys deposited therein from the proceeds of the Series A Bonds shall be used solely for the purpose for which the Series A Bonds are being issued and shall be applied solely to authorized purposes which relate to the acquisition or improvement of real property and for the payment of Costs of Issuance of the Series A Bonds insufficient moneys are available therefor in the Costs of Issuance Fund. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the Building Fund shall be retained in the Building Fund and used for the purposes thereof. At the written request of the District filed with the County, any amounts remaining on deposit in the Building Fund and not needed for the purposes of the Series A Bonds shall be withdrawn from the Building Fund and transferred to the Interest and Sinking Fund, to be applied to the payment of Debt Service. By receipt of a copy of this resolution, the Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby requested to continue and maintain the Building Fund. The County is not responsible for the use of funds disbursed from the Building Fund. (b) Interest and Sinking Fund. The fund, known as the “Walnut Creek School District, General Obligation Bonds Interest and Sinking Fund” (the “Interest and Sinking Fund”), previously established and maintained by the Treasurer-Tax Collector for the District is hereby continued for the Series A Bonds. Moneys deposited therein shall be used only for payment of principal and interest on all General Obligation Bonds of the District. If, after payment in full of the Series A Bonds, there remain excess proceeds, any such excess amounts shall be transferred to the general fund of the District. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 3.02(b), any excess proceeds of the Series A Bonds not needed for the authorized purposes set forth herein for which the Series A Bonds are being issued shall be applied solely in a manner which is consistent with the requirements of applicable state and federal tax law, including but not limited to the requirements of federal tax law (if any) relating to the yield at which such proceeds are permitted to be invested. The interest earned on the moneys deposited to the Interest and Sinking Fund shall be retained in the Interest and Sinking Fund and used for the purposes thereof. By receipt of a copy of this resolution, the Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby requested to continue and maintain the Interest and Sinking Fund. (c) Costs of Issuance Fund. A fund, to be known as the “Walnut Creek School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) Costs of Issuance Fund” (the “Costs of Issuance Fund”), is hereby created and established with the Paying Agent, acting as costs of September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 928 -12- issuance custodian (the “Custodian”) for the Series A Bonds. Moneys deposited therein shall be used solely for the payment of costs of issuance of the Series A Bonds, as provided in the Paying Agent Agreement (hereinafter defined). (d) Investment of Moneys in the Building Fund and the Interest and Sinking Fund. Moneys held in the Building Fund and the Interest and Sinking Fund shall be invested at the Treasurer- Tax Collector’s discretion, unless otherwise directed in writing by the District, pursuant to law and the investment policy of the County. In addition, at the written direction of the District, all or any portion of the moneys in the Building Fund may be invested (i) in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the treasury of the State of California, or (ii) in investment agreements which comply with the requirements of each rating agency then rating the Series A Bonds necessary in order to maintain the current rating on the Series A Bonds, provided that the Treasurer-Tax Collector shall be a signatory to any such investment agreement. Consent by the County to a request by the District to use any investments requested by the District specified in clause (d)(ii) shall in no way imply any endorsement by the County of such investment and the County assumes no liability for the results of such investment or of the provider thereof. Section 3.03. Application of Proceeds of Sale of Series A Bonds. On the Closing Date, the proceeds of sale of the Series A Bonds shall be paid by the Underwriter as follows: (a) to the Treasurer-Tax Collector, an amount equal to the premium if any, on the Series A Bonds, for deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund; (b) to the Custodian, an amount equal to the amounts required for the payment of Costs of Issuance, for deposit in the Costs of Issuance Fund; and (c) the remaining proceeds of the Series A Bonds shall be to transferred to the Treasurer- Tax Collector for deposit in the Building Fund. Section 3.04. Security for the Series A Bonds. There shall be levied by the County on all the taxable property in the District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct and ad valorem tax annually during the period the Series A Bonds are outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds when due, which moneys when collected will be placed in the Interest and Sinking Fund of the District, which fund is irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds when and as the same fall due. The moneys in the Interest and Sinking Fund, to the extent necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds as the same become due and payable, shall be transferred by the County to the Paying Agent, as paying agent for the Series A Bonds, as necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds. The property taxes and amounts held in the Interest and Sinking Fund of the District shall immediately be subject to this pledge, and the pledge shall constitute a lien and security interest which shall be effective, binding, and enforceable against the District, its successors, creditors and all others irrespective of whether those parties have notice of the pledge and without the need of any physical delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. The pledge is an agreement between the District and the Owners of the Series A Bonds in addition to any statutory lien that may exist, and the Series A Bonds were issued to finance one or more projects specified in the Authorization and not to finance the General purposes of the District. Additionally, in accordance with section 53515(a) of the Government Code, the Series A Bonds shall be secured by a statutory lien on all revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of the tax for the Authorization. The lien shall automatically attach without further action or authorization by the District or the County. The lien shall be valid and binding from the time the Series A Bonds are executed and delivered. The revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of the tax shall be immediately subject to the lien, and the lien shall September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 929 -13- automatically attach to the revenues and be effective, binding, and enforceable against the District, its successors, transferees, and creditors, and all others asserting rights therein, irrespective of whether those parties have notice of the lien and without the need for any physical delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 930 -14- ARTICLE IV SALE OF BONDS; APPROVAL OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT; APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL STATMENT Section 4.01. Sale of the Series A Bonds. (a) Notice of Intention to Sell Series A Bonds. The Notice of Intention, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved. The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be published, once at least five (5) days prior to the date to receive bids, the Notice of Intention in the Bond Buyer, a financial publication reasonably expected to be disseminated among prospective bidders for the Series A Bonds. (b) Notice of Sale. The Notice of Sale, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby approved. (c) Terms and Conditions of Sale. The terms and conditions of the offering and the sale of the Series A Bonds shall be as specified in said Notice of Sale. (d) Furnishing of Official Notice of Sale. The Clerk of the Board and the Financial Advisor are hereby authorized to cause to be furnished to prospective bidders a reasonable number of copies of the Notice of Sale. (e) Receipt of Bids. The Financial Advisor is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Board, to receive the bids at the time and place specified in the Notice of Sale, to examine said bids for compliance with the Notice of Sale and to verify the bid with the lowest true interest cost as provided in the Notice of Sale. In the event two or more bids setting forth identical true interest cost are received, a District Representative may award the Series A Bonds on a pro rata basis in such denominations as he or she shall determine. A District Representative may reject any and all bids and waive any irregularity or informality in any bid. A District Representative shall award the Series A Bonds or reject all bids not later than 26 hours after the expiration of the time prescribed for the receipt of bids unless such time of award is waived by the successful bidder. The maximum true interest cost on the Series A Bonds shall not exceed 6% per annum. (f) Option for a Negotiated Sale. If, at any time, it is determined by a District Representative, or the designee thereof, that the competitive sale of the Series A Bonds is not in the best interest of the District or, if at the time of the competitive sale of the Series A Bonds, no bids are received or it is determined by a District Representative, or the designee thereof, that all received bids are unsatisfactory, the Board hereby authorizes the sale of the Series A Bonds to an underwriter identified by the Financial Advisor and approved by a District Representative, or the designee thereof. In such event, the Board hereby authorizes the preparation of a Series A Bond purchase agreement between such underwriter and the District, with such terms and conditions as shall be approved by a District Representative, or the designee thereof. In such case, a District Representative, or the designee thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Series A Bond purchase agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the District; provided, however, that in connection with such negotiated sale of the Series A Bonds, the net underwriter’s discount, excluding reimbursable expenses of the Underwriter, shall not exceed 1% of the aggregate principal amount of Series A Bonds issued, The maximum true interest cost on the Series A Bonds shall not exceed 6% per annum. Section 4.02. Approval of Paying Agent Agreement. The Paying Agent Agreement, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, together with any additions thereto or changes therein September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 931 -15- deemed necessary or advisable by a District Representative, is hereby approved by the Board. The District Representatives are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Paying Agent Agreement for and in the name and on behalf of the District. The Board hereby authorizes the delivery and performance of the Paying Agent Agreement. Section 4.03. Official Statement. The Board of Trustees hereby approves a preliminary official statement describing the financing (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) in the form on file with the Clerk of the Board of Trustees, together with any changes therein or additions thereto deemed advisable by a District Representative. The Board of Trustees authorizes and directs the District Representatives, on behalf of the District, to deem “final” pursuant to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Rule”) the Preliminary Official Statement prior to its distribution to prospective purchasers of the Series A Bonds. The Financial Advisor, on behalf of the District, is authorized and directed to cause the Preliminary Official Statement to be distributed to such persons as may be interested in purchasing the Series A Bonds therein offered for sale. The District Representatives are authorized and directed to cause the Preliminary Official Statement to be brought into the form of a final official statement (the “Final Official Statement”) and to execute the Final Official Statement, dated as of the date of the sale of the Series A Bonds, and a statement that the facts contained in the Final Official Statement, and any supplement or amendment thereto (which shall be deemed an original part thereof for the purpose of such statement) were, at the time of sale of the Series A Bonds, true and correct in all material respects and that the Final Official Statement did not, on the date of sale of the Series A Bonds, and does not, as of the date of delivery of the Series A Bonds, contain any untrue statement of a material fact with respect to the District or omit to state material facts with respect to the District required to be stated where necessary to make any statement made therein not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it was made. The District Representatives shall take such further actions prior to the signing of the Final Official Statement as are deemed necessary or appropriate to verify the accuracy thereof. The execution of the Final Official Statement, which shall include such changes and additions thereto deemed advisable by the District Representatives, and such information permitted to be excluded from the Preliminary Official Statement pursuant to the Rule, shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of the Final Official Statement by the District. The Final Official Statement, when prepared, is approved for distribution in connection with the offering and sale of the Series A Bonds. Section 4.04. Official Action. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the District with respect to the sale and issuance of the Series A Bonds are hereby approved, and the President of the Board of Trustees, the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, and any and all other officers of the District are hereby authorized and directed for and in the name and on behalf of the District, to do any and all things and take any and all actions relating to the execution and delivery of any and all certificates, requisitions, agreements and other documents, which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the Series A Bonds in accordance with this resolution. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 932 -16- ARTICLE V OTHER COVENANTS OF THE DISTRICT Section 5.01. Punctual Payment. The District will punctually pay, or cause to be paid, the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds, in strict conformity with the terms of the Series A Bonds and of this Resolution, and it will faithfully observe and perform all of the conditions, covenants and requirements of this Resolution and of the Series A Bonds. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the District from making advances of its own moneys, howsoever derived, to any of the uses or purposes permitted by law. Section 5.02. Extension of Time for Payment. In order to prevent any accumulation of claims for interest after maturity, the District will not, directly or indirectly, extend or consent to the extension of the time for the payment of any claim for interest on any of the Series A Bonds and will not, directly or indirectly, approve any such arrangement by purchasing or funding said claims for interest or in any other manner. In case any such claim for interest shall be extended or funded, whether or not with the consent of the District, such claim for interest so extended or funded shall not be entitled, in case of default hereunder, to the benefits of this Resolution, except subject to the prior payment in full of the principal of all of the Series A Bonds then Outstanding and of all claims for interest which shall not have so extended or funded. Section 5.03. Protection of Security and Rights of Bondowners. The District will preserve and protect the security of the Series A Bonds and the rights of the Bondowners, and will warrant and defend their rights against all claims and demands of all persons. From and after the sale and delivery of any of the Series A Bonds by the District, the Series A Bonds shall be incontestable by the District. Section 5.04. Further Assurances. The District will adopt, make, execute and deliver any and all such further resolutions, instruments and assurances as may be reasonably necessary or proper to carry out the intention or to facilitate the performance of this Resolution, and for the better assuring and confirming unto the Owners of the Series A Bonds of the rights and benefits provided in this Resolution. Section 5.05. Tax Covenants. (a) Private Activity Series A Bond Limitation. The District shall assure that the proceeds of the Series A Bonds are not so used as to cause the Series A Bonds to satisfy the private business tests of section 141(b) of the Code or the private loan financing test of section 141(c) of the Code. (b) Federal Guarantee Prohibition. The District shall not take any action or permit or suffer any action to be taken if the result of the same would be to cause any of the Series A Bonds to be “federally guaranteed” within the meaning of section 149(b) of the Code. (c) Rebate Requirement. The District shall take any and all actions necessary to assure compliance with section 148(f) of the Code, relating to the rebate of excess investment earnings, if any, to the federal government, to the extent that such section is applicable to the Series A Bonds. (d) No Arbitrage. The District shall not take, or permit or suffer to be taken, any action with respect to the proceeds of the Series A Bonds which, if such action had been reasonably expected to have been taken, or had been deliberately and intentionally taken, on the date of September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 933 -17- issuance of the Series A Bonds would have caused the Series A Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” within the meaning of section 148 of the Code. (e) Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The District shall take all actions necessary to assure the exclusion of interest on the Series A Bonds from the gross income of the Owners of the Series A Bonds to the same extent as such interest is permitted to be excluded from gross income under the Code as in effect on the date of issuance of the Series A Bonds. Section 5.06. Acquisition, Disposition and Valuation of Investments. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Section 5.06, the District covenants that all investments of amounts deposited in any fund or account created by or pursuant to this Resolution, or otherwise containing gross proceeds of the Series A Bonds (within the meaning of section 148 of the Code) shall be acquired, disposed of, and valued (as of the date that valuation is required by this Resolution or the Code) at Fair Market Value. (b) Investments in funds or accounts (or portions thereof) that are subject to a yield restriction under applicable provisions of the Code shall be valued at their present value (within the meaning of section 148 of the Code). Section 5.07. Continuing Disclosure. The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the District to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate shall not be considered an Event of Default; however, any holder or beneficial owner of the Series A Bonds may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate to compel performance, including seeking mandate of specific performance by court order. Section 5.08. Requirements of Section 15146(b) of the California Education Code. As required by section 15146(b) of the California Education Code (AB 1482, 2006), the District hereby states and certifies the following information: (a) Express Approval of Sale. The Board hereby approves the sale of the Series A Bonds by competitive sale. (b) Statement of Reason for Method of Sale Selected. Competitive sales have been successfully employed by the District in the past. (c) Disclosure of Consultants. The Bond Counsel to the District in connection with the issuance of the Series A Bonds will be Quint & Thimmig LLP, Larkspur, California. The disclosure counsel to the District in connection with the issuance of the Series A Bonds will be Quint & Thimmig LLP, Larkspur, California. The financial advisor to the District in connection with the issuance of the Series A Bonds will be Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Inc., Walnut Creek, California. (d) Costs Associated with the Sale of the Series A Bonds. Estimates of the costs associated with the issuance of the Series A Bonds are shown on Exhibit F attached hereto. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 934 -18- ARTICLE VI THE PAYING AGENT Section 6.01. Appointment of Paying Agent. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. is hereby appointed Paying Agent for the Series A Bonds. The Paying Agent undertakes to perform such duties, and only such duties, as are specifically set forth in this Resolution, and, even during the continuance of an Event of Default, no implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Resolution against the Paying Agent. The Paying Agent shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by this Resolution by executing and delivering to the District a certificate to that effect. The District may remove the Paying Agent initially appointed, and any successor thereto, and may appoint a successor or successors thereto, but any such successor shall be a bank or trust company doing business in the State of California, having a combined capital (exclusive of borrowed capital) and surplus of at least twenty million dollars ($20,000,000), and subject to supervision or examination by federal or state authority. If such bank or trust company publishes a report of condition at least annually, pursuant to law or to the requirements of any supervising or examining authority above referred to, then for the purposes of this Section 6.01 the combined capital and surplus of such bank or trust company shall be deemed to be its combined capital and surplus as set forth in its most recent report of condition so published. The Paying Agent may at any time resign by giving written notice to the District and the Bondowners of such resignation. Upon receiving notice of such resignation, the District shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent by an instrument in writing. Any resignation or removal of the Paying Agent and appointment of a successor Paying Agent shall become effective upon acceptance of appointment by the successor Paying Agent. Section 6.02. Paying Agent May Hold Series A Bonds. The Paying Agent may become the owner of any of the Series A Bonds in its own or any other capacity with the same rights it would have if it were not Paying Agent. Section 6.03. Liability of Agents. The recitals of facts, covenants and agreements herein and in the Series A Bonds contained shall be taken as statements, covenants and agreements of the District, and the Paying Agent assumes no responsibility for the correctness of the same, nor makes any representations as to the validity or sufficiency of this Resolution or of the Series A Bonds, nor shall incur any responsibility in respect thereof, other than as set forth in this Resolution. The Paying Agent shall not be liable in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder, except for its own negligence or willful default. In the absence of bad faith, the Paying Agent may conclusively rely, as to the truth of the statements and the correctness of the opinions expressed therein, upon certificates or opinions furnished to the Paying Agent and conforming to the requirements of this Resolution; but in the case of any such certificates or opinions by which any provision hereof are specifically required to be furnished to the Paying Agent, the Paying Agent shall be under a duty to examine the same to determine whether or not they conform to the requirements of this Resolution. The Paying Agent shall not be liable for any error of judgment made in good faith by a responsible officer unless it shall be proved that the Paying Agent was negligent in ascertaining the pertinent facts. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 935 -19- No provision of this Resolution shall require the Paying Agent to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability in the performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers, if it shall have reasonable grounds for believing that repayment of such funds or adequate indemnity against such risk or liability is not reasonably assured to it. The Paying Agent may execute any of the powers hereunder or perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents or attorneys and the Paying Agent shall not be responsible for any misconduct or negligence on the part of any agent or attorney appointed with due care by it hereunder. Section 6.04. Notice to Agents. The Paying Agent may rely and shall be protected in acting or refraining from acting upon any notice, resolution, request, consent, order, certificate, report, warrant, bond or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or proper parties. The Paying Agent may consult with counsel, who may be of counsel to the District, with regard to legal questions, and the opinion of such counsel shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by it hereunder in good faith and in accordance therewith. Whenever in the administration of its duties under this Resolution the Paying Agent shall deem it necessary or desirable that a matter be proved or established prior to taking or suffering any action hereunder, such matter (unless other evidence in respect thereof be herein specifically prescribed) may, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the Paying Agent, be deemed to be conclusively proved and established by a certificate of the District, and such certificate shall be full warrant to the Paying Agent for any action taken or suffered under the provisions of this Resolution upon the faith thereof, but in its discretion the Paying Agent may, in lieu thereof, accept other evidence of such matter or may require such additional evidence as to it may seem reasonable. Section 6.05. Compensation, Indemnification. (a) The District shall pay to the Paying Agent from time to time reasonable compensation for all services rendered under this Resolution, and also all reasonable expenses, charges, counsel fees and other disbursements, including those of their attorneys, agents and employees, incurred in and about the performance of their powers and duties under this Resolution. Any District Representative is hereby authorized to execute an agreement or agreements with the Paying Agent in connection with such fees and expenses. The District further agrees to indemnify and save the Paying Agent harmless against any liabilities which it may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties hereunder which are not due to its negligence or bad faith. (b) The District shall indemnify and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law, the County and its officers and employees (“Indemnified Parties”), against any and all losses, claims, damages or liabilities, joint or several, to which such Indemnified Parties may become subject related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the Series A Bonds in accordance therewith and herewith. The District shall also reimburse any such Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any such claims or actions. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 936 -20- ARTICLE VII EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES OF BONDOWNERS Section 7.01. Events of Default. The following events (“Events of Default”) shall be events of default hereunder: (a) if default shall be made in the due and punctual payment of the principal of on any Series A Bond when and as the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity as therein expressed, by declaration or otherwise; (b) if default shall be made in the due and punctual payment of any installment of interest on any Series A Bond when and as such interest installment shall become due and payable; (c) if default shall be made by the District in the observance of any of the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part in this Resolution or in the Series A Bonds contained, and such default shall have continued for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the District; or (d) if the District shall file a petition seeking reorganization or arrangement under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve a petition, seeking reorganization of the District under the federal bankruptcy laws or any other applicable law of the United States of America, or if, under the provisions of any other law for the relief or aid of debtors, any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of the District or of the whole or any substantial part of its property. Section 7.02. Remedies of Bondowners. Any Bondowner shall have the right, for the equal benefit and protection of all Bondowners similarly situated: (a) by mandamus, suit, action or proceeding, to compel the District and its members, officers, agents or employees to perform each and every term, provision and covenant contained in this Resolution and in the Series A Bonds, and to require the carrying out of any or all such covenants and agreements of the District and the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon it; (b) by suit, action or proceeding in equity, to enjoin any acts or things which are unlawful, or the violation of any of the Bondowners’ rights; or (c) upon the happening of any Event of Default, by suit, action or proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction, to require the District and its members and employees to account as if it and they were the trustees of an express trust. Section 7.03. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Article VII or in any other provision of this Resolution, or in the Series A Bonds, shall affect or impair the obligation of the District, which is absolute and unconditional, to pay the principal of and interest on the Series A Bonds to the respective Owners of the Series A Bonds at the respective dates of maturity, as herein provided, or affect or impair the right of action, which is also absolute and unconditional, of such Owners to institute suit to enforce such payment by virtue of the contract embodied in the Series A Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 937 -21- A waiver of any default by any Bondowner shall not affect any subsequent default or impair any rights or remedies on the subsequent default. No delay or omission of any Owner of any of the Series A Bonds to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or an acquiescence therein, and every power and remedy conferred upon the Bondowners by this Article VI may be enforced and exercised from time to time and as often as shall be deemed expedient by the Owners of the Series A Bonds. If a suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy be abandoned or determined adversely to the Bondowners, the District and the Bondowners shall be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if such suit, action or proceeding had not been brought or taken. Section 7.04. Remedies Not Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon the Owners of Series A Bonds shall be exclusive of any other remedy and that each and every remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or thereafter conferred on the Bondowners. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 938 -22- ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTIONS Section 8.01. Supplemental Resolutions Effective Without Consent of the Owners. For any one or more of the following purposes and at any time or from time to time, a Supplemental Resolution of the District may be adopted, which, without the requirement of consent of the Owners of the Series A Bonds, shall be fully effective in accordance with its terms: (a) to add to the covenants and agreements of the District in this Resolution, other covenants and agreements to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (b) to add to the limitations and restrictions in this Resolution, other limitations and restrictions to be observed by the District which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (c) to confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any lien or pledge created or to be created by, this Resolution, of any moneys, securities or funds, or to establish any additional funds or accounts to be held under this Resolution; (d) to cure any ambiguity, supply and omission, or cure or correct any defect or inconsistent provision in this Resolution; or (e) to make such additions, deletions or modifications as may be necessary or desirable to assure exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the Series A Bonds. Section 8.02. Supplemental Resolutions Effective With Consent to the Owners. Any modification or amendment of this Resolution and of the rights and obligations of the District and of the Owners of the Series A Bonds, in any particular, may be made by a Supplemental Resolution, with the written consent of the Owners of at least two-thirds in aggregate principal amount of the Series A Bonds Outstanding at the time such consent is given. No such modification or amendment shall permit a change in the terms of maturity of the principal of any Outstanding Series A Bonds or of any interest payable thereon or a reduction in the principal amount thereof or in the rate of interest thereon, or shall reduce the percentage of Series A Bonds the consent of the Owners of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment, or shall change any of the provisions in Section 7.01 hereof relating to Events of Default, or shall reduce the amount of moneys pledged for the repayment of the Series A Bonds without the consent of all the Owners of such Series A Bonds, or shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations of any Paying Agent without its written assent thereto. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 939 -23- ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS Section 9.01. Benefits of Resolution Limited to Parties. Nothing in this Resolution, expressed or implied, is intended to give to any person other than the District, the Paying Agent and the Owners of the Series A Bonds, any right, remedy, claim under or by reason of this Resolution. Any covenants, stipulations, promises or agreements in this Resolution contained by and on behalf of the District shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Owners of the Series A Bonds. Section 9.02. Defeasance. (a) Discharge of Resolution. Series A Bonds may be paid by the District in any of the following ways, provided that the District also pays or causes to be paid any other sums payable hereunder by the District: (i) by paying or causing to be paid the principal or redemption price of and interest on Series A Bonds Outstanding, as and when the same become due and payable; (ii) by depositing, in trust, at or before maturity, money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.02(c) to pay or redeem Series A Bonds Outstanding; or (iii) by delivering to the Paying Agent, for cancellation by it, Series A Bonds Outstanding. If the District shall pay all Series A Bonds Outstanding and shall also pay or cause to be paid all other sums payable hereunder by the District, then and in that case, at the election of the District (evidenced by a certificate of a District Representative, filed with the Paying Agent, signifying the intention of the District to discharge all such indebtedness and this Resolution), and notwithstanding that any Series A Bonds shall not have been surrendered for payment, this Resolution and other assets made under this Resolution and all covenants, agreements and other obligations of the District under this Resolution shall cease, terminate, become void and be completely discharged and satisfied, except only as provided in Section 9.02(b). In such event, upon request of the District, the Paying Agent shall cause an accounting for such period or periods as may be requested by the District to be prepared and filed with the District and shall execute and deliver to the District all such instruments as may be necessary to evidence such discharge and satisfaction, and the Paying Agent shall pay over, transfer, assign or deliver to the District all moneys or securities or other property held by it pursuant to this Resolution which are not required for the payment or redemption of Series A Bonds not theretofore surrendered for such payment or redemption. (b) Discharge of Liability on Series A Bonds. Upon the deposit, in trust, at or before maturity, of money or securities in the necessary amount (as provided in Section 9.02(c) to pay or redeem any Outstanding Series A Bond (whether upon or prior to its maturity or the redemption date of such Series A Bond), provided that, if such Series A Bond is to be redeemed prior to maturity, notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice, then all liability of the District in respect of such Series A Bond shall cease and be completely discharged, except only that thereafter the Owner thereof shall be entitled only to payment of the principal of and interest on such Series A Bond by the District, and the District shall remain liable for such payment, but only out of such money or securities deposited with the Paying September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 940 -24- Agent as aforesaid for such payment, provided further, however, that the provisions of Section 9.02(d) shall apply in all events. The District may at any time surrender to the Paying Agent for cancellation by it any Series A Bonds previously issued and delivered, which the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and such Series A Bonds, upon such surrender and cancellation, shall be deemed to be paid and retired. (c) Deposit of Money or Securities with Paying Agent. Whenever in this Resolution it is provided or permitted that there be deposited with or held in trust by the Paying Agent money or securities in the necessary amount to pay or redeem any Series A Bonds, the money or securities so to be deposited or held may include money or securities held by the Paying Agent in the funds and accounts established pursuant to this Resolution and shall be: (i) lawful money of the United States of America in an amount equal to the principal amount of such Series A Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to maturity, except that, in the case of Series A Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to maturity and in respect of which notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice, the amount to be deposited or held shall be the principal amount or redemption price of such Series A Bonds and all unpaid interest thereon to the redemption date; or (ii) Federal Securities (not callable by the issuer thereof prior to maturity) the principal of and interest on which when due, in the opinion of a certified public accountant delivered to the District, will provide money sufficient to pay the principal or redemption price of and all unpaid interest to maturity, or to the redemption date, as the case may be, on the Series A Bonds to be paid or redeemed, as such principal or redemption price and interest become due, provided that, in the case of Series A Bonds which are to be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof, notice of such redemption shall have been given as in Section 2.03 provided or provision satisfactory to the Paying Agent shall have been made for the giving of such notice; provided, in each case, that the Paying Agent shall have been irrevocably instructed (by the terms of this Resolution or by request of the District) to apply such money to the payment of such principal or redemption price and interest with respect to such Series A Bonds. (d) Payment of Series A Bonds After Discharge of Resolution. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Resolution, any moneys held by the Paying Agent in trust for the payment of the principal or redemption price of, or interest on, any Series A Bonds and remaining unclaimed for one year after the principal of all of the Series A Bonds has become due and payable (whether at maturity or upon call for redemption or by acceleration as provided in this Resolution), if such moneys were so held at such date, or one year after the date of deposit of such moneys if deposited after said date when all of the Series A Bonds became due and payable, shall, upon request of the District, be repaid to the District free from the trusts created by this Resolution, and all liability of the Paying Agent with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease; provided, however, that before the repayment of such moneys to the District as aforesaid, the Paying Agent may (at the cost of the District) first mail to the Owners of all Series A Bonds which have not been paid at the addresses shown on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent a notice in such form as may be deemed appropriate by the Paying Agent, with respect to the Series A Bonds so payable and not presented and with respect to the provisions relating to the repayment to the District of the moneys held for the payment thereof. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 941 -25- Section 9.03. Execution of Documents and Proof of Ownership by Bondowners. Any request, declaration or other instrument which this Resolution may require or permit to be executed by Bondowners may be in one or more instruments of similar tenor, and shall be executed by Bondowners in person or by their attorneys appointed in writing. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the fact and date of the execution by any Bondowner or his attorney of such request, declaration or other instrument, or of such writing appointing such attorney, may be proved by the certificate of any notary public or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds to be recorded in the state in which he purports to act, that the person signing such request, declaration or other instrument or writing acknowledged to him the execution thereof, or by an affidavit of a witness of such execution, duly sworn to before such notary public or other officer. Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the ownership of registered Series A Bonds and the amount, maturity, number and date of holding the same shall be proved by the registry books. Any request, declaration or other instrument or writing of the Owner of any Series A Bond shall bind all future Owners of such Series A Bond in respect of anything done or suffered to be done by the District or the Paying Agent in good faith and in accordance therewith. Section 9.04. Waiver of Personal Liability. No boardmember, officer, agent or employee of the District shall be individually or personally liable for the payment of the principal of or interest on the Series A Bonds; but nothing herein contained shall relieve any such boardmember, officer, agent or employee from the performance of any official duty provided by law. Section 9.05. Destruction of Canceled Series A Bonds. Whenever in this Resolution provision is made for the surrender to the District of any Series A Bonds which have been paid or canceled pursuant to the provisions of this Resolution, a certificate of destruction duly executed by the Paying Agent shall be deemed to be the equivalent of the surrender of such canceled Series A Bonds and the District shall be entitled to rely upon any statement of fact contained in any certificate with respect to the destruction of any such Series A Bonds therein referred to. Section 9.06. Partial Invalidity. If any Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution shall for any reason be held illegal or unenforceable, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The District hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each and every other Section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof and authorized the issue of the Series A Bonds pursuant thereto irrespective of the fact that any one or more Sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Resolution may be held illegal, invalid or unenforceable. If, by reason of the judgment of any court, the District is rendered unable to perform its duties hereunder, all such duties and all of the rights and powers of the District hereunder shall be assumed by and vest in the District in trust for the benefit of the Bondowners. Section 9.07. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 942 September 27, 2016Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes943 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A FORM OF SERIES A BOND United States of America State of California Contra Costa County WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES A (2016) INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: ISSUE DATE: CUSIP: _______% September 1, ____ October 19, 2016 ____ REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL SUM: ________________________________________ DOLLARS The WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of California (the “District”), for value received hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner stated above, or registered assigns (the “Owner”), on the Maturity Date stated above (subject to any right of prior redemption hereinafter provided for), the Principal Sum stated above, in lawful money of the United States of America, and to pay interest thereon in like lawful money from the interest payment date next preceding the date of authentication of this Series A Bond (unless (i) this Series A Bond is authenticated on an interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from such date of authentication, or (ii) this Series A Bond is authenticated prior to an interest payment date and after the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding such interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from such interest payment date, or (iii) this Series A Bond is authenticated on or prior to February 15, 2017, in which event it shall bear interest from the Issue Date stated above; provided however, that if at the time of authentication of this Series A Bond, interest is in default on this Series A Bond, this Series A Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date to which interest has previously been paid or made available for payment on this Series A Bond) until payment of such Principal Sum in full, at the rate per annum stated above, payable on March 1 and September 1 in each year, commencing March 1, 2017, calculated on the basis of 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Principal hereof is payable at the office of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (the “Paying Agent”), in Dallas, Texas. Interest hereon (including the final interest payment upon maturity or earlier redemption) is payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed by first-class mail to the Owner at the Owner’s address as it appears on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding such interest payment date (the “Record Date”), or at such other address as the Owner may have filed with the Paying Agent for that purpose; provided however, that payment of interest may be by wire transfer in immediately available funds to an account in the United States of America to any Owner of Series A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 or more who shall furnish written wire instructions to the Paying Agent at least five (5) days before the applicable Record Date. This Series A Bond is one of a duly authorized issue of Series A Bonds of the District designated as “Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016)” (the “Series A Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of __________________ dollars ($________), all of like tenor and date (except for such variation, if any, as may be required to designate varying numbers, maturities, interest rates or redemption and other provisions) and all issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1, of Division 2 of Title 5 (commencing with section 53506) of the California Government Code (the “Act”), and pursuant to Resolution No. 16-17-04 of the District adopted September 19, 2016 (the “Resolution”), authorizing the issuance of the Series A Bonds. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution (copies of which are on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board of Trustees of the District) and the Act for a description of the terms on which the Series A September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 944 Exhibit A Page 2 Bonds are issued and the rights thereunder of the owners of the Series A Bonds and the rights, duties and immunities of the Paying Agent and the rights and obligations of the District thereunder, to all of the provisions of which Resolution the Owner of this Series A Bond, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. A duly called special municipal election was held in the District on June 7, 2016, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law. At such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty- five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to address critical renovation, modernization and safety needs at District schools, upgrade classrooms, libraries and computer networks to provide students with 21st Century classrooms, improve energy efficiency of classrooms and buildings, and replace, acquire, construct and renovate school facilities (the “Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $60,000,000 (the “Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District. The Series A Bonds represent the first issue under the Authorization. This Series A Bond and the interest hereon and on all other Series A Bonds and the interest thereon (to the extent set forth in the Resolution) are general obligations of the District and do not constitute an obligation of the County of Contra Costa. The District has the power and is obligated to cause the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector to levy ad valorem taxes for the payment of the Series A Bonds and the interest thereon upon all property within the District subject to taxation by the District. No part of any fund of the County is pledged or obligated to the payment of the Series A Bonds. The Series A Bonds maturing on or before September 1, 2026, are non-callable. The Series A Bonds maturing on September 1, 2027, or any time thereafter, are callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date at the option of the District, as a whole, or in part on any date on or after September 1, 2026 (in such maturities as are designated by the District, or, if the District fails to designate such maturities, on a proportional basis), and may be redeemed prior to the maturity thereof by payment of all principal, plus accrued interest to date of redemption, without premium. [If applicable:] The Series A Bonds maturing on September 1, 20___ (the “Term Bonds”) are also subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on September 1 in the years, and in the amounts, as set forth in the following table, at a redemption price equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed (without premium), together with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption; provided, however, that if some but not all of the Term Bonds have been redeemed pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the aggregate principal amount of Term Bonds to be redeemed under this paragraph shall be reduced on a pro rata basis in integral multiples of $5,000, as shall be designated pursuant to written notice filed by the District with the Paying Agent: Sinking Fund Principal Redemption Date Amount to be (September 1) Redeemed The Paying Agent shall give notice of the redemption of the Series A Bonds at the expense of the District. Such notice shall specify: (a) that the Series A Bonds or a designated portion thereof are to be redeemed, (b) the numbers and CUSIP numbers of the Series A Bonds to be redeemed, (c) the date of notice and the date of redemption, (d) the place or places where the redemption will be made, and (e) descriptive information regarding the Series A Bonds including the dated date, interest rate and stated maturity date. Such notice shall further state that on the specified date there shall become due and payable upon each Series A Bond to be redeemed, the portion of the principal amount of such Series A Bond to be redeemed, together with interest accrued to said date, and that from and after such date interest with respect thereto shall cease to accrue and be payable. If an Event of Default, as defined in the Resolution, shall occur, the principal of all Series A Bonds may be declared due and payable upon the conditions, in the manner and with the effect provided in the September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 945 Exhibit A Page 3 Resolution, but such declaration and its consequences may be rescinded and annulled as further provided in the Resolution. The Series A Bonds are issuable as fully registered Series A Bonds, without coupons, in denominations of $5,000 and any integral multiple thereof. Subject to the limitations and conditions and upon payment of the charges, if any, as provided in the Resolution. Series A Bonds may be exchanged for a like aggregate principal amount of Series A Bonds of other authorized denominations and of the same maturity. This Series A Bond is transferable by the Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at said office of the Paying Agent in Dallas, Texas, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Series A Bond. Upon registration of such transfer a new Series A Bond or Bonds, of authorized denomination or denominations, for the same aggregate principal amount and of the same maturity will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. The District and the Paying Agent may treat the Owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes, and the District and the Paying Agent shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Resolution may be amended without the consent of the Owners of the Series A Bonds to the extent set forth in the Resolution. It is hereby certified that all of the things, conditions and acts required to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Series A Bond do exist, have happened or have been performed in due and regular time and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, and that the amount of this Series A Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the District, does not exceed any limit prescribed by any laws of the State of California, and is not in excess of the amount of Series A Bonds permitted to be issued under the Resolution. This Series A Bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Resolution or become valid or obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been signed manually by the Paying Agent. Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company; a New York corporation (“DTC”), to the District or the Paying Agent for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Walnut Creek School District has caused this Series A Bond to be executed in its name and on its behalf with the facsimile signatures of the President of its Board of Trustees and the Clerk of the Board of Trustees, all as of the Issue Date stated above. WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT By President of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Trustees September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 946 Exhibit A Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Series A Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution. Authentication Date: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent By Authorized Signatory September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 947 Exhibit A Page 5 ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned do(es) hereby sell, assign and transfer unto (Name, Address and Tax Identification or Social Security Number of Assignee) the within Series A Bond and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute(s) and appoint(s) attorney, to transfer the same on the registration books of the Paying Agent with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: _______________ Signature Guaranteed: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Notice: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a qualified guarantor institution. Notice: The signature on this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written on the face of the within bond in every particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever.” September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 948 Exhibit B EXHIBIT B FORM OF NOTICE OF INTENTION $20,000,000 (Preliminary, subject to change) WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to section 53692 of the California Government Code, that the Walnut Creek School District (the “District”) invites bids for the purchase of $20,000,000 (preliminary, subject to change) aggregate principal amount of Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “Bonds”). Bids will be received on WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2016 until 9:30 A.M., Pacific Daylight time, electronically only through the I-Deal LLC BiDCOMP/PARITY® system, and the sale will be awarded by the District within 26 hours after the expiration of the time prescribed for the receipt of bids. The sale of the Bonds will be conducted upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Official Notice of Sale for the Bonds. Such Official Notice of Sale and the Preliminary Official Statement describing the Bonds will be distributed to prospective bidders by the financial advisor to the District, Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Incorporated, 1470 Maria Lane, Suite 315, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, telephone (925) 478-7450. Bids will be entertained only from bidders to whom such Official Notice of Sale and Preliminary Official Statement have been distributed. Legal opinion: Quint & Thimmig LLP, Larkspur, California. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 949 Exhibit C Page 1 EXHIBIT C FORM OF NOTICE OF SALE $20,000,000* WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that electronic bids only for the purchase of $20,000,000* aggregate principal amount of Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “Bonds”), will be received by the Walnut Creek School District (the “District”) at the time and in the form below specified: DATE AND TIME: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2016, until 9:30 A.M. (Pacific Daylight time). SUBMISSION OF BIDS: Bids may be submitted (for receipt not later than the time set forth above) electronically only through the I-Deal LLC BiDCOMP/PARITY® system (“PARITY®”). See “FORM OF BID” herein. ISSUE; BOOK ENTRY: $20,000,000* consisting of fully registered bonds. The Bonds will be dated as of their date of delivery, expected to be October 19, 2016, and will be issued in minimum denominations of $5,000. The Bonds will be issued in a book entry only system with no physical distribution of the Bonds made to the public. The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), will act as depository for the Bonds which will be immobilized in its custody. The Bonds will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC, on behalf of the participants in the DTC system and the subsequent beneficial owners of the Bonds. MATURITIES: The Bonds will mature, or be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, on the dates and in the amounts, as set forth in the following table. Each bidder is required to specify in its bid whether, for any particular year, the Bonds will mature or, alternately, be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in such year: Maturity Date Principal Maturity Date Principal (September 1) Amount* (September 1) Amount* 2017 2032 2018 2033 2019 2034 2020 2035 2021 2036 2022 2037 2023 2038 2024 2039 2025 2040 2026 2041 2027 2042 2028 2043 2029 2044 2030 2045 2031 2046 ADJUSTMENT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS AND OF MATURITIES: The maturity amounts set forth above for the Bonds may be adjusted either upward or downward in order to meet tax rate considerations after award of the Bonds has been made to the successful bidder. The successful bidder will be notified of the actual principal amounts and maturity schedule relating to the Bonds within 26 hours after the expiration of the time prescribed for the receipt of proposals. Any increase or decrease will September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 950 Exhibit C Page 2 be in $5,000 increments of principal amounts. In the event of any such adjustment, no re-bidding or recalculation of the bids submitted will be required or permitted and no successful bid may be withdrawn. The successful bidder will not be permitted to change the interest rates in its bid. x INTEREST: The Bonds shall bear interest, calculated on a 30/360 day basis, at a rate or rates to be fixed upon the sale thereof but not to exceed 8% per annum, payable semiannually on each March 1 and September 1, commencing March 1, 2017. PAYMENT: Principal of the Bonds will be payable upon surrender at The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Dallas, Texas (the “Paying Agent”). Interest on the Bonds will be payable by check or draft mailed by first class mail to the owner at the address listed on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent for such purpose. REGISTRATION: The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds as to both principal and interest. The Bonds will be issued in the book-entry system of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), and the ownership of the Bonds will be registered to the nominee of DTC. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION: The Bonds maturing on and prior to September 1, 2026, are not callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date. The Bonds maturing on and after September 1, 2027, are callable for redemption prior to their stated maturity date at the option of the District, in whole or in part on any date on or after September 1, 2026 (in inverse order of maturity and by lot with a maturity), from any source lawfully available therefor, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the Bonds called for redemption, together with accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption without premium. SINKING FUND REDEMPTION: Any bidder may, at its option, specify that one or more maturities of the Bonds will consist of term Bonds which are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption in consecutive years immediately preceding the maturity thereof, as designated in the bid of such bidder. In the event that the bid of the successful bidder specifies that any maturity of Bonds will be term Bonds, such term Bonds will be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption on September 1 in each year so designated in the bid, in the respective amounts for such years as set forth above under the heading “MATURITIES,” at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed together with accrued interest thereon to the redemption date, without premium. PURPOSE: A duly called special municipal election was held in the District on June 7, 2016, and thereafter canvassed pursuant to law. At such election there was submitted to and approved by the requisite fifty-five percent (55%) vote of the qualified electors of the District a question as to the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds of the District to ______________ (the “Project”), in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $60,000,000 (the “Authorization”) payable from the levy of an ad valorem tax against the taxable property in the District. The Bonds represent the first issue under the Authorization and are being issued for the purpose of raising moneys for the Project and other authorized costs. SECURITY: The Bonds are general obligations of the District. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has the power and is obligated to levy ad valorem taxes for the payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon without limitation as to rate or amount upon all property within the District subject to taxation (except for certain classes of personal property). RATING: S&P Global Ratings, a Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC business, has assigned the ratings of “___” to the Bonds. The cost of obtaining such rating will be borne entirely by the District and not by the successful bidder. TERMS OF SALE INTEREST RATE: No rate of interest may be bid which exceeds 8% per annum. Each rate bid must be a multiple of one-twentieth of one percent (1/20%) or one-eighth of one percent (1/8%). No Bond shall bear more than one interest rate, and all Bonds of the same maturity shall bear the same rate. Each Bond must bear interest at the rate specified in the bid from its date to its fixed maturity date. The September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 951 Exhibit C Page 3 rate on any maturity or group of maturities shall not be more than 4% higher than the interest rate on any other maturity or group of maturities. FORM OF BID; MINIMUM PURCHASE PRICE: No bid shall be for less than 100% of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds. No bid shall generate more bid premium than an amount equal to the interest due on the Bonds in the first three years. To the extent any instructions or directions set forth in BiDCOMP/PARITY® conflict with this Official Notice of Sale, the terms of this Official Notice of Sale shall control. For further information about BiDCOMP/PARITY®, bidders may contact Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Incorporated (the “Financial Advisor”) at (925) 478-7450 or BiDCOMP/PARITY® at (212) 404-8102. THE DISTRICT RETAINS ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY BID IS TIMELY AND COMPLETE. NONE OF THE DISTRICT, THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR, OR QUINT & THIMMIG LLP (“BOND COUNSEL”) TAKES ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFORMING ANY BIDDER PRIOR TO THE TIME FOR RECEIVING BIDS THAT ITS BID IS INCOMPLETE OR NOT RECEIVED. EACH BIDDER SUBMITTING AN ELECTRONIC BID UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES BY DOING SO THAT IT IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ARRANGEMENTS WITH BiDCOMP/PARITY® AND THAT BiDCOMP/PARITY® IS NOT ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE DISTRICT. INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC BIDS MUST BE OBTAINED FROM BiDCOMP/PARITY® AND THE DISTRICT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING OR VERIFYING BIDDER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES OF BiDCOMP/PARITY®. THE DISTRICT SHALL ASSUME THAT ANY BID RECEIVED THROUGH BiDCOMP/PARITY® HAS BEEN MADE BY A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE BIDDER. THE DISTRICT WILL MAKE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO ACCOMMODATE ELECTRONIC BIDS; HOWEVER THE DISTRICT, THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND BOND COUNSEL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ERROR CONTAINED IN ANY BID SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY, OR FOR FAILURE OF ANY BID TO BE TRANSMITTED, RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED AT THE OFFICIAL TIME FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS. THE OFFICIAL TIME FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT AND THE DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE TIME KEPT BY BiDCOMP/PARITY® AS THE OFFICIAL TIME. BEST BID: The Bonds will be awarded to the responsible bidder or bidders offering to purchase the Bonds at the lowest true interest cost to the District. The true interest cost of each bid will be determined on the basis of the present value of the aggregate future semiannual payments resulting from the interest rates specified by the bidder. The present value will be calculated to the dated date of the Bonds (assumed to be October 19, 2016) and will be based on the proposed bid amount (par value plus any premium). For the purpose of making such determination, it shall be assumed that any Bond designated as term bonds by the bidder shall be deemed to be payable on the dates and in the amounts as shown under the section entitled “MATURITIES” herein. Each bidder is requested, but not required, to state in his bid the percentage true interest cost to the District, which shall be considered as informative only and shall not be binding on either the bidder or the District. The determination of the best bid by the District’s financial advisor shall be binding and conclusive on all bidders. RIGHT OF CANCELLATION OF SALE BY DISTRICT: The District reserves the right, in its sole discretion, at any time to cancel the public sale of the Bonds. In such event, the District shall cause notice of cancellation of this invitation for bids and the public sale of the Bonds to be communicated through PARITY® as promptly as practicable. However, no failure to publish such notice or any defect or omission therein shall affect the cancellation of the public sale of the Bonds. RIGHT TO MODIFY OR AMEND: The District reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify or amend this official Notice of Sale including, but not limited to, the right to adjust and change the principal amount and principal amortization schedule of the Bonds being offered, at any time prior to the date and time for the receipt of bids, communicated through PARITY®. RIGHT OF POSTPONEMENT BY DISTRICT: The District reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to postpone, from time to time, the date established for the receipt of bids. Any such September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 952 Exhibit C Page 4 postponement will be communicated through the PARITY® prior to the date and time for the receipt of bids. If any date is postponed, any alternative sale date will be announced through PARITY® at least 24 hours prior to such alternative sale date. On any such alternative sale date, any bidder may submit a bid for the purchase of the Bonds in conformity in all respects with the provisions of this Official Notice of Sale, except for the date of sale and except for the changes announced by through PARITY® at the time the sale date and time are announced. RIGHT OF REJECTION: The District reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity or informality in any bid except that no bids will be accepted later than 9:00 A.M. on the date set for receipt of bids. PROMPT AWARD: Pursuant to authority granted by the Board of Trustees of the District (the “Board”), the Superintendent, or the Superintendent’s designee, will take action awarding the Bonds or rejecting all bids not later than twenty-six (26) hours after the expiration of the time herein prescribed for the receipt of proposals; provided, that the award may be made after the expiration of the specified time if the bidder shall not have given to said Board notice in writing of the withdrawal of such proposal. PLACE OF DELIVERY; CANCELLATION FOR LATE DELIVERY: It is expected that said Bonds will be delivered to DTC for the account of the successful bidder within thirty (30) days from the date of sale thereof. The successful bidder shall have the right, at his option, to cancel its obligation to purchase the Bonds if the Bonds are not tendered for delivery within thirty (30) days from the date of the sale thereof, and in such event the successful bidder shall be entitled to the return of the deposit accompanying his bid. GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT: A good faith deposit (“Deposit”) in the form of a certified or cashier’s check or a wire transfer, in the amount of $100,000, payable to the order of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as paying agent, must be remitted by the winning bidder within 48 hours after the acceptance of its bid. The Deposit shall be cashed by the Paying Agent on behalf of the District and shall then be applied toward the purchase price of the Bonds. If after the award of the Bonds the successful bidder or bidders fail to complete their purchase on the terms stated in their bid, the Deposit will be retained by the District. No interest on the Deposit will accrue to any bidder. CHANGE IN TAX EXEMPT STATUS: At any time before the Bonds are tendered for delivery, the successful bidder may disaffirm and withdraw his proposal if the interest received by private holders from Bonds of the same type and character shall be declared to be taxable income under present federal income tax laws, either by a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service or by a decision of any federal court, or shall be declared taxable, or be requited to be taken into account in computing federal income taxes (except alternative minimum taxes and environmental taxes payable by corporations) by any federal income tax law enacted subsequent to the date of this notice. CLOSING PAPERS; BOND PRINTING: Each proposal will be understood to be conditioned upon the District furnishing to the purchaser, without charge, concurrently with payment for and delivery of the Bonds, the following closing papers, each dated the date of delivery: (a) The opinion of Quint & Thimmig LLP, Larkspur, California, Bond Counsel, approving the validity of the Bonds and stating that, subject to the District’s compliance with certain covenants, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes and is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and corporations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, but is taken into account in computing an adjustment used in determining the federal alternative minimum tax for certain corporations and interest on the Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes of the State of California. Other tax consequences to holders of the Bonds, if any, are not addressed in the opinion; (b) A certificate of the District certifying that on the basis of the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of issue, it is not expected that the proceeds of the Bonds will be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds to be arbitrage bonds; September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 953 Exhibit C Page 5 (c) A certificate of the District, signed by officers and representatives of the District, certifying that the officers and representatives have signed the Bonds whether by facsimile or manual signature, and that they were respectively duly authorized to execute the same; (d) The receipt of the District evidencing the receipt of the purchase price of the Bonds; (e) A certificate of the District, certifying that there is no known litigation threatened or pending affecting the validity of the Bonds; and (f) A certificate of the District, signed by an officer of the District, acting in his official capacity, to the effect that at the time of the sale of the Bonds, and at all times subsequent thereto up to and including the time of the delivery of the Bonds, the Official Statement relating to the Bonds did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. CUSIP NUMBERS: It is anticipated that CUSIP numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor error with respect thereto shall constitute cause for a failure or refusal by the purchaser thereof to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the purchase contract. All expenses of printing CUSIP numbers on the Bonds and the CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of said numbers shall be paid by the successful bidder. CERTIFICATION OF REOFFERING PRICE: The successful bidder shall be required, as a condition to the issuance of the Bonds, to deliver to the District a certificate, in form and substance satisfactory to Bond Counsel, stating (i) that, as of the date of award, the Bonds were expected to be reoffered in a bona fide public offering, (ii) the initial offering price at which a substantial amount (at least 10%) of each maturity of the Bonds were sold to the public, and (iii) that no Bonds of a single maturity were offered at one price to the general public and at a discount from that price to institutional or other investors. CALIFORNIA DEBT AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION: The successful bidder will be required, pursuant to State law, to pay any fees to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission when due. DTC FEES: All fees due DTC with respect to the Bonds shall be paid by the successful bidder or bidders. OFFICIAL STATEMENT: The District has caused to be prepared a Preliminary Official Statement describing the Bonds in a form deemed final by the District within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except for certain information which is permitted under said Rule 15c2-12 to be omitted from the Preliminary Official Statement. A copy of the Preliminary Official Statement will be furnished upon request to Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Incorporated, 1470 Maria Lane, Suite 315, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, telephone (925) 478-7450. The District will furnish to the successful bidder within seven business days following the date of award, at no charge, not in excess of 25 copies of the Official Statement for use in connection with any resale of the Bonds. DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE: The District will deliver to the purchaser of the Bonds a certificate of an official of the District, dated the date of Bond delivery, stating that as of the date thereof, to the best of the knowledge and belief of said official, the Official Statement does not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and further certifying that the signatory knows of no material adverse change in the condition of the District which would make it unreasonable for the purchaser of the Bonds to rely upon the Official Statement in connection with the resale of the Bonds. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE: In order to assist bidders in complying with S.E.C. Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5), the District will undertake, pursuant to the resolution authorizing issuance of the Bonds and a Continuing Disclosure Certificate, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 954 Exhibit C Page 6 of this undertaking is set forth in the preliminary Official Statement and will also be set forth in the final Official Statement. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 955 Exhibit D Page 1 EXHIBIT D FORM OF PAYING AGENT AGREEMENT $20,000,000 WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) PAYING AGENT/BOND REGISTRAR/COSTS OF ISSUANCE AGREEMENT THIS PAYING AGENT/BOND REGISTRAR/COSTS OF ISSUANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into as of October 19, 2016, by and between the WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT (the “District”) and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. (the “Bank”), relating to the $20,000,000 Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “Bonds”). The District hereby appoints the Bank to act as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. RECITALS WHEREAS, the District has duly authorized and provided for the issuance of the Bonds as fully registered bonds without coupons; WHEREAS, the District will ensure all things necessary to make the Bonds the valid obligations of the District, in accordance with their terms, will be done upon the issuance and delivery thereof; WHEREAS, the District and the Bank wish to provide the terms under which the Bank will act as Paying Agent to pay the principal, redemption premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds, in accordance with the terms thereof, and under which the Bank will act as Bond Registrar for the Bonds; WHEREAS, the District and the Bank also wish to provide the terms under which the Bank will act as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds; WHEREAS, the Bank has agreed to serve in such capacities for and on behalf of the District and has full power and authority to perform and serve as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the District has duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Agreement; and all things necessary to make this Agreement a valid agreement have been done. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 956 Exhibit D Page 2 ARTICLE ONE DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Definitions. For all purposes of this Agreement except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires: “Bank” means The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., a national banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America. “Bond Register” means the book or books of registration kept by the Bank in which are maintained the names and addresses and principal amounts registered to each Registered Owner. “Bond Registrar” means the Bank when it is performing the function of registrar for the Bonds. “Bond Resolution” means the resolution of the District pursuant to which the Bonds were issued. “Bond” or “Bonds” means any one or all of the $20,000,000 Walnut Creek School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016). “Custodian and Disbursing Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of custodian and disbursing agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. “District” means Walnut Creek School District. “District Request” means a written request signed in the name of the District and delivered to the Bank. “Fiscal Year” means the fiscal year of the District ending on June 30 of each year. “Paying Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of paying agent for the Bonds. “Person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated organization or government or any agency or political subdivision of a government or any entity whatsoever. “Purchaser” means _______________. “Registered Owner” means a Person in whose name a Bond is registered in the Bond Register. “Stated Maturity” when used with respect to any Bond means the date specified in the Bond Resolution as the date on which the principal of such Bond is due and payable. “Transfer Agent” means the Bank when it is performing the function of transfer agent for the Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 957 Exhibit D Page 3 ARTICLE TWO APPOINTMENT OF BANK AS PAYING AGENT, TRANSFER AGENT, BOND REGISTRAR AND CUSTODIAN AND DISBURSING AGENT Section 2.01. Appointment and Acceptance. The District hereby appoints the Bank to act as Paying Agent and Transfer Agent with respect to the Bonds, to pay to the Registered Owners in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the Bond Resolution, the principal of, redemption premium (if any), and interest on all or any of the Bonds. The District hereby appoints the Bank as Bond Registrar with respect to the Bonds. As Bond Registrar, the Bank shall keep and maintain for and on behalf of the District, books and records as to the ownership of the Bonds and with respect to the transfer and exchange thereof as provided herein and in the Bond Resolution. The District hereby appoints the Bank as Custodian and Disbursing Agent. The Bank hereby accepts its appointment, and agrees to act as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent, Bond Registrar and Custodian and Disbursing Agent. Section 2.02. Compensation. As compensation for the Bank’s services as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, the District hereby agrees to pay the Bank the fees and amounts set forth in a separate agreement between the District and the Bank. In addition, the District agrees to reimburse the Bank, upon its request, for all reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses, disbursements, and advances, including without limitation the reasonable fees, expenses, and disbursements of its agents and attorneys, made or incurred by the Bank in connection with entering into and performing under this Agreement and in connection with investigating and defending itself against any claim or liability in connection with its performance hereunder. ARTICLE THREE PAYING AGENT Section 3.01. Duties of Paying Agent. As Paying Agent, the Bank, provided sufficient collected funds have been provided to it for such purpose by or on behalf of the District, shall pay on behalf of the District the principal of, and interest on each Bond in accordance with the provisions of the Bond Resolution. Section 3.02. Payment Dates. The District hereby instructs the Bank to pay the principal of, redemption premium (if any) and interest on the Bonds on the dates specified in the debt service schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. ARTICLE FOUR BOND REGISTRAR Section 4.01. Initial Delivery of Bonds. The Bonds will be initially registered and delivered to the purchaser designated by the District as one Bond for each maturity. If such purchaser delivers a written request to the Bank not later than five business days prior to the date of initial delivery, the Bank will, on the date of initial delivery, deliver Bonds of authorized denominations, registered in accordance with the instructions in such written request. Section 4.02. Duties of Bond Registrar. The Bank shall provide for the proper registration of transfer, exchange and replacement of the Bonds. Every Bond surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, the signature on which has been September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 958 Exhibit D Page 4 guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution, in form acceptable to the Bank, duly executed by the Registered Owner thereof or his attorney duly authorized in writing. The Bond Registrar may request any supporting documentation it deems necessary or appropriate to effect a re-registration. Section 4.03. Unauthenticated Bonds. The District shall provide to the Bank on a continuing basis, an adequate inventory of unauthenticated Bonds to facilitate transfers. The Bank agrees that it will maintain such unauthenticated Bonds in safekeeping. Section 4.04. Form of Bond Register. The Bank as Bond Registrar will maintain its records as Bond Registrar in accordance with the Bank’s general practices and procedures in effect from time to time. Section 4.05. Reports. The District may request the information in the Bond Register at any time the Bank is customarily open for business, provided that reasonable time is allowed the Bank to provide an up-to-date listing and to convert the information into written form. The Bank will not release or disclose the content of the Bond Register to any person other than to the District at its written request, except upon receipt of a subpoena or court order or as may otherwise be required by law. Upon receipt of a subpoena or court order the Bank will notify the District. Section 4.06. Cancelled Bonds. All Bonds surrendered for payment, redemption, transfer, exchange, or replacement, if surrendered to the Bank, shall be promptly cancelled by it and, if surrendered to the District, shall be delivered to the Bank and, if not already cancelled, shall be promptly cancelled by the Bank. The District may at any time deliver to the Bank for cancellation any Bonds previously authenticated and delivered which the District may have acquired in any manner whatsoever, and all Bonds so delivered shall be promptly cancelled by the Bank. All cancelled Bonds held by the Bank for its retention period then in effect and shall thereafter be destroyed and evidence of such destruction furnished to the District upon its written request. ARTICLE FIVE CUSTODIAN AND DISBURSING AGENT Section 5.01. Receipt of Moneys. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent has received, from the Purchaser, the sum of $_______. Of such amount, $________ has been transferred to the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector for deposit in the Building Fund maintained for the District, $__________ has been transferred to the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector for deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund maintained for the District, and the remaining $_____________ has been deposited in a special account to be held and maintained by the Custodian and Disbursing Agent in the name of the District (the “Costs of Issuance Account”). Amounts transferred to the Contra Costa County Treasurer- Tax Collector are wired as follows: Section 5.02. Investment. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will hold funds in the Costs of Issuance Account until January 19, 2017, or upon prior written order of the District. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent shall have no obligation to invest and reinvest any cash held by it hereunder in the absence of timely and specific written investment direction from the District. In no event shall the Custodian and Disbursing Agent be liable for the selection of investments or for investment losses incurred thereon. In no event shall the Custodian and Disbursing Agent be liable for the selection of investments or for investment losses incurred thereon. The District acknowledges that regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency grant the District the right to receive brokerage confirmations of the security transactions as they occur, at no additional cost. To the extent permitted by law, the District specifically waives compliance with 12 C.F.R. 12 and hereby notifies the Custodian and Disbursing Agent that no brokerage September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 959 Exhibit D Page 5 confirmations need be sent relating to the security transactions as they occur. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent may purchase or sell to itself or any affiliate, as principal or agent, investments authorized by this Agreement. Section 5.03. Payment of Costs of Issuance. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will pay costs of issuance of the Bonds as directed by the District from time to time via a written requisition of the District. Section 5.04. Transfer of Remaining Amounts. Any balances remaining in the Costs of Issuance Account (including any earnings) on January 19, 2017, will be transferred to the Contra Costa County Treasurer-Tax Collector for deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund maintained for the District. Section 5.05. Limited Liability. The liability of the Custodian and Disbursing Agent as custodian and disbursing agent is limited to the duties listed above. The Custodian and Disbursing Agent will not be liable for any action taken or neglected to be taken by it in good faith in any exercise of reasonable care and believed by it to be within the discretion of power conferred upon it by this Agreement. ARTICLE SIX THE BANK Section 6.01. Duties of the Bank. The Bank undertakes to perform the duties set forth herein. No implied duties or obligations shall be read into this Agreement against the Bank. The Bank hereby agrees to use the funds deposited with it for payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds to pay the same as it shall become due and further agrees to establish and maintain such accounts and funds as may be required for the Bank to function as Paying Agent. Section 6.02. Reliance on Documents, Etc. (a) The Bank may conclusively rely, as to the truth of the statements and correctness of the opinions expressed therein, on certificates or opinions expressed therein, on certificates or opinions furnished to the Bank by the District. (b) The Bank shall not be liable for any error of judgment made in good faith. The Bank shall not be liable for other than its negligence or willful misconduct in connection with any act or omission hereunder. (c) No provision of this Agreement shall require the Bank to expend or risk its own funds or otherwise incur any financial liability for performance of any of its duties hereunder, or in the exercise of any of its rights or powers. (d) The Bank may rely, or be protected in acting or refraining from acting, upon any resolution, certificate, statement, instrument, opinion, report, notice, request, direction, consent, order, bond, note, security or other paper or document believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed or presented by the proper party or parties. The Bank need not examine the ownership of any Bond, but shall be protected in acting upon receipt of Bonds containing an endorsement or instruction of transfer or power of transfer which appears on its face to be signed by the Registered Owner or agent of the Registered Owner. (e) The Bank may consult with counsel, and the written advice or opinion of counsel shall be full authorization and protection with respect to any action taken, suffered or omitted by it hereunder in good faith and reliance thereon. (f) The Bank may exercise any of the powers hereunder and perform any duties hereunder either directly or by or through agents or attorneys and shall not be liable for the actions of such agent or attorney if appointed by it with reasonable care. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 960 Exhibit D Page 6 (g) The Paying Agent shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligation under this Agreement arising out of or caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond its reasonable control, including, without limitation, acts of God; earthquakes; fire; flood; wars; terrorism; military disturbances; sabotage; epidemic; riots; interruptions; loss or malfunctions of utilities; computer (hardware or software) or communications services; accidents; labor disputes; acts of civil or military authority or governmental action; it being understood that Paying Agent shall use commercially reasonable efforts which are consistent with accepted practices in the banking industry to resume performance as soon as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. (h) The Bank shall have the right to accept and act upon instructions, including funds transfer instructions (“Instructions”) given pursuant to this Agreement and delivered using Electronic Means ("Electronic Means" shall mean the following communications methods: e-mail, facsimile transmission, secure electronic transmission containing applicable authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys issued by the Bank, or another method or system specified by the Bank as available for use in connection with its services hereunder); provided, however, that the District shall provide to the Bank an incumbency certificate listing officers with the authority to provide such Instructions (“Authorized Officers”) and containing specimen signatures of such Authorized Officers, which incumbency certificate shall be amended by the District whenever a person is to be added or deleted from the listing. If the District elects to give the Bank Instructions using Electronic Means and the Bank in its discretion elects to act upon such Instructions, the Bank’s understanding of such Instructions shall be deemed controlling. The District understands and agrees that the Bank cannot determine the identity of the actual sender of such Instructions and that the Bank shall conclusively presume that directions that purport to have been sent by an Authorized Officer listed on the incumbency certificate provided to the Bank have been sent by such Authorized Officer. The District shall be responsible for ensuring that only Authorized Officers transmit such Instructions to the Bank and that the District and all Authorized Officers are solely responsible to safeguard the use and confidentiality of applicable user and authorization codes, passwords and/or authentication keys upon receipt by the District. The Bank shall not be liable for any losses, costs or expenses arising directly or indirectly from the Bank’s reliance upon and compliance with such Instructions notwithstanding such directions conflict or are inconsistent with a subsequent written instruction. The District agrees: (i) to assume all risks arising out of the use of Electronic Means to submit Instructions to the Bank, including without limitation the risk of the Bank acting on unauthorized Instructions, and the risk of interception and misuse by third parties; (ii) that it is fully informed of the protections and risks associated with the various methods of transmitting Instructions to the Bank and that there may be more secure methods of transmitting Instructions than the method(s) selected by the District; (iii) that the security procedures (if any) to be followed in connection with its transmission of Instructions provide to it a commercially reasonable degree of protection in light of its particular needs and circumstances; and (iv) to notify the Bank immediately upon learning of any compromise or unauthorized use of the security procedures. Section 6.03. Recitals of District. The recitals contained in the Bond Resolution and the Bonds shall be taken as the statements of the District, and the Bank assumes no responsibility for their correctness. Section 6.04. May Own Bonds. The Bank, in its individual or any other capacity, may become the owner or pledgee of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds. Section 6.05. Money Held by the Bank. Money held by the Bank hereunder need not be segregated from other funds. The Bank shall have no duties with respect to investment of funds deposited with it and shall be under no obligation to pay interest on any money received by it hereunder. Any money deposited with or otherwise held by the Bank for the payment of the principal, redemption premium (if any) or interest on any Bond and remaining unclaimed for two years after such deposit will be paid by the Bank to the District, and the District and the Bank agree that the Registered Owner of such Bond shall thereafter look only to the District for payment thereof, and that all liability of the Bank with respect to such moneys shall thereupon cease. Section 6.06. Other Transactions. The Bank may engage in or be interested in any financial or other transaction with the District. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 961 Exhibit D Page 7 Section 6.07. Interpleader. The District and the Bank agree that the Bank may seek adjudication of any adverse claim, demand, or controversy over its person as well as funds on deposit, in a court of competent jurisdiction. The District and the Bank further agree that the Bank has the right to file an action in interpleader in any court of competent jurisdiction to determine the rights of any person claiming any interest herein. Section 6.08. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the District shall indemnify the Bank, its officers, directors, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) for, and hold them harmless against any loss, cost, claim, liability or expense arising out of or in connection with the Bank’s acceptance or administration of the Bank’s duties hereunder or under the Bond Resolution (except any loss, liability or expense as may be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be attributable to the Bank’s negligence or willful misconduct), including the cost and expense (including its counsel fees) of defending itself against any claim or liability in connection with the exercise or performance of any of its powers or duties under this Agreement. Such indemnity shall survive the termination or discharge of this Agreement or discharge of the Bonds. ARTICLE SEVEN MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 7.01. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing signed by both of the parties hereto. Section 7.02. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, except that no such prior written consent shall be required for the Bank’s assignment pursuant to the following sentence. Any bank, corporation or association into which the Bank may be merged or converted or with which it may be consolidated, or any bank, corporation or association resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which the Bank shall be a party, or any bank, corporation or association succeeding to all or substantially all of the corporate trust business of the Bank shall be the successor of the Bank hereunder without the execution or filing of any paper with any party hereto or any further act on the part of any of the parties hereto except on the part of any of the parties hereto where an instrument of transfer or assignment is required by law to effect such succession, anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding.. Section 7.03. Notices. Any request, demand, authorization, direction, notice, consent, waiver or other document provided or permitted hereby to be given or furnished to the District or the Bank shall be mailed or delivered to the District or the Bank, respectively, at the address shown herein, or such other address as may have been given by one party to the other by fifteen (15) days written notice. Section 7.04. Effect of Headings. The Article and Section headings herein are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction hereof. Section 7.05. Successors and Assigns. All covenants and agreements herein by the District and the Bank shall bind their successors and assigns, whether so expressed or not. Section 7.06. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 7.07. Benefits of Agreement. Nothing herein, express or implied, shall give to any Person, other than the parties hereto and their successors hereunder, any benefit or any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim hereunder. Section 7.08. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Bond Resolution constitute the entire agreement between the parties hereto relative to the Bank acting as Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Bond Registrar for the Bonds and as Custodian and Disbursing Agent for the payment of costs of issuance relating to the Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 962 Exhibit D Page 8 Section 7.09. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Section 7.10. Term and Termination. This Agreement shall be effective from and after its date and until the Bank resigns or is removed in accordance with the Bond Resolution; provided, however, that no such termination shall be effective until a successor has been appointed and has accepted the duties of the Bank hereunder. The Bank may resign at any time by giving written notice thereof to the District. If the Bank shall resign, be removed or become incapable of acting, the District shall promptly appoint a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. If an instrument of acceptance by a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall not have been delivered to the Bank within thirty 30 days after the Bank gives notice of resignation, the Bank may petition any court of competent jurisdiction at the expense of the District for the appointment of a successor Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. In the event of resignation or removal of the Bank as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, upon the written request of the District and upon payment of all amounts owing to the Bank hereunder the Bank shall deliver to the District or its designee all funds and unauthenticated Bonds, and a copy of the Bond Register. The provisions of Section 2.02 and Section 6.08 hereof shall survive and remain in full force and effect following the termination of this Agreement. Section 7.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Section 7.12. Documents to be Filed with Bank. At the time of the Bank’s appointment as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, the District shall file with the Bank the following documents: (a) a certified copy of the Bond Resolution and a specimen Bond; (b) a copy of the opinion of bond counsel provided to the District in connection with the issuance of the Bonds; and (c) a District Request containing written instructions to the Bank with respect to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, including the name of the Registered Owners and the denominations of the Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 963 Exhibit D Page 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT By Marie Morgan Superintendent THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., as Paying Agent By Brian Jensen Vice President September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 964 Exhibit D Page 10 EXHIBIT A DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Interest Payment Period Period Date Principal Interest Total Total September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 965 Exhibit E Page 1 EXHIBIT E FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE This Continuing Disclosure Certificate (the “Disclosure Certificate”) is executed and delivered by the WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT (the “District”) in connection with the issuance by the District of its $20,000,000 Walnut Creek School District (County of Alameda, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) (the “Bonds”). The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the District on September 19, 2016 (the “Resolution”). The District covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the Resolution, which apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Certificate, unless otherwise defined in this Section 1, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meanings when used in this Disclosure Certificate: “Annual Report” shall mean any Annual Report provided by the District pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. “Beneficial Owner” shall mean any person who (a) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, any Bonds (including persons holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (b) is treated as the owner of any Bonds for federal income tax purposes. “Dissemination Agent” shall mean Isom Advisors, A Division of Urban Futures Incorporated, or any successor Dissemination Agent designated in writing by the District and which has filed with the District a written acceptance of such designation. In the absence of such a designation, the District shall act as the Dissemination Agent. “EMMA” or “Electronic Municipal Market Access” means the centralized on-line repository for documents to be filed with the MSRB, such as official statements and disclosure information relating to municipal bonds, notes and other securities as issued by state and local governments. “Listed Events” shall mean any of the events listed in Section 5(a) or 5(b) of this Disclosure Certificate. “MSRB” means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, which has been designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as the sole repository of disclosure information for purposes of the Rule, or any other repository of disclosure information which may be designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission as such for purposes of the Rule in the future. “Participating Underwriter” shall mean the original underwriter of the Bonds, required to comply with the Rule in connection with offering of the Bonds. “Rule” shall mean Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time. Section 2. Purpose of the Disclosure Certificate. This Disclosure Certificate is being executed and delivered by the District for the benefit of the owners and Beneficial Owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5). Section 3. Provision of Annual Reports. (a) Delivery of Annual Report. The District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, not later than nine months after the end of the District’s fiscal year (which currently ends on June 30), commencing with the report for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year, which is due not later than March 31, 2017, file with EMMA, in a readable PDF or other electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, an Annual Report September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 966 Exhibit E Page 2 that is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate. The Annual Report may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package and may cross- reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Certificate; provided that the audited financial statements of the District may be submitted separately from the balance of the Annual Report and later than the date required above for the filing of the Annual Report if they are not available by that date. (b) Change of Fiscal Year. If the District’s fiscal year changes, it shall give notice of such change in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c), and subsequent Annual Report filings shall be made no later than nine months after the end of such new fiscal year end. (c) Delivery of Annual Report to Dissemination Agent. Not later than fifteen (15) Business Days prior to the date specified in subsection (a) (or, if applicable, subsection (b)) of this Section 3 for providing the Annual Report to EMMA, the District shall provide the Annual Report to the Dissemination Agent (if other than the District). If by such date, the Dissemination Agent has not received a copy of the Annual Report, the Dissemination Agent shall notify the District. (d) Report of Non-Compliance. If the District is the Dissemination Agent and is unable to file an Annual Report by the date required in subsection (a) (or, if applicable, subsection (b)) of this Section 3, the District shall send a notice to EMMA substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. If the District is not the Dissemination Agent and is unable to provide an Annual Report to the Dissemination Agent by the date required in subsection (c) of this Section 3, the Dissemination Agent shall send a notice to EMMA in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. (e) Annual Compliance Certification. The Dissemination Agent shall, if the Dissemination Agent is other than the District, file a report with the District certifying that the Annual Report has been filed with EMMA pursuant to Section 3 of this Disclosure Certificate, stating the date it was so provided and filed. Section 4. Content of Annual Reports. The Annual Report shall contain or incorporate by reference the following: (a) Financial Statements. Audited financial statements of the District for the preceding fiscal year, prepared in accordance generally accepted accounting principles. If the District’s audited financial statements are not available by the time the Annual Report is required to be filed pursuant to Section 3(a), the Annual Report shall contain unaudited financial statements in a format similar to the financial statements contained in the final Official Statement, and the audited financial statements shall be filed in the same manner as the Annual Report when they become available. (b) Other Annual Information. To the extent not included in the audited final statements of the District, the Annual Report shall also include financial and operating data with respect to the District for preceding fiscal year, substantially similar to that provided in the corresponding tables and charts in the official statement for the Bonds, as follows: (i) The District’s approved budget for the then current fiscal year; (ii) Assessed value of taxable property in the District as shown on the recent equalized assessment role; and (iii) Property tax levies, collections and delinquencies for the District, for the most recent completed fiscal year. (c) Cross References. Any or all of the items listed above may be included by specific reference to other documents, including official statements of debt issues of the District or related public entities, which are available to the public on EMMA. The District shall clearly identify each such other document so included by reference. If the document included by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from EMMA. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 967 Exhibit E Page 3 (d) Further Information. In addition to any of the information expressly required to be provided under paragraph (b) of this Section 4, the District shall provide such further information, if any, as may be necessary to make the specifically required statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. Section 5. Reporting of Listed Events. (a) Reportable Events. The District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination (if not the District) to, give notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: (1) Principal and interest payment delinquencies. (2) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties. (3) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties. (4) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform. (5) Defeasances. (6) Rating changes. (7) Tender offers. (8) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the obligated person. (9) Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701- TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security. Note: For the purposes of the event identified in subparagraph (8), the event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for an obligated person in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governmental body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the obligated person. (b) Material Reportable Events. The District shall give, or cause to be given, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material: (1) Non-payment related defaults. (2) Modifications to rights of security holders. (3) Bond calls. (4) The release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities. (5) The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving an obligated person or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms. (6) Appointment of a successor or additional trustee, or the change of name of a trustee. (c) Time to Disclose. Whenever the District obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event, the District shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent (if not the District) to, file a notice of such occurrence with EMMA, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the Listed Event. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice of Listed Events described in subsections (a)(5) and (b)(3) above need not be given under this subsection any earlier than the notice (if any) of the underlying event is given to owners of affected Bonds under the Resolution. Section 6. Identifying Information for Filings with EMMA. All documents provided to EMMA under this Disclosure Certificate shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 968 Exhibit E Page 4 Section 7. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The District’s obligations under this Disclosure Certificate shall terminate upon the defeasance, prior redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. If such termination occurs prior to the final maturity of the Bonds, the District shall give notice of such termination in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c). Section 8. Dissemination Agent. (a) Appointment of Dissemination Agent. The District may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate and may discharge any such agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. If the Dissemination Agent is not the District, the Dissemination Agent shall not be responsible in any manner for the content of any notice or report prepared by the District pursuant to this Disclosure Certificate. It is understood and agreed that any information that the Dissemination Agent may be instructed to file with EMMA shall be prepared and provided to it by the District. The Dissemination Agent has undertaken no responsibility with respect to the content of any reports, notices or disclosures provided to it under this Disclosure Certificate and has no liability to any person, including any Bondholder, with respect to any such reports, notices or disclosures. The fact that the Dissemination Agent or any affiliate thereof may have any fiduciary or banking relationship with the District shall not be construed to mean that the Dissemination Agent has actual knowledge of any event or condition, except as may be provided by written notice from the District. (b) Compensation of Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination Agent shall be paid compensation by the District for its services provided hereunder in accordance with its schedule of fees as agreed to between the Dissemination Agent and the District from time to time and all expenses, legal fees and expenses and advances made or incurred by the Dissemination Agent in the performance of its duties hereunder. The Dissemination Agent shall not be deemed to be acting in any fiduciary capacity for the District, owners or Beneficial Owners, or any other party. The Dissemination Agent may rely, and shall be protected in acting or refraining from acting, upon any direction from the District or an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel. The Dissemination Agent may at any time resign by giving written notice of such resignation to the District. The Dissemination Agent shall not be liable hereunder except for its negligence or willful misconduct. (c) Responsibilities of Dissemination Agent. In addition of the filing obligations of the Dissemination Agent set forth in Sections 3(e) and 5, the Dissemination Agent shall be obligated, and hereby agrees, to provide a request to the District to compile the information required for its Annual Report at least 30 days prior to the date such information is to be provided to the Dissemination Agent pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 3. The failure to provide or receive any such request shall not affect the obligations of the District under Section 3. Section 9. Amendment; Waiver. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure Certificate, the District may amend this Disclosure Certificate (and the Dissemination Agent shall agree to any amendment so requested by the District that does not impose any greater duties or risk of liability on the Dissemination Agent), and any provision of this Disclosure Certificate may be waived, provided that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) Change in Circumstances. If the amendment or waiver relates to the provisions of Sections 3(a), 4 or 5(a) or (b), it may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature, or status of an obligated person with respect to the Bonds, or the type of business conducted. (b) Compliance as of Issue Date. The undertaking, as amended or taking into account such waiver, would, in the opinion of a nationally recognized bond counsel, have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the original issuance of the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances. (c) Consent of Holders; Non-impairment Opinion. The amendment or waiver either (i) is approved by the Bondholders in the same manner as provided in the Resolution for amendments to the Resolution September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 969 Exhibit E Page 5 with the consent of Bondholders, or (ii) does not, in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, materially impair the interests of the Bondholders or Beneficial Owners. If this Disclosure Certificate is amended or any provision of this Disclosure Certificate is waived, the District shall describe such amendment or waiver in the next following Annual Report and shall include, as applicable, a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment or waiver and its impact on the type (or in the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or operating data being presented by the District. In addition, if the amendment relates to the accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial statements, (i) notice of such change shall be given in the same manner as for a Listed Event under Section 5(c), and (ii) the Annual Report for the year in which the change is made should present a comparison (in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the financial statements as prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting principles. Section 10. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Certificate shall be deemed to prevent the District from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Certificate or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Certificate. If the District chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Certificate, the District shall have no obligation under this Disclosure Certificate to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event. Section 11. Default. In the event of a failure of the District to comply with any provision of this Disclosure Certificate, any Bondholder or Beneficial Owner may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the District to comply with its obligations under this Disclosure Certificate. The sole remedy under this Disclosure Certificate in the event of any failure of the District to comply with this Disclosure Certificate shall be an action to compel performance. Section 12. Duties, Immunities and Liabilities of Dissemination Agent. The Dissemination Agent shall have only such duties as are specifically set forth in this Disclosure Certificate, and no implied covenants or obligations shall be read into this Disclosure Certificate against the Dissemination Agent, and the District agrees to indemnify and save the Dissemination Agent, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless against any loss, expense and liabilities which it may incur arising out of or in the exercise or performance of its powers and duties hereunder, including the costs and expenses (including attorneys fees and expenses) of defending against any claim of liability, but excluding liabilities due to the Dissemination Agent’s negligence or willful misconduct. The Dissemination Agent shall have the same rights, privileges and immunities hereunder as are afforded to the Paying Agent under the Resolution. The obligations of the District under this Section 12 shall survive resignation or removal of the Dissemination Agent and payment of the Bonds. September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 970 Exhibit E Page 6 Section 13. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Certificate shall inure solely to the benefit of the District, the Dissemination Agent, the Participating Underwriter and the owners and Beneficial Owners from time to time of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. Date: October 19, 2016 WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT By Marie Morgan Superintendent ACKNOWLEDGED: ISOM ADVISORS, A DIVISION OF URBAN FUTURES INCORPORATED, as Dissemination Agent By Authorized Officer September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 971 Exhibit E Page 7 EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO EMMA OF FAILURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT Name of Issuer: Walnut Creek School District Name of Issue: $20,000,000 Walnut Creek School District (County of Alameda, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series A (2016) Date of Issuance: October 19, 2016 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Obligor has not provided an Annual Report with respect to the above-named Issue as required by the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, dated October 19, 2016, furnished by the Issuer in connection with the Issue. The Issuer anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by _____________. Dated: ______________________ ISOM ADVISORS, A DIVISION OF URBAN FUTURES INCORPORATED, as Dissemination Agent By Title September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 972 Exhibit F EXHIBIT F ESTIMATED COSTS OF ISSUANCE Bond Counsel Quint & Thimmig LLP $ 35,000 Disclosure Counsel Quint & Thimmig LLP 20,000 Financial Advisor Isom Advisors 60,000 Rating Agency S&P Global Ratings 17,000 Paying Agent The Bank of New York Mellon Trust 2,000 Printing Royce Printing 2,500 Bidding Platform IPREO 1,500 Miscellaneous 7,000 Total $145,000 September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 973 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: 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. Government Code Section 8630 requires 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 September 13, 2016 the Board of Supervisors last reviewed and approved the emergency declaration. Since the Board will not meet for three weeks, the next available Board meeting for this item will be October 18, 2016. With the continuing high number of homeless individuals and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/27/2016 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: September 27, 2016 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Subject:Continue Extension of Emergency Declaration Regarding Homelessness September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 974 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, it is appropriate for the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: September 27, 2016 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Official Minutes 975