Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11032020 -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, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 CANDACE ANDERSEN, CHAIR, 2ND DISTRICT DIANE BURGIS, 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) 655-2075 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. To slow the spread of COVID-19, the Health Officer’s Shelter Order of September 14, 2020, prevents public gatherings (Health Officer Order). In lieu of a public gathering, the Board of Supervisors meeting will be accessible via television and live-streaming to all members of the public as permitted by the Governor’s Executive Order N29-20. Board meetings are televised live on Comcast Cable 27, ATT/U-Verse Channel 99, and WAVE Channel 32, and can be seen live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov. PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA MAY CALL IN DURING THE MEETING BY DIALING 888-251-2949 FOLLOWED BY THE ACCESS CODE 1672589#. To indicate you wish to speak on an agenda item, please push "#2" on your phone. All telephone callers will be limited to two (2) minutes apiece. The Board Chair may reduce the amount of time allotted per telephone caller at the beginning of each item or public comment period depending on the number of calls and the business of the day. Your patience is appreciated. A lunch break or closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible on line at www.contracosta.ca.gov. ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES November 3, 2020            9:00 A.M. Convene and announce adjournment to closed session in Room 168. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code § 54957.6) 1. Agency Negotiators: David Twa and Stacey Cue. Employee Organizations: Public Employees Union, Local 1; AFSCME Locals 512 and 2700; California Nurses Assn.; SEIU Locals 1021 and 2015; District Attorney Investigators’ Assn.; Deputy Sheriffs Assn.; United Prof. Firefighters I.A.F.F., Local 1230; Physicians’ & Dentists’ Org. of Contra Costa; Western Council of Engineers; United Chief Officers Assn.; Contra Costa County Defenders Assn.; Contra Costa County Deputy District Attorneys’ Assn.; Prof. & Tech. Engineers IFPTE, Local 21; and 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)) Mary McCaslin-Curry v. Contra Costa County, WCAB Nos. ADJ10577281; ADJ4644917; ADJ10577273; unassigned 1. Architectural Preservation Foundation of Contra Costa County, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Contra Costa2. County Superior Court Case No. N17-0946 C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 650 Pine Street, Martinez Agency Negotiators: Eric Angstadt, Chief Assistant County Administrator Karen Laws, Real Property Agent Negotiating Parties: County of Contra Costa and City of Martinez Under Negotiation: Price and terms 9:30 A.M. Call to order and opening ceremonies. Inspirational Thought- “Every election is determined by the people who show up.” ~ Larry J. Sabato Present: John Gioia, District I Supervisor; Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor; Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor; Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor; Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Staff Present:David Twa, County Administrator CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.81 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.   DISCUSSION ITEMS   D.1 CONSIDER update on COVID 19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. Health Department - Anna Roth, Director and Dr. Farnitano, Health Officer1.       Speakers: Name unknown.   D.2 HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-27 establishing East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Fire Protection Facilities Fees and related actions as recommended by the Conservation and Development Director. (Jason Crapo, Department of Conservation and Development)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.3 HEARING to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of a development plan for a two-story addition, interior remodel, and new deck at an existing single-family residence at 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington. (Ruben Hernandez, Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Nicole Ashar, Appellant; Howard CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal of Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello; DETERMINED that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) (existing structures); APPROVED the development plan for a two-story addition, interior remodel, and new deck at an existing single-family residence at 120 St. Albans Road in the Kensington. (County File #DP19-3019), as modified today to make modifications to the design of the deck consistent with the drawing presented by staff; APPROVED the findings and conditions of approval; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.   D.4 HEARING to consider the proposed formation of Zone 1204 within County Service Area P-6 (Police Services) for Subdivision No. 9495 at 5175 Laurel Drive in the unincorporated Concord area of the County for County File #SD18-9495. (Jennifer Cruz, Department of Conservation and Development)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.5 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2020/279 and Ordinance No. 2020-24, authorizing the levy of    D.5 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2020/279 and Ordinance No. 2020-24, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 for Subdivision No. 9495 (County File #SD18-9495) at 5175 Laurel Drive in the unincorporated Concord area of the County, and fixing an election on January 5, 2021, to obtain voter approval. (Jennifer Cruz, Department of Conservation and Development)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D.6 CONSIDER referring to the Internal Operations Committee the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s challenge to Contra Costa County employers to “Cut the Commute”, requesting Contra Costa cities to consider accepting this Challenge; and referring to the Sustainability Committee how best to engage and encourage other Contra Costa employers to consider accepting this Challenge, as recommended by Supervisors Mitchoff and Gioia. (Supervisors Mitchoff and Gioia)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 7 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no items removed from the consent calendar for discussion.   D. 8 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    There were no requests to speak at public comment.   D. 9 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no announcements from Closed Session.   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 11:33 a.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Quincy Engineering, Incorporated, effective November 3, 2020, to increase the payment limit by $275,000 to a new payment limit of $650,000 and extend the term from March 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022, for civil design services for the Danville Boulevard-Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements Project, Alamo area. (66% Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Funds, 33% Measure J Regional Funds, and 1% Local Road Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Engineering Services   C. 2 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/282 approving the final map and subdivision agreement for subdivision SD17-09466, for a project being developed by AYM, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a contract with Kimley Horn and Associates effective November 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide design and engineering services for security equipment and system upgrades at Buchanan Field (100% Federal Aviation Administration).       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 4 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Fermin Rubio vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $100,000, as recommended by the Director of Risk Management. (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 RECEIVE report concerning the final settlement of Ervin Roquemore vs. Contra Costa County; and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $1,325,000, as recommended by the Director of Risk Management (100% Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 6 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County and the Contra Costa County Water Agency, a joint defense and fee allocation agreement, and contracts for legal services with The Freeman Firm and the Law Office of Roger B. Moore, in connection with California Department of Water Resources v. All Persons Interest in the Matter, etc., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00283112. (100% Contra Costa Water Agency funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 7 DENY claims filed by Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (2), Nickolas S. Castro, Victoria Souja & William Souja, and USAA Casualty Insurance Company.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Honors & Proclamations   C. 8 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/277 congratulating Priscilla Couden on her retirement as Executive Director of the Contra Costa County Historical Society, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       Speaker Melissa Jacobsen, President of Architectural Foundation of Contra Costa.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 9 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/280 honoring F. Michael Hoffschneider for his 48 years of services to the Contra Costa County veterans community on the occasion of his retirement, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover  AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 10 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/281 celebrating Veteran's Day 2020 and recognizing service of veterans throughout Contra Costa County, as recommended by Supervisor Andersen.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 11 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/288 proclaiming November 4, 2020 as Contra Costa County Shelter-in-Place Education Day, as recommended by the Health Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 12 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/289 honoring Jane Fischberg on her retirement from Rubicon Programs, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Appointments & Resignations   C. 13 REAPPOINT to the Advisory Council on Aging Local Committee Seats: Rudy Fernandez to the City of Antioch seat; Joanna Kim Selby to the City of El Cerrito seat; Jennifer Doran to the City of Hercules seat; Frances Smith to the City of Richmond seat; and Gail Garrett to the Nutrition Council seat, for a two-year term of September 30, 2020 through September 30, 2022 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director,       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 14 DECLARE a vacancy in Seat Member At-Large #18 on the Advisory Council on Aging, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 ACCEPT resignation from Deborah Cowans from the At Large Alternate seat on the Commission for Women and Girls; DECLARE the seat vacant, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Commission's Executive Committee.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 16 REAPPOINT James Mellander to the District 1 seat on the Merit Board, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Leases   C. 17 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease amendment for the office space located at 2101 Vale Road, Suite 302, San Pablo, to extend the term of the lease to April 30, 2025, at an initial annual rate of $15,624 for the first year with annual increases thereafter, for continued occupancy by Veterans Services. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 18 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/284 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to decrease the payment limit by $31,136 to new payment limit of $10,287,769 to provide state preschool services with no change to term ending June 30, 2020. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to accept on behalf of the County, a grant award from the California Department of Public Health, to pay County for health assessments and administration costs for patients in the Refugee Health Assessment Program for the period October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 20 APPROVE clarification of Board Action from January 14, 2020 (Item C.5) in which the Board authorized the County Librarian to accept a Community Development Block Grant award in the amount of $75,000 from the City of Walnut Creek for the purpose of providing Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades to the Ygnacio Valley Library parking lot, to reflect the updated grant amount of $95,000, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, as recommended by the County Librarian. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 21 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the City of Walnut Creek, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $88,472 to provide homeless outreach services under the Coordinated Outreach, Referral and Engagement Program for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (No County match)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 22 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District for use of the Sheriff's Range Facility commencing with execution of the contract through June 30, 2023. (100% User Fee revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 23 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with the Trustees of the California State University on behalf of California State University Long Beach for student internship placement(s) for social work field experience in the County for the period October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2024. (Non-financial)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 24 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mount Diablo Unified School District in an amount not to exceed $193,040 to provide Early Head Start Program Enhancement services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 25 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Fehr & Peers to extend the term from December 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, with no change to the payment limit, to continue analyzing the feasibility of multi-use trail concepts for the Marsh Creek Corridor. (84% Livable Communities Trust (District 3 portion), 8% Road Fund, 8% East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 26 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Corner, a purchase order with Shimadzu Scientific Instruments in an amount not to exceed $410,000 to purchase a Liquid Chromatograph Tandem Mass Spectrometry System, consumables and training for the Office of the Sheriff, Forensic Services Division. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Aaron K. Hayashi, M.D., Inc., to increase the payment limit by $49,000 to a new payment limit of $1,985,000, to provide additional radiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center with no change in the term October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with United Family Care, LLC (dba Family Courtyard), in an amount not to exceed $315,725 to provide augmented board and care services for County-referred mentally disordered clients for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Ed Supports, LLC (dba Juvo Autism + Behavioral Health Services), in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 to provide applied behavior analysis services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 30 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with David H. Raphael, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,590,000 to provide general surgery services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with William E. Berlingieri, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $391,680 to provide outpatient psychiatric care to older adult patients in Central Contra Costa County for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Suncrest Hospice San Jose, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $900,000 to provide hospice services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2023. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with A Plus Hospice, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide hospice services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with All Health Services, Corporation, to increase the payment limit by $300,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000 to provide additional crisis nursing services during the COVID-19 pandemic at Contra Costa Regional Medical, Health Centers and Detention facilities with no change in the term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal CARES Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Servicemaster Restoration Services) in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 to provide emergency restoration services during COVID-19 pandemic and other events requiring immediate assistance at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. (8% Hospital Enterprise Fund I, 92% federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Tides Center, in an amount not to exceed $224,602 to provide Mental Health Services Act prevention and early intervention services for residents in the Iron Triangle neighborhood of Richmond for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $112,301. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay    C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Community Resources Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $249,948 to provide Juvenile Reentry Services in East and Central Contra Costa County to youth who have been, or soon will be, released from the Youthful Offender Treatment Program, the Girls in Motion program, or the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility for the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% State Revenue)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 38 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/286 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the payment limit by $685,486 to a new payment limit not to exceed $6,784,344 to provide California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS, Stage 2) childcare and development programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (85% State; 15% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Foundation Enterprise, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,785,511 to provide coordinated entry, outreach, referral and engagement services to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals in Contra Costa County for the period October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (23% Federal, 46% state; 31% local grants)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 40 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Department, a purchase order with Priority Healthcare Distribution, Inc. (dba Curascript Specialty Distribution), in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for specialty drugs Nexplanon and Eylea to be used at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers, Martinez Detention Center and West County Detention Center for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with David S. Gee, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Contra Costa Health Plan Medical Management team for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 42 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Covelo Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 43 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/287 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the payment limit by $1,621,933 to a new payment limit of $5,287,744 to provide alternative payment childcare programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% State)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The    C. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with The Wright Institute, in an amount not to exceed $1,158,750 to provide training to behavioral health students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a novation contract with Mental Health Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $303,673 to provide socialization and vocational rehabilitative services to adults with severe and persistent mental illness for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $151,836. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with La Clínica de La Raza, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $288,975 to provide Mental Health Services Act prevention and early intervention services to Latino residents of Central and East County for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $144,486. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with People Who Care Children Association, in an amount not to exceed $229,795 to provide Mental Health Services Act prevention and early intervention services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, including a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $114,898. (100% Mental Health Service Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Semon Bader, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide orthopedic services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Center patients for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Stephen C. Weiss, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $1,590,000 to provide general surgery services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 50 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $502,049 to provide COVID-19 contact investigation and contact tracing services for Contra Costa Health Services for the period November 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with    C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $95,000 to provide emergency residential care placement services to mentally ill adults for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (100% Mental Health Realignment)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, to extend the termination date from November 30, 2020 through November 30, 2022, with no change in the payment limit of $50,000, to continue providing pediatric cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Stericycle, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $384,000 to provide hazardous waste management removal services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 54 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with SHC Services (dba Supplemental Health Care), effective October 1, 2020, to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $2,000,000, to provide additional crisis nursing services at Contra Costa Regional Medical, Health Centers and Detention facilities with no change in the term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal CARES Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College in an amount not to exceed $37,800 to provide foster parent and caregiver Heritage training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (75% Federal, 17.5% State, 7.5% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment and extension with CocoKids, Inc., a non-profit public benefit corporation, to extend contract term six (6) months through June 30, 2021 and to increase the payment limit by $243,760 to a new payment limit of $1,642,980 to provide Emergency Child Care Bridge Program services for foster children.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide Resource Family Approval training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (25% State, 75% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a    C. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Contra Costa Community College District – Contra Costa College in an amount not to exceed $24,000 to provide Resource Family Approval training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (25% State, 75% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with University of California, San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $157,647, for local evaluation services for the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative Lethality Assessment Program, for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2021. (81% County; 19% Federal)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 60 RESCIND Board action of September 8, 2020, (C.38), which pertained to a contract with Contra Costa County Office of Education; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Contra Costa County Office of Education, an educational institution, in an amount not exceed $38,000 to provide year-round schools to participants enrolled in dual diagnosis treatment at the Center for Recovery and Empowerment (CORE), for the period August 15, 2020 through August 14, 2021. (100% Mental Health Services Act)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 61 AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for the 2021 On-Call Painting Services Contract(s) for interior and exterior painting services in support of building maintenance, Countywide. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 62 APPOINT Board Chair, Candace Andersen, and County Administrator, David Twa, as designated representatives for the for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits and other terms related to the appointment of a new County Administrator, as recommended by County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 63 APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District, including the list of designated positions, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 64 APPROVE amended list of designated positions for the Conflict of Interest Code for the Kensington Fire Protection District, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to process payments for tuition and training expenses and to execute contracts with local employers to partially reimburse expenses for on-the-job training and hiring, for eligible Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act enrolled participants, not to exceed $625,000, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal)         AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $94,124 to Sodexo America, LLC, for the provision of management and oversight of the Environmental Services Unit at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Napa State Hospital Dietetics Department to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers to medical residency students for the period August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2025. (Nonfinancial agreement)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 68 APPROVE amended list of designated positions and disclosure categories for the Conflict of Interest Code for the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE the 2019 Annual Crop Report and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to submit the publication to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 70 APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for Delta Diablo, including the listed of designated positions, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 71 RATIFY the execution of a Facility Rental Agreement by the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, indemnifying the City of Walnut Creek, for the Clerk-Recorder’s rental of the parking lot at Heather Farms for the November 2020 Election. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 72 APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Contra Costa County Human Resources Department, including the list of designated positions, as recommended by County Counsel.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 73 APPROVE the list of providers recommended by the Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director, and the Health Services Director, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with West Contra Costa Unified School District to provide school-based mobile clinic services to children and youth for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025. (Nonfinancial)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE County Counsel or her designee to execute on behalf of the County a conflict waiver acknowledging potential conflicts of interest and consenting to Foley & Lardner representing Sutter Health, and specified affiliates, and the County. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 76 CONTINUE the emergency action originally taken by the Board of Supervisors on November 16, 1999, and most recently approved by the Board on August 11, 2020, 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 Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 77 AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make a deduction from special tax proceeds at the rate of $0.09 per special assessment, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 84/332 to mitigate the Assessor's costs to administer the special assessment on behalf of other local agencies, as recommended by the Assessor. (100% General Fund)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 78 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/283 as approved by the Retirement Board, which establishes retirement plan contribution rates effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 ACCEPT the report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e) representing an accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2018/19, as recommended by the Sheriff-Coroner. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 80 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/291 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Martinez Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series 2020" in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 by the Martinez Unified School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government 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 Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 81 ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/236 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C" in an amount not to exceed $110,000,000 by the Contra Costa Community College District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code, as recommended by the County Administrator. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover   GENERAL INFORMATION 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 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the Board votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board. Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of Supervisors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar Street, First Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. 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) 655-2000. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, First Floor. 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) 655-2000, 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, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California. Subscribe to receive to the weekly Board Agenda by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000 or using the County's on line subscription feature at the County’s Internet Web Page, where agendas and supporting information may also be viewed: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us STANDING COMMITTEES The Airport Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of the month at 11:00 a.m. at the Director of Airports Office, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord. The Family and Human Services Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Candace Andersen) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Finance Committee (Supervisors John Gioia and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the first Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets quarterly on the first Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m.. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Legislation Committee (Supervisors Karen Mitchoff and Diane Burgis) meets on the second Monday of the month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Street, Martinez. The Public Protection Committee (Supervisors Andersen and Federal D. Glover) meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 10:30 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other The Sustainability Committee (Supervisors Federal D. Glover and John Gioia) meets on the fourth Monday of every other month at 1:00 p.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (Supervisors Candace Andersen and Karen Mitchoff) meets on the second Monday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in Room 110, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez. Airports Committee November 5, 2020 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee November 23, 2020 9:00 a.m.See above Finance Committee December 7, 2020 Canceled 9:00 a.m.See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee December 7, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee November 9, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Legislation Committee November 9, 2020 1:00 p.m.See above Public Protection Committee November 23, 2020 10:30 a.m.See above Sustainability Committee November 9, 2020 1:30 p.m.See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee November 9, 2020 9:00 a.m. See above PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, MAY BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES A LUNCH BREAK MAY BE CALLED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings. Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and written materials associated with Board meetings: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees AICP American Institute of Certified Planners AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOD Alcohol and Other Drugs ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BGO Better Government Ordinance BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIO Chief Information Officer COLA Cost of living adjustment ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CPA Certified Public Accountant CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission dba doing business as DSRIP Delivery System Reform Incentive Program EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee EMS Emergency Medical Services EPSDT Early State Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (Mental Health) et al. et alii (and others) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency F&HS Family and Human Services Committee First 5 First Five Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act HIV Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HR Human Resources HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IHSS In-Home Supportive Services Inc. Incorporated IOC Internal Operations Committee ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LLC Limited Liability Company LLP Limited Liability Partnership Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1 LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MAC Municipal Advisory Council MBE Minority Business Enterprise M.D. Medical Doctor M.F.T. Marriage and Family Therapist MIS Management Information System MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OB-GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology O.D. Doctor of Optometry OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act Psy.D. Doctor of Psychology RDA Redevelopment Agency RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposal RFQ Request For Qualifications RN Registered Nurse SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SEIU Service Employees International Union SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TRE or TTE Trustee TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee UASI Urban Area Security Initiative VA Department of Veterans Affairs vs. versus (against) WAN Wide Area Network WBE Women Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER update on COVID 19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. Health Department - Anna Roth, Director and Dr. Farnitano, Health Officer1. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative reports with no specific fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department has established a website dedicated to COVID-19, including daily updates. The site is located at: https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/ APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: David Twa I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.1 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on COVID-19 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Name unknown. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Covid-19 Update Covid‐19 Update Report  D.1 11‐03‐2020    Dr. Roth spoke on the overall Covid‐19 case rate.  For the past number of weeks, Covid‐19 case numbers have  risen in Europe, across our country and across our country at alarming rates.  Globally, the case count passed half  a million for the first time last Wednesday and then shot past 543,000 on Thursday.  And then rose again on  Friday by another 50,000 cases.   The picture in the U.S. doesn't look much better.  The surge is nationwide now.   47 states have had more cases in the last week than the week before.  And that includes California.  According to John Hopkins, the new cases being diagnosed at a rate faster than one per second and someone in  our country is dying almost every two minutes.    Contra Costa County has not been immune from this trend, though we have been in better shape than many parts  of the country.  Last week our case rate was less than four cases per 100,000 which qualified us to move to the  orange tier. Health Services cautiously optimistic that the County could stay in that range even while opening  additional indoor activities and businesses that were allowed in the orange tier and that has not been days.    Our numbers rise over the past week at concerning rates.  As of today we are at 5.1 cases per 100,000.  That is sort of best‐case scenario and one more week at this case rate could move the county back to a more  restrictive tier.  There was close to 120 more cases on this Monday than the Monday prior. Two‐thirds of these  increases have been for people in the age range of 19‐50.    These people are working essential jobs, having contact with the public, in jobs like restaurant servers, grocery  store clerks, healthcare workers, first responders.  These people who are leaving home on a regular basis.  No  matter why people leave their homes, we know that leaving your home makes your measure susceptible to this  infection.  This is a respiratory airborne infection and we know you increase your risk when you are moving  around the community.    Hospitalizations in Contra Costa in mid‐October had fallen down to the low 20s, but in the past few weeks, they  have actually started to creep up and now are consistently around 35.  Health Services is closely watching these  trends and working with the contact tracing team to understand where the spread is happening and how to  address it in effective and targeted ways.    Testing rates are up.  On October 27th, as an example, we tested 5,079 people, well above the target of 4,500 a  day.   Health Services is also planning particular testing pushes, including a testing push focus on the Latinx  community this Saturday at West County Health Center in San Pablo.  Thanks to the United Latino Voices that  have been instrumental in making this happen, and extensive outreach efforts within the community.   This  offering will be testing as well as for those who get tested, we will be offering flu shots between 9:00 a.m. and  3:30 at the West County Health Center in San Pablo.     Other services will be available. People will be able to get in your car and drive across the street and get groceries  through St. Vincent DePaul.      Dr. Farnitano reported hearing from the state yesterday that their weekly data report and tier assignment report  that usually comes out on Tuesdays is delayed because of the election and will be coming out tomorrow.  He said  it is really important that we let the data drive our actions.  The data can change quickly and we have to be  prepared to pivot when the numbers say we should.    Health Services will take a very close look at those state numbers when they are released tomorrow for any  concerning trends that indicate the need for quick action, and continue to look at our own internal numbers every  single day and those numbers are worrisome and suggest we may need to take action very soon.  Cases and  hospitalization have been rising across the Bay Area.  Over the past months the Bay Area counties have been debating whether to open business.  We hear from across the state that some counties are struggling to reach the testing goals set by the state.   Contra Costa is  ramping up the testing numbers consistently, but there are  open appointments every day that  are going unfilled.  More testing is desired.    RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. CONCUR with the findings specified in the attached Notice of Findings Report. 3. ADOPT the attached Ordinance No. 2020-27 to: a. Determine that the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District's facilities are overextended. b. Designate the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District as an overextended service area. c. Set fire protection facilities fees for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District as specified in the ordinance. d. Set administration fees for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District as specified in the ordinance. 4. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee to execute an agreement with the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District for the administration of fire protection facilities fees. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jason Crapo, 925-674-7722 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Fire Protection Facilities Fees FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed fire protection facilities fees will generate revenue to offset the projected cost of facilities and equipment needs for the East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) through 2040, based on the fee study report performed by the consulting firm NBS, which is included in the attachments of this Board Order. BACKGROUND: The District serves the cities of Brentwood and Oakley and surrounding unincorporated communities in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. The District expects its service population to grow in coming years, and therefore the District projects it will require additional facilities and equipment to continue providing fire protection services within its boundaries. The proposed fire facilities fees, a form of impact fees, will be charged to new development projects and will be used to offset a portion of the cost of the District's facilities and equipment needs. These additional facilities will enable the District to maintain service levels as the District's service population increases over time. The fire facilities fees proposed by the District are described in detail in the attached Notice of Findings Report prepared by the District, consistent with the requirements of the County Ordinance Code. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2020-27 ECCFPD Resolution No. 2020-08 ECCFPD Notice of Findings and Fee Study Report CCC.ECCFPD.Collection Agreement of Fire Protection Facilities Fees (10.22.20 FINAL) MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2020-27 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 (uncodified) ESTABLISHING FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES FEES FOR PORTIONS OF THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I. Purpose and Authority. This ordinance establishes fire protection facilities fees for that portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County (the “County”) that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (the “District”), and authorizes the County to impose the fees and the District to collect, retain, and expend the fees. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to Chapter 818-2 of the County Ordinance Code. SECTION II. Notice and Hearing. This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures set forth in County Ordinance Code Chapter 818-2 and in Government Code sections 66016, 66017, and 66018. All required notices have been properly given and public hearings held. SECTION III. Service Area. The service area affected by this ordinance is that portion of unincorporated County that is located within the boundaries of the District. SECTION IV. Existence of Overextension. This Board has reviewed the findings submitted by the Fire Chief of the District. Based upon these findings and evidence presented at the public hearing on this ordinance, the Board determines that the fire protection facilities within the District are not adequate to serve the fire protection needs of the service area, and that these fire protection facilities are therefore overextended. SECTION V. Definitions. For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms have the following meanings: (a)“Applicant” means a person, corporation, or entity that applies for a building permit for new construction that will occur within any portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. (b)“New construction” has the following meanings: (1)When applied to the construction of residential buildings, or the installation of mobilehomes, “new construction” means construction or installation that increases the number of dwelling units on a given lot and requires a building permit. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 1 (2)When applied to the construction or installation of nonresidential buildings, “new construction” means construction or installation that increases the amount of floor space for nonresidential building purposes, or that increases the number of hotel rooms, on a given lot and requires a building permit. SECTION VI. Fees. On and after the effective date of this ordinance, the following fees shall be collected: (a)Fire Protection Facilities Fee. Each Applicant, at the time of application for and prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction, or at the earliest date otherwise specified by law, shall pay a fire protection facilities fee in accordance with the following schedule: Residential: Single-Family:$ 1,292.13 per dwelling unit Multi-Family:$ 916.99 per dwelling unit Mobile Home:$ 875.31 per dwelling unit Age-Restricted:$ 708.59 per dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit:No fee for units less than 750 square feet For units 750 square feet or larger, the fee per dwelling unit is calculated as follows: Nonresidential: Commercial:$ 875.31 per 1,000 gross square feet Office: $ 1,167.08 per 1,000 gross square feet Industrial:$ 583.54 per 1,000 gross square feet ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 2 Hotel:$ 208.41 per hotel room Alternative Nonresidential Fee:An applicant for nonresidential new construction may petition the District to pay the alternative fee based on actual service population generated by the new construction, calculated as follows: (b)District Administration Fee. In addition to the foregoing, each Applicant, at the time of application for and prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction, shall pay a District administration fee, which is the Applicant’s prorated portion of the District’s estimated costs of collecting the Fire Protection Facilities Fees, administering the fee program, and complying with the Mitigation Fee Act, in accordance with the following schedule: Residential: Single-Family:$ 25.84 per dwelling unit Multi-Family:$ 18.34 per dwelling unit Mobile Home:$ 17.51 per dwelling unit Age-Restricted:$ 14.17 per dwelling unit Accessory Dwelling Unit:0.02 x (applicable Fire Protection Facilities Fee) Nonresidential: Commercial:$ 17.51 per 1,000 gross square feet Office: $ 23.34 per 1,000 gross square feet Industrial:$ 11.67 per 1,000 gross square feet Hotel:$ 4.17 per hotel room Alternative Nonresidential Fee:0.02 x (applicable Fire Protection Facilities Fee) ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 3 SECTION VII. Annual Index Adjustment. Effective July 1, 2021, and on each subsequent anniversary of the date, the amount of each of the fees set forth in this ordinance shall increase or decrease by the average annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area for All Urban Consumers and the California Construction Cost Index published by the California Department of General Services for the twelve month period ending with the February indices of the same calendar year. SECTION VIII. Delay. If, for any reason, this ordinance’s fees are not collected as provided in Section VI, they shall be due and paid upon demand, but in any event this ordinance’s fees shall be paid no later than the date of the final inspection or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs last. SECTION IX. Administration. The County will require payment to the District of the fees established by this ordinance as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit for new construction within the boundaries of the District. The District is authorized to collect, retain, and expend the fees, and to perform related statutory requirements in a manner consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, subject to the terms of a separate agreement between the County and the District. The County will not require payment of any fees established by this ordinance unless the County and District have entered into a separate agreement that establishes the terms and conditions for the administration of the fees established by this ordinance. SECTION X. Supersede. As of its effective date, this ordinance supersedes any prior ordinances adopted by the County Board of Supervisors that established fire protection facilities fees for that portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, including Ordinance Nos. 87-11 and 87-12, and any other ordinances adopting fire protection facilities fees to support the Bethel Island Fire District, the East Diablo Fire District, or the Oakley Fire District (collectively, “Previous Ordinances”). However, this repeal shall not affect any fees that were imposed prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which fees shall be paid and collected under the provisions of the Previous Ordinances. SECTION XI. Severability. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines any fee set forth in this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, the corresponding fee adopted by the Previous Ordinances shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in effect and subject to the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, the Previous Ordinances shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in full force and effect. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 4 SECTION XII. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the East Bay Times, a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on ___________________________, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, _____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: ______________________[SEAL] Deputy KCK: H:\Client Matters\2020\DCD\Ordinance No. 2020-27 East Contra Costa FPD Fire Protection Faciliites Fees.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 2020-27 5 Page 1 of 5 16121726.4 EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATE OF CALIFORNIA * * * RESOLUTION NO. 2020-08 APPROVING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT WHEREAS, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (District) provides fire protection and emergency response services throughout its service area; and WHEREAS, anticipated new development in the District's service area will require the District to construct new facilities and purchase new equipment to provide service to the new residents and structures; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) requires that the purpose for development impact fees, including fire facility impact fees, be reasonably related to the development, and that the amount of the fee be reasonably related to the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the District does not have the authority to impose development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City of Oakley, the City of Brentwood, and the County of Contra Costa have separately adopted fire facility impact fees on persons building new structures in the District's service area to fund facilities and equipment necessary to provide fire protection and emergency response service to the new structures and residents; and WHEREAS, the District adopted a five-year Strategic Plan in December 2018 and a related Implementation Action Plan in February 2019, which include updating the fire facility impact fees within the District's service area, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, in a manner that is more reflective of the current costs of construction, more consistent across the District, and better aligned with the District's projected capital improvements needs; and WHEREAS, NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study Final Report (Study), which assesses the additional fire protection and emergency response equipment and facilities that the District will need to service projected new development in its service area through 2040, and recommends afee on new development to cover these costs; and WHEREAS, staff recommends, and the Finance Committee concurs, that the Board of Directors approve the Study for use in setting development impact fees for fire protection and emergency response capital costs within the District's service area, and direct staff to work with the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, and County of Contra Costa to update their development impact fees in a manner consistent with the Study. DocuSign Envelope ID: B29B6680-2FC9-4C4F-98CB-8C3A773623FF Page 2 of 5 16121726.4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District hereby approves the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study Final Report for use in setting development impact fees within the District's service area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Fire Chief to take all actions necessary and proper to assist the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, and County of Contra Costa in updating their development impact fees in a manner consistent with the Study, and to develop procedures for the collection and use of the resulting development impact fees by the District. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Langro, Nash, Oftedal, Smith, Young NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Brian J. Oftedal President, Board of Directors Brian Helmick Clerk of the Board DocuSign Envelope ID: B29B6680-2FC9-4C4F-98CB-8C3A773623FF East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Brian Helmick, Fire Chief BOARD OF DIRECTORS Brian Oftedal, President Stephen Smith, Vice President Adam Langro Carrie Nash Joe Young S 16783990.3 Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Memorandum TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors FROM: Brian Helmick, Fire Chief, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District DATE: October 2, 2020 RE: Notice of Findings – Development Impact Fee Study Pursuant to Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances (County Code) Section 818-2.802 et seq., this memorandum summarizes the findings in support of the request by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (District) that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) update the fire protection facilities fees in the portions of the unincorporated county within the District's service area. I. BACKGROUND The District is a rural funded fire district that protects approximately 249 square miles and approximately 128,000 residents. The District provides firefighting personnel and emergency medical services (basic life support) to the residents and businesses of the City of Brentwood, and Oakley, and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County, including the Township of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory. The District was formed in November of 2002 by combining the Bethel Island Fire District, the East Diablo Fire District, and the Oakley Fire District. Pursuant to Chapter 818-2 of the County Code, the Board of Supervisors imposed a series of fire protection facilities fee on new development in the service areas of the District's predecessor districts to support the costs of the capital facilities necessary to provide fire protection and emergency response service to this development. These fees have not been updated in many years, some as far back as 1987. The District requests that the Board of Supervisors update these fees to reflect the District's current capital needs. II. FINDINGS To request a change in fire facility impact fees, County Code requires the fire chief of a fire protection district serving a portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County to provide the Board of Supervisors a notice of findings that includes 1) a legal description and map of the geographic boundaries of the proposed service area; 2) a determination that the fire protection facilities within the District's service area are overextended; 3) estimates of the total cost of additional fire protection facilities needed to mitigate the overextended area's facilities and the portion of that total cost proposed to be allocated to, and collected from, new residential and nonresidential construction; 4) a proposed schedule of new fees for each type of new construction; and 5) an explanation of how the proposed facilities will be consistent with the County's general plan. (County Code § 818-2.802 et seq.) Each of these findings is addressed below. Memorandum To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 2, 2020 Page 2 16783990.3 A. Description of the District's Service Area The District's service area consists of the former service areas of the Bethel Island, East Diablo, and Oakley Fire Protection Districts, as further described and depicted in Resolution No. 02-24 of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County Making Determinations and Approving the Consolidation of East County Fire Protection Districts, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The District requests that the Board of Supervisors impose this fee in the portion of the District's service area within the unincorporated County. The District's goal is to establish a uniform fee schedule within its service area. The Brentwood City Council adopted the proposed fees on July 28, 2020. The Oakley City Council intends to consider the fees at its September 8, 2020 Meeting. B. The Fire Protection Facilities Within the District are Overextended The District's average response time for calls far exceeds the four minute response time recommended for professional fire companies by National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 and the five minute response time in the Contra Costa County General Plan for 2005- 2020. (See Fire Protection Policy 7-63.) During the 2019 calendar year, the District's average response time was eight minutes and nineteen seconds.1 The District recently announced that due to its limited resources, it would only send firefighters inside a burning building if human life is at risk. The District does not have a sufficient number of capital resources, including fire stations, apparatuses, and personal protective equipment, to meet its desired level of service for either its current service population or projected future growth. The District responds to over 7,700 calls a year that depend on approximately 9,590 fire engine responses. Currently, the District has three District-staffed fire stations, for a total District staffing of nine firefighters per day, plus the CAL FIRE Sunshine station. The District needs six District-staffed fire stations plus the CAL FIRE Sunshine station to meet its desired four minute response time for its current service population. At buildout, the District will need nine District-staffed fire stations plus the CAL FIRE Sunshine station.2 The proposed fees will fund new development's proportionate share of the capital costs necessary to support this level of service. C. Cost of Facilities In addition to its current assets, the District has determined that it needs two ladder trucks, ten fire engines, six water trucks, five new stations, an administrative center, and a training center to provide its desired service levels to its current service population and projected growth in its service area through 2040. The total estimated cost of these assets in 1 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Operational Update for July 2020 (Aug. 12, 2020). 2 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Strategic Plan 2019 through 2023; Citygate Associates, LLC, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Deployment Performance and Headquarter Staffing Adequacy Study, vol.1 p. 7 (June 15, 2016). Memorandum To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 2, 2020 Page 3 16783990.3 2020 dollars is $77,818,518. Further detail on the cost projections is set forth in the District's Development Impact Study Final Report (Fee Study), attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Fee Study calculates a per capita cost of $416.82 for the capital facilities and equipment necessary to serve the District's projected service population at buildout based on the current service population and the growth projections provided by the City of Oakley, the City of Brentwood, and Contra Costa County. The Fee Study then establishes a fee for various types of development based on their projected per capita contribution to the District's service population, as further detailed in Section II.D. This methodology allocates the cost of these facilities among the current service population and projected growth according to their proportion of the total projected service population at buildout. New development's projected share is $36,915,246. The Fee Study credits the value of the existing assets, valued at $21,799,183, to the current service population. The portion to be paid by other funds to rectify the existing service deficit is $40,903,272. In other words, service population associated with future development makes up 37.1% of projected service population at buildout and impact fees will raise about 34% of the $99.6 million in capital costs identified in Table 3.4 of the Fee Study necessary to serve the projected service population at buildout. This satisfies the proportionality requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code 66000 et seq.). D. Proposed Fee Schedule The District's proposed fee schedule is as follows: Developme nt Type Units 1 Cost per Capita 2 Svc Pop per Unit 3 Cost per Unit 4 2% Admin Charge 5 Impact Fee per Unit 6 Residential - Single-Family DU $416.82 3.10 $ 1,292.13 $ 25.84 $ 1,317.97 Residential - Multi-Family DU $416.82 2.20 $ 916.99 $ 18.34 $ 935.33 Residential - Mobile Home DU $416.82 2.10 $ 875.31 $ 17.51 $ 892.82 Residential - Age-Restricted DU $416.82 1.70 $ 708.59 $ 14.17 $ 722.76 Residential - Accessory Dwelling Unit DU $416.82 * * * * Commercial KSF $416.82 2.10 $ 875.31 $ 17.51 $ 892.82 Office KSF $416.82 2.80 $ 1,167.08 $ 23.34 $ 1,190.42 Industrial KSF $416.82 1.40 $ 583.54 $ 11.67 $ 595.21 Hotel Room $416.82 0.50 $ 208.41 $ 4.17 $ 212.57 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per capita of service population; see Table 3.5 3 See Table 2.1 4 Cost per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 5 2% administrative charge = cost per unit X 0.02 6 Impact fee per unit = cost per unit + 2% administrative charge * The fee for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) is the maximum allowed under state law and this ordinance. At the time of adoption, Government Code § 65852.2 prohibits impact fees on ADUs less than 750 square feet, and limits the allowable impact fees on ADUs of 750 square feet or more to a proportion of the primary dwelling unit based on square footage. For example, the fee for a 1000 square foot ADU on the same Memorandum To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 2, 2020 Page 4 16783990.3 property as a 2000 square foot primary dwelling unit would be $658.99 (50% of the fee for a single-family home). An applicant for nonresidential new construction may petition the District to pay an alternative fee based on actual service population generated by the new construction, calculated as follows: Effective July 1, 2021, and on each subsequent anniversary of the date, the amount of each of the fees set forth in this ordinance shall increase or decrease by the average annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area for All Urban Consumers and the California Construction Cost Index published by the California Department of General Services for the twelve month period ending with the February indices of the same calendar year. E. General Plan Consistency The Contra Costa County General Plan for 2005-2020 details the following policies designed to ensure a “high standard of fire protection, emergency and medical response services for all citizens and properties of Contra Costa County”: 7-63 : The County shall strive to achieve a total response time (dispatch plus running and set-up time) of five minutes in [central business district], urban and suburban areas for 90 percent of all emergency responses. 7-64 : New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. 7-65 : Needed upgrades to fire facilities and equipment shall be identified as part of project environmental review and area planning activities, in order to reduce fire risk and improve emergency response in the County. Using impact fee revenue funds to improve and construct new fire facilities upholds the General Plan policies of upgrading fire facilities to diminish risk and require new development to fund its share of facilities. More facilities and equipment will allow the District to meet its response time goals for a larger population. III. CONCLUSION Please feel free to contact me at 925-584-8468 or bhelmick@eccfpd.org if you would like to discuss this matter further. Memorandum To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 2, 2020 Page 5 16783990.3 Exhibit A Resolution No. 02-24 of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County Making Determinations and Approving the Consolidation of East County Fire Protection Districts RESOLUTION NO. 02-24 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE EAST COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that: WHEREAS, a resolution of application was filed with the Executive Officer of this Commission by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Title 5, Division 3, commencing with Section 56000 of the Government Code, requesting the consolidation of the Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley Fire Protection Districts into a new district to be called the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District; a concurrent request for the establishment of the sphere of influence boundary for said District was included in the application; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer reviewed the proposal and prepared a report and recommendation thereon; the proposal and report having been presented to, and considered by, this Commission; and WHEREAS, this Commission called for and held a public hearing on the proposed consolidation on July 10, 2002 and continued it to the Commission's August 14, 2002 meeting. At the hearings, the Commission heard and received all oral and written protests and evidence which were made, presented or filed, and all persons present were given an opportunity to hear and be heard with respect to this proposal and the report and recommendation of the Executive Officer. WHEREAS, the County made a finding that the proposed consolidation and the establishment of the new District's sphere of influence boundary is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, and FIND as FOLLOWS: 1. The consolidation of the Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley Fire Protection Districts into a new District to be called the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is approved. Resolution No. 02-24 2 2. The sphere of influence for the new District is established and shall encompass all of the territory presently within the Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley Fire Protection Districts. . 3. The Statement of Determinations prepared pursuant to Sections 56425 and 66430 of the Government Code is adopted. 4. The affected territory is legally inhabited, and the boundary is as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. 5. The new District shall be governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. 6. By December 2004, the question of governance shall be resolved and submitted for approval of the electorate within the boundaries of the consolidated East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, if necessary. 7. The effective date of the consolidation of the Bethel Island, Oakley and East Diablo Fire Protection Districts shall be on the date the LAFC0 Executive Officer records a Certificate of Completion with the County Recorder's Office. 8. Within one year of the date the LAFC0 Executive Officer records a Certificate of Completion the consolidated East Contra Costa Fire Protection District shall begin evaluating the funding required to provide fire protection service and emergency response service levels. 9. All fund balances that have accumulated as a result of property taxes, or any other taxes, fees, or levies collected by or on behalf of the Bethel Island, East Diablo, or Oakley Fire Protection Districts shall be transferred from their existing accounts to the new East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. - 10. Any benéfit assessments or development fees associated with any existing fire district shall be restricted for use in the area of the consolidated district that corresponds to the territory of the former fire district in which the revenue source was implemented. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District will deposit capital funds based on their origin and maintain separate funds for these capital reserves. Resolution No. 02-24 3 11. AU equipment and all other personal property, all real property and all records, funding, rights, liabilities and assets, whether tangible or intangile of the Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley Fire Protection Districts shall be transferred to the new East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. 12. The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District will honor any employment agreements for personnel employed by the Bethel Island, East Diablo or Oakley Fire Protection Districts, unless and until they are changed by agreement of the parties, or by lawful action by the respective fire protection districts individually so long as they exist or until otherwise modified through the meet-and -confer process. 13. The appropriations limit of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District for calendar year 2003 shall be set at $14,321,959. 14. All applicable EMS -1 funds which are currently received by the individual districts shall continue to be received by the successor district. 15. The proposal is designated as the Consolidation of the East County Fire Protection Districts (LAFC 02-24)2. 16. Contra Costa LAFCO is designated as the conducting authority for subsequent proceedings and has delegated the functions of the conducting authority to its Executive Officer who shall give notice and conduct a public hearing on the matter from 1:00-2:00PM, September 16, 2002, in Roem 108, 651 Pine. Street, Martinez, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 141h day of August 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Glover, Jameson, Menesini, Schmidt, Tatzin, Uilkema and Kurrent NOES: None I hereby certify that this is a correct copy ola resolutipn passed and adopted by this Commission on the date aforesaid. . 11.-J Date Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer ROAD MAP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CAL1FORMA SCALE ms.tt be' r ot° 5f't' yr. 1..1.V NCI \ 'Z. - —et t -1> SAN FRANCISCO rtz—r "P• EZ.Rodle CA1101.11193 3Rt0Gt OAKLAND „ LEGEND COUNTY e0IJNDART, LAFC 02-24 eiäärti) SAN RA MON FIRE N. , RAMON J BETHEL ISLAND FIRE Memorandum To: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors October 2, 2020 Page 6 16783990.3 Exhibit B ECCFPD Development Impact Study Final Report & ECCFPD Board of Directors Resolution No. 2020-08 Approving the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study Final Report Final Report Development Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 nbsgov.com Prepared by: Corporate Headquarters 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................S-1 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................................S-1 Existing and Future Development ............................................................................................S-1 Impact Fee Analysis ..................................................................................................................S-2 Impact Fees ..............................................................................................................................S-2 Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................1-1 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................1-1 Background...............................................................................................................................1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees ............................................................................................1-1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ......................................................................................1-6 Terminology..............................................................................................................................1-7 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................................1-7 Chapter 2. Development Data .............................................................................................2-1 Study Area ................................................................................................................................2-1 Time Frame...............................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types ..................................................................................................................2-1 Demand Variable –Service Population ....................................................................................2-1 Demand Factors .......................................................................................................................2-3 Existing and Forecasted Development .....................................................................................2-3 Chapter 3. Fire Protection Impact Fees ................................................................................3-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................3-1 Level of Service .........................................................................................................................3-2 Existing and Future Facilities ....................................................................................................3-2 Cost per Capita of Service Population ......................................................................................3-5 Impact Fees per Unit of Development .....................................................................................3-6 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................3-6 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................3-7 Nexus Summary ........................................................................................................................3-7 Chapter 4. Implementation .................................................................................................4-1 Adoption ...................................................................................................................................4-1 Administration ..........................................................................................................................4-2 Training and Public Information ...............................................................................................4-7 Appendices Comparative Fee Survey Appendix A East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page S-1 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Executive Summary The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD or the District)has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on the District’s facility and equipment needs and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis.The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). It is important to note that the District does not have authority under California law to establish or impose impact fees on development projects. Because the District serves the Cities of Oakley and Brentwood and parts of unincorporated Contra Cost a County, each of those agencies must adopt the impact fees calculated in this report if they are to apply district wide. Organization of the Report Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and the methods used to calculate impact fees. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development and the demand factors used to allocate costs in the impact fee analysis. Chapter 3 presents the impact fee calculations and explains the data and methodology used in the calculations. Chapter 3 also projects th e potential future revenue from impact fees calculated in this report. Chapter 4 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing and Future D evelopment Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development and projections of future development out to 2040 for the area served by ECCFPD. Data from a variety of sources, including the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, Contra Costa Coun ty, the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA)and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) were used to prepare the development data tables in Chapter 2. Because of some inconsistencies in the information obtained from different sourc es, it was necessary for NBS to resolve those inconsistencies and arrive at the estimates of existing development and projections of future development used in this study for the entire District. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page S-2 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Impact Fee Analysis Chapter 3 of this report calculates fire impact fees for the District based on costs for both existing and future facilities and equipment. Those costs are allocated to both existing and future development so that they are shared equitably by all development in the District. The impact of development on the need for fire protection facilities is represented in this study by service population. Service population is a composit e variable consisting of both residents of the District (population) and employees of businesses in the District. Residents are included to represent residential development and employees are included to represent non-residential development. Since the demand represented by one resident doesn’t necessarily equal the demand represented by one employee, the employee component of service population is normally weighted to reflect the difference. Residents are given a weight of 1.0 and employees are given a weight that reflects their relative impact. However, in this case, for reasons discussed below, residents and employees are weighted equally. Data in the 2016 East Contra Costa FPD Deployment Performance and Headquarters Staffing Adequacy Study by Citygate Associates (Deployment and Staffing Study) conducted by Citygate Associates showed that over a three-year period, residential development generated 85.3% of the District’s incidents. (See discussion in Chapter 2) To accurately represent the real -world impacts of development, the service population used in this study should reflect the split of incidents between residential and non-residential development.NBS found that equally weighting residents and employees in the service population results in a residential component that makes up 85.3% of the existing service population, exactly matching the percentage of incidents generated by residential development in the incident distribution data from the Deployment and Staffing Study. Impact Fees Table 3.6 from Chapter 3 of this report is reproduced on the next page .It shows the impact fees per unit of development calculated in this study. As shown in Table 3.6, a 2% administrative charge is added to those fees to recover the cost of complying with Mitigation Fee Act accounting and reporting requirements, as well as the cost of future impact fee update studies.The impact fees shown in Table 3.6 below are compared with existing impact fees for Oakley, Brentwood and unincorporated Contra Costa County in the appendix to this study. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page S-3 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Table 3.6 Impact Fee per Unit Development Cost Svc Pop Cost 2% Admin Impact Fee Type Units 1 per Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 per Unit 6 Residential - Single-Family DU $416.82 3.10 1,292.13$25.84$1,317.97$ Residential - Multi-Family DU $416.82 2.20 916.99$18.34$935.33$ Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $416.82 2.10 875.31$17.51$892.82$ Residential - Age-Restricted DU $416.82 1.70 708.59$14.17$722.76$ Commercial KSF $416.82 2.10 875.31$17.51$892.82$ Office KSF $416.82 2.80 1,167.08$23.34$1,190.42$ Industrial KSF $416.82 1.40 583.54$11.67$595.21$ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per capita of service population; see Table 3.5 3 See Table 2.1 4 Cost per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 5 2% administrative charge = cost per unit X 0.02 6 Impact fee per unit = cost per unit + 2% administrative charge East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-1 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Chapter 1.Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for fire protection facilities and other capital assets provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) and to calculate impact fees t hat apply throughout the District. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025.) Background Over time, portions of the area now comprising the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District have been served by several smaller fire districts as well as the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). ECCFPD was formed in November of 2002 by combining the Bethel Island Fire District,the East Diablo Fire District, and the Oakley Fire District.ECCFPD now serves the Cities of Oakley and Brentwood and a large area within unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County. Over time, separate impact fees were established for various parts of the District, including the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the predecessor districts listed above. The impact fees calculated in this study are intended to apply districtwide and replace other impact fees that currently apply within the area served by ECCFPD. Legal Framework for Impact Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview.It was not prepared by an attorney and should not be treated as a legal opinion. Fire Protection District Law of 1987.California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, states: “A (fire protection) district board shall not charge a fee on new construction or development for the construction of public improvements or facilities or the acquisition of e quipment.” However, although the District itself may not charge such fees, it is quite common in California for cities and counties to impose fire impact fees for fire protection districts that provide services within their jurisdiction. The fees calculate d in this report are intended to be adopted by the cities of Oakley and Brentwood and Contra Costa County. U.S. Constitution.Like all land use regulations, development exactions including impact fees are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-2 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval, or imposes ad hoc ex actions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions a nd the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard,1994). Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District (2013),state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue. In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or imposing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees. Defining the “Nexus.”While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees,that term can be thought of as having the three elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard.The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror the three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees. Need or Impact.Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate.Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and t he demand for East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-3 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 public facilities based on applicable level-of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus. Benefit.Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees. Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expend ed expeditiously or refunded.Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus. Proportionality.Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the f ees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impac t fees that meet the propor- tionality standard. California Constitution.The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project. In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Consti tution by Proposition 218 in 1996 require voter approval for some “property -related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development,” which includes impact fees. That exemption also applies with respect to Propos ition 26 which amended Article XIIIC to reclassify some fees as taxes. The Mitigation Fee Act.California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature and took effect in January 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time,the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time and in 1997 was East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-4 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and commu nity amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses t he word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual re ports and periodic re-evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report. Required Findings.Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and, 3.Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. Identifying the Purpose of the Fees.The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-5 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows. This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development. Identifying the Use of the Fees.According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement pl an may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in ot her public documents.In this case, we recommend that the Oakley and Brentwood City Councils and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees. Reasonable Relationship Requirement.As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: 1.the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; 2.the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3.the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statut e, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees. Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual ratio nal nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus. Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements.The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477). Existing Deficiencies.In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities…” The legislature’s intent in a dopting this amendment, as East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-6 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989),Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991). That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies. However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fee s “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of s ervice that is consistent with the general plan.” Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantage s and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of devel opment. The method used to calculate impact fees in this study is called the Plan-Based Method. Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development .The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan or plans, while the development is identified in a land use plan or set of plans that forecasts potential development by type and quantity. Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development . To calculate plan-based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development. With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, service population is used in this study as the indicator of demand for fire protection and emergency response services.So in this study, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the service population per unit of development to arrive at a cost per unit of development for each type of development.Details regarding the data East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 1-7 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 and methodology used to calculate impact fees in this study are presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. As discussed in Chapter 3, the resources of a single fire station do not serve a particular area in isolation from the other resources of the District. The District’s fire protection and emergency response capabilities are organized as an integrated sy stem. Whenever an emergency response is required, whether for a fire or other emergency, the response may involve resources from multiple fire stations. The method used to calculate impact fees in this study reflects that fact by allocating costs for both existing and future capital facilities to both existing and future development Districtwide. The method used to calculate impact fees in this report ensures that the impact fees will recover only future development’s share of the cost of all capital assets needed to serve the District in 2040. The projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this report will not be adequate to fund all of the new facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment needed to serve the District in 2040. Funding from other sources will be needed to pay for a portion of those assets. Terminology Where “fire protection facilities” or a similar term is used in this report, it is intended to mean fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment. Organization of the Report Chapter 2, which follows, contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.Chapter 3 presents the impact fee analysis and impact fee calculations. Chapter 4 outlines recommendations for implem enting the impact fees calculated in this report. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-1 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Chapter 2.Development Data This chapter presents data on existing and future development in the area served by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.The information in this chapter is used to allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and fu ture development and among various types of new development in the calculation of impact fees . Study Area The study area for this impact fee study is the area within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, which includes the ci ties of Brentwood and Oakley and part of the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, including Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek and Morgan Territory. Time Frame For consistency, 2040 is used as the target date for forecas ts of future development in this chapter. However, it is the amount of future development rather than the rate and timing of that development that matters in the impact fee calculations. Costs used in the impact fee calculations are current costs. Impact f ees calculated in this study should be adjusted over time to reflect changes in costs for land, construction and equipment. Development Types The development types defined in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. The following breakdown of development types is used throughout this study. Residential –Single-Family Residential –Multi-Family Residential –Mobile Home Park Residential –Age Restricted Commercial Office Industrial Demand Variable –Service Population To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Some measurable attribute of development must be used as a “demand variable” in those formulas. The demand variable used to calculate fire protection impact fees in this study is service population. Service population is commonly used to represent the demand created by development for fire protection and emergency response services. Resident population alone represents only residential development and does not reflect the service demand created by non-residential development. Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the District and employees of businesses in the District. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-2 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Residents are included to represent the impacts of residential development while employees are included to represent the impacts of non -residential development. Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, employee numbers are typically weighted to reflect the difference. In estimating those weights, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. The weight assigned to employees is relative to the residential weight of 1.0. In this study, the employee component of the servi ce population is also assigned a weight of 1.0, meaning that residents and employees are weighted equally . That weighting results in a service population where the residential and non -residential components are in balance with the relative shares of emergency response incidents generated in recent years by residential and non-residential development in the District. NBS analyzed the distribution of ECCFPD’s incidents by development type based on three years of data on incidents by property use from Table 32 in Volume 2 of the 2016 East Contra Costa FPD Deployment Performance and Headquarters Staffing Adequacy Study by Citygate Associates.1 As shown in Exhibit 1A, below, that analysis of the most recent available data found that 85.3% of incidents logged from 2013 to 2015 were generated by residential development. Figures for existing development in Table 2.2 later in this chapter show that with employees and residents weighted equally in the service population, 85.3% of the estimated 2019 service population is residential. So, the weighting of service population components in this study is consistent with actual demand for service by residential and non-residential development in the District in recent years. Projections of 2040 development in Table 2.4 show that the residential share of service population at 8 3.2%. 1 This study is available on the ECCFPD website Exhibit 1A: Distribution of Incidents (2013-2015) Development % of Type Incidents Total Single-Family Residential 10,549 67.4% Multi-Family Residential 1,000 6.4% Other Residential 1,806 11.5% Subtotal Residential 13,355 85.3% Commercial 1,526 9.7% Other Non-residential 776 5.0% Subtotal Non-Residential 2,302 14.7% Total 15,657 100.0% Note: These figures exclude incidents in undeveloped areas such as vacant land, agricultural land, rivers and lakes East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-3 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 While not a factor in the impact fee calculations, it is worth noting that the 2019 estimates in Table 2.2 indicate that about 83% of the District’s service population is in the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. In 2040, that number is projected to be 82.5%. Demand Factors Each type of development defined in this study has a specific value for population, employees and service population per unit as shown in Table 2.1. Those values affect how the capital costs of the District’s facilities and equipment are allocated to various types of development in this study. The demand factors shown in Table 2.1 for population per unit and employees per unit are intended to approximate District-wide averages and may differ from the factors for the Cities of Brentwood,Oakley and unincorporated census designated places (CDPs) in the District. Existing and Forecasted Development Summaries of existing and forecasted development i n the District are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.4 below. Because the District encompasses two cities and only part of unincorporated Contra Costa County, there is no single source of information about existing and future development for the District as a whole. Sources of data used in each of the following tables are indicated in footnotes to those tables. In some cases, the Table 2.1: Demand Factors Land Use Category Unit Type 1 Population per Unit 2 Employees per Unit 3 Service Pop per Unit 4 Residential - Single-Family DU 3.10 3.10 Residential - Multi-Family DU 2.20 2.20 Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 2.10 2.10 Residential - Age-Restricted DU 1.70 1.70 Commercial KSF 2.10 2.10 Office KSF 2.80 2.80 Industrial KSF 1.40 1.40 1 DU = dwelling units; KSF = 1,000 square feet of gross building area 2 Average population per unit for single-family, multi-family and mobile home park based on analysis of data from U. S. Census Bureau American Community Survey; average population per unit for age-restricted residential estimated by NBS 3 Employees per unit based on data provided by the City of Brentwood Planning Department 4 Service population per unit for residential categories = population per unit; service population per unit for non-residential categories = employees per unit (see discussion in text) East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-4 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 available data on existing and future development were for different years and had to be adjusted for consistency. Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development in the District as of January 1, 2019 in terms of population, employees and service population.In the following tables, SFDU stands for single-family dwelling unit, MFDU stands for multi -family dwelling unit and MH stands for mobile home, meaning a unit in a mobile home park. Several sources of data were used in constructing this table and valuable input was provided by staff for the two cities and Contra Costa County.Some inconsistencies in data from different sources were resolved by NBS and/or ECCFPD staff. Table 2.3 shows added dwelling units, population and employees in the District from 2019 to 2040. The numbers in that table represent the difference between 2019 development in Table 2.2 and 2040 development in Table 2.4. Table 2.2: ECCFPD 2019 Dwelling Units, Population and Employees Land Use Category 2019 SFDU 1 2019 MFDU/MH 1 2019 Population 2 2019 Employees 3 2019 Service Population 4 Brentwood 18,241 2,368 63,516 14,393 77,909 Oakley 11,814 1,118 41,759 5,384 47,143 Discovery Bay CDP 4,729 222 15,034 1,332 16,366 Other Unincorporated 2,210 398 8,068 947 9,015 Totals 36,994 4,106 128,377 22,056 150,433 1 Single-family and multi-family/mobile home dwelling unit data for Brentwood and Oakley based on January 2019 California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates; data for Discovery Bay CDP and other unincorporated areas based on 2018 data from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) increased by 2% to 2019 2 Population for Brentwood and Oakley based on the January 2019 DOF estimates; 2018 data for Discovery Bay CDP and other unincorporated areas from the Contra Costa Transporta- tion Authority (CCTA) increased by 2% to 2019 3 Except for Brentwood, 2018 employee data from CCTA is increased 2% to 2019, Brentwood employees based on 2014 General Plan DEIR increased 15% to 2019 4 Service population = population + employees; see report text for details East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-5 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Table 2.4 shows projected dwelling units, population, employees, and service population for the District in 2040. It should be noted that NBS made a substantial adjustment to the number of future jobs projected for the City of Brentwood in the 2014 Brentwood General Plan DEIR.The DEIR projected that the number of jobs in the existing City alone would grow from 12,516 in 2014 to 33,748 at buildout,an increase of 21,232 or 169%. However, ABAG’s 2013 Plan Bay Area Final Forecast of Jobs Population and Housing projects only 3,000 new jobs in Brentwood from 2010 to 2040. Table 2.3: ECCFPD Added Dwelling Units, Population and Employees - 2019-2040 Land Use Category Added SFDU Added MFDU/MH Added Population Added Employees Added Svc Population Brentwood 7,637 3,243 29,050 7,507 36,557 Oakley 4,750 2,918 26,612 8,891 35,503 Discovery Bay CDP 2,775 250 9,267 863 10,130 Other Unincorporated 1,295 852 5,548 827 6,375 Totals 16,457 7,263 70,477 18,088 88,565 Note: All figures in this table represent the difference between the 2040 numbers in Table 2.4 and the 2019 numbers in Table 2.2 Table 2.4: ECCFPD 2040 Dwelling Units, Population and Employees Land Use Category 2040 SFDU 1 2040 MFDU/MH 1 2040 Population 2 2040 Employees 3 2040 Service Population 4 Brentwood 25,878 5,611 92,566 21,900 114,466 Oakley 16,564 4,036 68,371 14,275 82,646 Discovery Bay CDP 7,504 472 24,301 2,195 26,496 Other Unincorporated 3,505 1,250 13,616 1,774 15,390 Totals 53,451 11,369 198,853 40,144 238,997 1 Single-family and multi-family/mobile home dwelling unit data for Brentwood is from the City's 2014 General Plan DEIR; 2040 dwelling units for Oakley estimated by NBS for consis- tency with 2040 population data provided by the City; dwelling units for Discovery Bay CDP and other unincorporated areas are based on 2040 data from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) with additional data provided by the Contra Costa County Dept of Conser- vation and Development 2 2040 population for Brentwood, Discovery Bay CDP and other unincorporated areas based on dwelling units and population per unit; 2040 Oakley population provided by the City 3 2040 employees for Brentwood based on maintaining the 2019 ratio of jobs to dwelling units; 2040 employees for Oakley provided by the City; 2040 employees for Discovery Bay CDP and other unincorporated areas based on CCTA projections 4 Service population = population + employees; see report text for details East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 2-6 Fire Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 NBS was concerned that the DEIR forecast of job growth in Brentwood reflected land use capacity rather than economic feasibility over the next 20 years. The DEIR forecast implies that Brentwood would add about the same number of jobs projected by ABAG for Concord, and more jobs than are projected for any of several other Bay Area cities including San Mateo, Hayward, Redwood City, Walnut Creek and Mountain View for the 2010-2040 time frame. Using the number of jobs projected in Brentwood’s General Plan DEIR would increase the ratio of jobs to dwelling units in Brentwood to 1.21 per unit, compared with 0.7 in 2014. In this chapter, we project 2040 jobs in Brentwood b ased on the current ratio of 0.7 jobs per dwelling unit. That would be a 52% increase of 7,507 from 2019 to 2040, more than twice the number forecasted by ABAG from 2010 to 2040. For reference, Table 2.5 shows the percentage change in dwelling units, popu lation and employees in the District from 2019 to 2040 based on data in the previous three tables. The information in the foregoing tables is used in the next chapter in the calculation of fire protection impact fees for the East Contra Costa Fire Protec tion District. Table 2.5: ECCFPD 2019 - 2040 % Change in Units, Population and Employees Land Use Category % Change SFDU % Change MFDU/MH % Change Population % Change Employees % Change Svc Pop Brentwood 41.9%137.0%45.7%52.2%46.9% Oakley 40.2%261.0%63.7%165.2%75.3% Discovery Bay CDP 58.7%112.3%61.6%64.8%61.9% Other Unincorporated 58.6%214.1%68.8%87.3%70.7% Totals 44.5%176.9%54.9%82.0%58.9% East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-1 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Chapter 3.Fire Protection Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities, apparatus and equipment for the East Contra Costa Fire District Protection District. The District currently operates three fire stations (#52, #53 and #59). A fourth station (#55) was recently completed but is not yet in operation. The District also contracts with CAL FIRE for year-around staffing of a CAL FIRE station on Marsh Creek Road to serve the lightly populated western portion of the District. That CAL FIRE station would otherwise be staffed only part of the year. Based on a 2016 Deployment and Staffing Study2 the District is planning for a total of nine District-operated fire stations to serve development in the District by 2040. Methodology Impact fees may be used to pay only for capital assets, not for staffing or operating costs. Impact fee calculation methodology for this study was discussed generally in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 discussed the use of service population to represent service demand created by various types of dev elopment. This chapter walks step-by-step through the calculation of impact fees for ECCFPD’s fire protection and emergency response facilities, apparatus, vehicles and equipment. As discussed in Chapter 1, development in any part of the District is serve d by all of the District’s facilities, apparatus, and equipment, not just by the nearest fire station. When an emergency call is received, the fire company based in the nearest fire station may not be available so the initial response would be handled from a different station. And in the case of a fire, even a residential fire can require a response by at least five fire engines, 15 firefighters and one or more battalion chiefs. Because the emergency services provided by ECCFPD depend on an integrated sys tem of facilities and staff, the method used to calculate impact fees in this report allocates costs for all existing and planned facilities in the District to all existing and future development in the District, so that capital costs are shared equitably . In effect, by paying the impact fees, new development is paying for its proportionate share of all of the District’s existing and future capital assets. The share of cost to be recovered by impact fees calculated in this study is equal to new development’s share of the total service population projected for 2040.Specifically, fu- ture development’s share of 2040 service population as shown in Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 is 37.1% of projected 2040 buildout population. The revenue projected from impact fees calculated in this study equals 37.1 % of the total cost of existing and future ECCFPD 2 East Contra Costa FPD Deployment Performance and Headquarters Staffing Adequacy Study by Citygate Associates; this study is available on the ECCFPD website East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-2 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 assets shown in Table 3.4 That assumes the projections of future development used in this study are correct. Level of Service The critical measure of level of service for fire protection and emergency medical services is emergency response time. The number of fire stations needed to serve a particular area with acceptable response times is determined by specific conditions within the area. In this case, the number and general location of existing and future fire stations needed to provide an acceptable level of service within the District were identified in the 2016 deployment and staffing study cited in footnote 1 on page 3 -1. Those fire stations and their associated apparatus, vehicles and equipment are discussed in the next section. Each new development project will pay impact fees according to the added service pop- ulation it generates.Revenue from impact fees will not cover the cost of all of the new fire stations, apparatus and equipment that will be needed by ECCFPD out to 2040.The District will raise the remaining revenue needed for its planned facilities from other sources. Existing and Future Facilities The District is currently operating at a service deficit. Of the nine fire stations planned to serve the District by 2040, three currently exist and are in operation. A fourth has been constructed but is not yet staffed. Revenue projections presented later in this cha pter indicate that impact fees calculated in this report would generate approximately enough revenue to construct and equip three additional fire stations. Funding for the two remaining fire stations will have to be obtained from sources other than impact fees. Table 3.1 lists the District’s existing facilities and planned facilities with estimated building construction cost for future buildings, depreciated replacement cost for existing buildings, and estimated land cost (for future facilities) or land value (for existing facilities). East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-3 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Table 3.2 on the next page shows the replacement cost and depreciated replacement cost for the District’s existing firefighting apparatus and vehicles. Many items shown in that table are fully depreciated so their cost will not be reflected in the impact fee calculations. Table 3.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations Constr Bldg Site Building Cost Useful Est Land Depreciated Impact Fee Facility Date Sq Ft Acres or Repl Cost 1 Life 2 Cost/Value 3 Bldg Cost 4 Cost Basis 5 Station 52 - Brentwood 2001 6,841 0.94 5,130,750$50 280,500$3,283,680$3,564,180$ Station 53 - Oakley 2011 9,263 1.60 6,947,250$50 480,000$5,835,690$6,315,690$ Station 55 - Oakley 2019 7,447 1.00 5,700,000$50 300,000$5,700,000$6,000,000$ Station 59 - Discovery Bay 2002 6,047 1.00 4,535,250$50 300,000$2,993,265$3,293,265$ Station 51 - Brentwood Future 10,000 5.00 10,000,000$50 1,500,000$10,000,000$11,500,000$ Station 50 (Admin) Brentwd Future 8,500 Incl 6,375,000$50 6,375,000$6,375,000$ Station 54 Repl - Brentwood Future 9,263 1.75 9,263,000$50 525,000$9,263,000$9,788,000$ Future Station - Brentwood Future 9,263 1.75 9,263,000$50 525,000$9,263,000$9,788,000$ Future Station - Oakley Future 9,263 1.75 9,263,000$50 525,000$9,263,000$9,788,000$ Station 58 Repl - Discov Bay Future 9,263 1.75 9,263,000$50 525,000$9,263,000$9,788,000$ Regional Training Center Future N/A 20.00 10,000,000$50 0$10,000,000$10,000,000$ Total 85,740,250 4,960,500 81,239,635 86,200,135$ 1 Estimated replacement cost for existing buildings provided by ECCFPD based on costs for recently constructed fire stations; estimated costs for future fire stations based on architect's estimate of $1,000 per square foot; ECCFPD estimated cost for Station 50 (administration building) based on $750 per square foot; costs include furniture, fixtures, building equipment and site development 2 Assumed useful life of buildings in years 3 Estimated land cost (future stations) or land value (existing stations) based on $300,000 per acre; land for the Regional Training Center is expected to be obtained at no cost to the District 4 Depreciated building replacement cost for existing stations using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset; no depreciation applies to future buiding cost 5 Impact fee cost basis = depreciated building replacement cost or new building cost + estimated land cost or value. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-4 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 The District’s plan is to place either a type 1 fire engine (7 stations) or a ladder truck (2 stations) in each fire station. Each fire station would also have one type 3 wildland fire engine and one water tender. Table 3.3 shows the estimated cost of add itional fire apparatus and vehicles that will be needed to equip six new fire stations. The cost of personal protective equipment for 54 additional firefighters needed to staff those six fire stations is also shown in Table 3.3 Table 3.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles Model Useful Replacement Depr Repl Impact Fee Year Description Life (Yrs)Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 2019 Type 1 Engine 4 10 775,000$775,000$775,000$ 2019 Type 1 Engine 4 10 775,000$775,000$775,000$ 2019 Type 1 Engine 4 10 775,000$775,000$775,000$ 2007 Type 1 Engine (Reserve)10 775,000$0$0$ 2007 Type 1 Engine (Reserve)10 775,000$0$0$ 2007 Type 1 Engine (Reserve)10 775,000$0$0$ 2005 Type 3 Engine 10 268,295$0$0$ 2004 Type 3 Engine 10 268,295$0$0$ 2004 Type 3 Engine 10 268,295$0$0$ 2003 Type 1 Water Truck 10 252,946$0$0$ 2001 Type 1 Water Truck 10 263,639$0$0$ 1992 Type 1 Water Truck 10 160,578$0$0$ 2002 Type 1 Water Truck 10 248,740$0$0$ 2019 Ford F250 4x4 Pickup 7 75,000$75,000$75,000$ 2019 Ford F250 4x4 Pickup 7 75,000$75,000$75,000$ 2020 Ford F250 4x4 Pickup 7 75,000$85,714$85,714$ 2008 Ford F250 4x4 Pickup 7 75,000$0$0$ 2018 Ford Explorer 7 70,000$60,000$60,000$ 1989 GMC 3500 4x4 Flatbed Truck 10 65,000$0$0$ 2003 Honda Odyssey Mini-Van 7 40,000$0$0$ 2012 Big Tex Utility Trailer 15 10,000$5,333$5,333$ Total 6,865,788$2,626,048$2,626,048$ 1 Replacement cost provided by ECCFPD based on recent purchases by the District or estimates from vendors (e.g., purchasing contract with Pierce Manufacturing for Type 1 engines approved by the Board of Directors, 12/12/18) 2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset 3 Impact fee cost basis equals the depreciated replacement cost 4 Acquired through a 5-year lease-purchase agreement East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-5 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Table 3.4 summarizes the impact fee cost basis figures from the three previous tables. The total cost from Table 3.4 will be used to calculate impact fees in the next section. Cost per Capita of Service Population As discussed in Chapter 2, service population is used as the dema nd variable for the impact fee calculations in this report. Table 3.5 calculates an average cost per capita of service population by dividing the total impact fee cost basis from Table 3.4 by the total 2040 projected service population of the District, as shown in Table 2.4 in Chapter 2. Table 3.3: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment No. of Cost Impact Fee Description Units per Unit 1 Cost Basis 2 Ladder Truck 2 950,000$1,900,000$ Type 1 Engine 4 775,000$3,100,000$ Type 3 Engine 6 450,000$2,700,000$ Water Truck 6 300,000$1,800,000$ Personal Protective Equipment 3 54 23,917$1,291,518$ Total 10,791,518$ 1 Replacement cost provided by ECCFPD based on recent purchases by the District or estimates from vendors (e.g., purchasing contract with Pierce Manufacturing for Type 1 engines approved by by the Board of Directors, 12/12/18) 2 Impact fee cost basis = number of units X cost per unit 3 Personal protective equipment for future added firefighters; estimated cost based on recent purchases by the District from L. N. Curtis and Sons on the NPP Government Contract Table 3.4: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets Impact Fee Component Cost Basis 1 Existing and Future Fire Stations 86,200,135$ Existing - Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 2,626,048$ Future - Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 10,791,518$ Total 99,617,701$ 1 See Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 Table 3.5: Cost per Capita of Service Population Total Impact Fee 2040 Cost Cost Basis1 Service Population 2 per Capita 3 $99,617,701 238,997 $416.82 1 See Table 3.4 2 Projected 2040 service population for the District; see Table 2.4 3 Cost per capita of service population = total impact fee cost basis / 2040 service population East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-6 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Impact Fees per Unit of Development Impact fees per unit of development by development type are calculated using the cost per capita of service population from Table 3.5 and the service population per unit from Table 2.1. Table 3.6 shows those calculations. Table 3.6 also calculates a 2% administration charge that is added to the impact fee. That charge is intended to cover the cost of accounting, reporting and other administrative activities required by the Mitigation F ee Act, as well as the cost of periodic updates to the impact fee study. Two percent of the impact fee amount is a widely used estimate of the cost of complying with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. Customizing Impact Fees The non-residential development types defined in this study and shown in Table 3.6 are rather broad, and some proposed development projects may not fit neatly in to a particular category. In such cases, the agency imposing impact fees may wish to adjust the fee to the particular characteristics of the project. That can be done quite simply by multiplying the cost per capita shown in Table 3.5 by the added service population associated with the project. Since each employee equates to one added unit of service population, the added service population equals the number of employees to be added by the project. Using the example of a 100-room hotel with 0.5 employees per room, the impact fee would be calculated as 50 employees X $416.82 per employee for an impact fee of $20,841.00. Table 3.6 Impact Fee per Unit Development Cost Svc Pop Cost 2% Admin Impact Fee Type Units 1 per Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Charge 5 per Unit 6 Residential - Single-Family DU $416.82 3.10 1,292.13$25.84$1,317.97$ Residential - Multi-Family DU $416.82 2.20 916.99$18.34$935.33$ Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $416.82 2.10 875.31$17.51$892.82$ Residential - Age-Restricted DU $416.82 1.70 708.59$14.17$722.76$ Commercial KSF $416.82 2.10 875.31$17.51$892.82$ Office KSF $416.82 2.80 1,167.08$23.34$1,190.42$ Industrial KSF $416.82 1.40 583.54$11.67$595.21$ 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Cost per capita of service population; see Table 3.5 3 See Table 2.1 4 Cost per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit 5 2% administrative charge = cost per unit X 0.02 6 Impact fee per unit = cost per unit + 2% administrative charge East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-7 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Projected Revenue Table 3.7 projects the total revenue from the impact fees calculated in this chapter. That projection assumes that future development to 2040 occurs as forecasted in this study. Revenue is projected by applying the imp act fee per capita to added service population from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2. The revenue projected in Table 3.7 excludes the 2% administrative charge, so it includes only revenue available for new capital facilities. The total impact fee revenue project ed in Table 3.7 amounts to 37.1% of the total cost of existing and future facilities, apparatus and equipment identified in this chapter and represents future development’s proportionate share of those costs.Assuming that future development in the District occurs as forecasted in this study, that revenue would provide approximately 108% of the amount needed to construct and equip three new fire stations.Additional revenue from other sources will be needed to fund other facilities planned by the District. Updating the Fees The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on current cost estimates. Between impact fee update studies, we recommend that the District review those costs annually and adjust the fees as needed to keep pace with percentage changes in construction and equipment costs. ECCFPD intends to use the average of the Consumer Price Index published by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the California Construction Cost Index published by the California Department of General Services to update the fees. Because impact fees for ECCFPD must be adopted by Contra Costa County and the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley, we recommend that updat es to the fees be coordinated among those agencies so that the fees remain the same for all agencies over time. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report,Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasin g or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: Table 3.7 Projected Revenue Added Service Revenue Projected Population 1 per Capita 2 Revenue 3 88,565 $416.82 $36,915,058 1 See Table 2.3 2 See Table 3.5 3 Projected Revenue = added service population X revenue per capita East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-8 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 Identify the purpose of the fee; Identify the use of the fee; and, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee:The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of providing fire protection facilities to serve future development in a rea served by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. Use of the Fee.Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for future fire protection facilities needed to serve the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, the agency imposing the fees may borrow against the fire facilities impact fee fund if the funds are needed to support another impact fee-eligible project. The borrowed funds must be repaid with interest. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed.The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for new development’s proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities needed to serve the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District . Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.All new development in the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District increases the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the District. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional fire protection facilities needed serve the additional demand that will be created by anticipated development in the District. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project.The amount of the fire protection impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the estimated service population to be added by that project. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 3-9 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11,2020 project’s proportionate share of the cost of facilities needed by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to provide an acceptable level of service. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-1 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Chapter 4.Implementation This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees calculated in this study.It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Adoption As discussed in Chapter 1, California Health and Safety Code Section 13916, which is part of the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, does not allow the board of a fire protection district to charge a fee on new cons truction or development for the construction of public improvements or facilities or the acquisition of equipment. Consequently, the fire protection impact fees calculated in this report must be adopted by the agencies having authority to approve develop ment projects in the areas served by ECCFPD, namely Contra Costa County and the cities of Brentwood and Oakley. The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the attorneys for those agencies. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the publ ic hearing notice be published at least twice during the required 10 -day notice period. Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report. Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act ,Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval,it must make findings to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;and, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-2 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and approved by the Attorney for the agency adopting the fees.A more complete discussion of the nexus for the impact fees can be found in Chapter 3 of this report. Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee.The [City Council or Board of Supervisors] finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of fire protection facilities needed to mitigate the impacts created by that development. Sample Finding: Use of the Fee.The [City Council or Board of Supervisors]finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Those facilities are identified in the 20 20 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Impact Fee Study by NBS.3 Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship:Based on analysis presented in the 2020 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Impact Fee Study by NBS, the [City Council or Board of Supervisors]finds that there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fees and the types of development pro jects on which they are imposed; and, b.The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. Administration The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. 3 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), th e use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-3 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 Imposition of Fees.Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act , Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to: 1.Identify the purpose of the fee; 2.Identify the use of the fee; and 3.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a.The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b.The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project, the agency is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: c.The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed. In addition, Section 66006 (f)provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance."The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study. Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee , provide the applicant with a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90-day period during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge. Section 66022 (a)provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment. Collection of Fees.Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "utility service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon ap plication for utility service.In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit,Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-4 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and fo r which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made.” These statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits ,Subsections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the agency may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue.Section 66006 (a)mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments , and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected.”Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any agency that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual projects. A nd, as a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay -as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefi ting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facili ty category (e.g., fire protection or park improvements), but not for individual projects. Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers . In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly.Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities. In some cases, the agency may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-5 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in increased costs to other development projects,so the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If an agency requires a developer,as a condition of project approval to dedicate land or construct facilities or impr ovements for which impact fees are charged,the agency should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development. In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land,or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying imp act fees, the agency may accept or reject such offers and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted . Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements. Credit for Existing Development.If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant facilities, applying the demand factors used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee. Annual Reports.Section 66006 (b) (1)requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year,the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues: 1.A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; 2.The amount of the fee; 3.The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; 4.The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 5.Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; 6.Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the agency determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 7.A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended; 8.The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-6 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 The annual report must be reviewed by the governing at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 1 5 days after the statements are made public , per Section 66006 (b) (2). Fifth Year Reports on Unexpended Funds . Prior to 1996,the Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to ex pend or commit impact fee revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693 , adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act,changed that requirement in material ways. Now, Section 66001 (d)requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: 1.Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2.Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3.Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4.Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund , per Section 66001 (d). Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). Note: Because impact fees for East Contra Costa Fire Protection District must be adopted by other agencies as discussed above, the District and those agencies should agree on which agency will be responsible for annual reporting and the fifth year review required by the Mitigation Fee Act, and should develop procedures to ensure that the requirements of the Act are satisfied. Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan . Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agency cites a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative , per Section 66001 (a) East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Page 4-7 Fire Protection Impact Fee Study March 11, 2020 (2)is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public documents. In most cases, the CIP identifies projects for a limited number of years and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study.We recommend that this impact fee study be cited as the public document identifying the use of the fees. Indexing of Impact Fees. Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible,be adjusted periodically to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by the impact fees.That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. Training and Public Information Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that tho se responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of impact fees should be made clear. Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues and should refer to this report for a list of the facilities and on which the impact fee calculations are based. Prepared by NBS for East Contra Costa Fire Protection District APPENDIX A Comparative Fee Survey –Development Impact Fees APPENDIX A East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study 2020 Fee Comparison Land Use Units Current Fee Proposed Fee Cosumnes CSD Fire Department [1] Contra Costa County Fire Protection District [2] Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District [3] Single Family Residential DU City of Brentwood 880.95$ City of Oakley 766.55$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley 480.00$ Multi-Family DU City of Brentwood 880.95$ City of Oakley 478.96$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley 305.00$ Secondary Dwelling Unit DU City of Brentwood n/a City of Oakley 225.11$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley n/a Mobile Home DU City of Brentwood n/a City of Oakley 462.59$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley 280.00$ Commercial SF City of Brentwood 0.1737$ City of Oakley -$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley 0.0300$ Office SF City of Brentwood 0.1737$ City of Oakley -$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley n/a Industrial/Institutional SF City of Brentwood 0.1737$ City of Oakley -$ Unincoprorated Contra Costa County - Bethel Island, East Diablo, Oakley n/a Notes: [1] CCSD Fire Notice of Fee Increase, January 2, 2019; Fees are by "zone" of location [3] SMFD Ordinance, 2015 1,104$ COMPARISON AGENCIESEAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1,319$$1,771 - $2,085 970$ n/a n/a 662$ 935$ $1,170 - $1,373; $819 - $1,106 for age restricted 460$861$ $1.36 - $1.76 0.66$0.58$ 893$n/a n/a n/a $0.79 - $0.57 0.39$0.52$ 1.19$$1.36 - $1.76 0.58$0.97$ [2] CCC Ordinance 2019-21 Findings Report Final. CCCFPD serves the following incorporated cities: Antioch, Clayton, Concord, Lafayette, Martinez, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek as well as the following unincorporated communities: 0.60$ 0.89$ tbd NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Comparison, A-1 Page 1 of 5 16121726.4 EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATE OF CALIFORNIA * * * RESOLUTION NO. 2020-08 APPROVING THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT WHEREAS, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (District) provides fire protection and emergency response services throughout its service area; and WHEREAS, anticipated new development in the District's service area will require the District to construct new facilities and purchase new equipment to provide service to the new residents and structures; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) requires that the purpose for development impact fees, including fire facility impact fees, be reasonably related to the development, and that the amount of the fee be reasonably related to the cost of the facility or portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the District does not have the authority to impose development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City of Oakley, the City of Brentwood, and the County of Contra Costa have separately adopted fire facility impact fees on persons building new structures in the District's service area to fund facilities and equipment necessary to provide fire protection and emergency response service to the new structures and residents; and WHEREAS, the District adopted a five-year Strategic Plan in December 2018 and a related Implementation Action Plan in February 2019, which include updating the fire facility impact fees within the District's service area, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, in a manner that is more reflective of the current costs of construction, more consistent across the District, and better aligned with the District's projected capital improvements needs; and WHEREAS, NBS Government Finance Group has prepared the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study Final Report (Study), which assesses the additional fire protection and emergency response equipment and facilities that the District will need to service projected new development in its service area through 2040, and recommends afee on new development to cover these costs; and WHEREAS, staff recommends, and the Finance Committee concurs, that the Board of Directors approve the Study for use in setting development impact fees for fire protection and emergency response capital costs within the District's service area, and direct staff to work with the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, and County of Contra Costa to update their development impact fees in a manner consistent with the Study. DocuSign Envelope ID: B29B6680-2FC9-4C4F-98CB-8C3A773623FF Page 2 of 5 16121726.4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District hereby approves the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Development Impact Fee Study Final Report for use in setting development impact fees within the District's service area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board authorizes the Fire Chief to take all actions necessary and proper to assist the City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, and County of Contra Costa in updating their development impact fees in a manner consistent with the Study, and to develop procedures for the collection and use of the resulting development impact fees by the District. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Langro, Nash, Oftedal, Smith, Young NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Brian J. Oftedal President, Board of Directors Brian Helmick Clerk of the Board DocuSign Envelope ID: B29B6680-2FC9-4C4F-98CB-8C3A773623FF Page 1 of 4 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES FEES This Agreement is entered into between the County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, a fire protection district (“District”). RECITALS A. The District is organized under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health & Saf. Code, § 13800 et seq.) to provide fire protection services within its boundaries. Portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County are located within the District’s boundaries. B. Fire protection districts lack the independent authority to impose development impact fees directly. (Health & Saf. Code, § 13916(a).) C. Chapter 818-2 of the County Ordinance Code authorizes the County to impose fire protection facilities fees on behalf of fire protection districts. D. District Resolution No. 2020-08 adopted a study establishing fire facilities impact fee amounts. The study determined that the fee amounts are necessary to mitigate the impact of new development on fire facilities within the District’s boundaries. E. The District has requested that the County impose fire facilities impact fees for new construction that occurs within any portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the District. F. County Ordinance No. 2020-27 (“Fee Ordinance”) establishes fire protection facilities fees for that portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the District, and authorizes the District to collect, retain, and expend the fees, and to perform related statutory requirements in a manner consistent with the Fee Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.). G. The County and District wish to enter into an agreement that establishes the terms and conditions for the District to collect, retain, and expend the fees authorized by the Fee Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, County and District agree as follows: 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the following meanings: Page 2 of 4 (a) “District Administrative Fee” means the amount of the District administrative fee specified in the Fee Ordinance. (b) “Fee Ordinance” means County Ordinance No. 2020-27, or any successor to County Ordinance No. 2020-27. (c) “Fees” means the Fire Protection Facilities Fees and the District Administrative Fee. (d) “Fire Protection Facilities Fee” means the amount of the fire protection facilities fee specified in the Fee Ordinance. (e) “New construction” has the following meanings: (1) When applied to the construction of residential buildings or the installation of mobilehomes, “new construction” means construction or installation that increases the number of dwelling units on a given lot and requires a building permit. (2) When applied to the construction or installation of nonresidential buildings, “new construction” means construction or installation that increases the amount of floor space for nonresidential building purposes, or that increases the number of hotel rooms, on a given lot and requires a building permit. 2. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement becomes effective on the effective date of the Fee Ordinance. Unless modified by the parties or terminated as provided herein, this Agreement will remain in effect so long as the Fee Ordinance is in effect. 3. District’s Obligations. (a) The District shall provide the County a map and physical narrative description of its political boundaries containing sufficient detail that will enable the County to determine if proposed new construction in unincorporated Contra Costa County is located within the boundaries of the District. (b) For all new construction that occurs within any portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, the District will collect and retain the Fees due in accordance with the Fee Ordinance. (c) The District is solely responsible for complying with all requirements established by the Mitigation Fee Act, including but not limited to making all findings Page 3 of 4 required by the Mitigation Fee Act, establishing and maintaining all accounts required by the Mitigation Fee Act, producing all reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act, and using fire protection facilities fees only for the purposes authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act. (d) The District has sole discretion to use the Fees for any purposes consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the Fee Ordinance. 4. County’s Obligations. (a) For all new construction that occurs within any portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County that is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, the County shall require payment of Fees to the District as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit, unless otherwise required by law. (b) Except as otherwise provided in the Fee Ordinance, the County will not take any action that has the effect of increasing, reducing, repealing, suspending, or waiving payment of any Fees without complying with Chapter 818-2 of the County Ordinance Code, including considering at a public meeting a notice of findings’ report prepared by the District. (c) The County shall cooperate with the District with respect to the District’s compliance with the requirements of Section 3(c) of this Agreement, such as by providing information requested by the District. 5. Indemnification. The District shall hold the County harmless and indemnify and defend the County and its officers and employees from all actions, claims, and damages related to the Fees or the Fee Ordinance, including, without limitation, any challenge to the validity of the Fees or the Fee Ordinance, any challenge to the use of the Fees, any challenge related to compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, and any refund of the Fees ordered by any court or other entity with jurisdiction. The County agrees to cooperate with the defense to the extent it involves any County action, including adoption of the Fee Ordinance. The District shall not attempt to recover from the County any Fees inadvertently not required by the County prior to issuance of a building permit. In such event, the County’s inadvertent failure to require payment prior to issuance of a building permit does not excuse payment of Fees by the person, entity, or corporation responsible for paying the Fees, and the County shall cooperate with the District to secure payment of the Fees from the responsible party. The defense and indemnification obligations set forth in this Section survive the termination of the Agreement. 6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 90 days’ written notice to the other, and may be terminated immediately by written mutual consent. Page 4 of 4 7. Notices. All correspondence regarding this Agreement shall be directed to the following persons at the following addresses: COUNTY: Jason Crapo, Deputy Director Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 DISTRICT: Brian Helmick, Fire Chief East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 150 City Park Way Brentwood, CA 94513 8. Severability. If any terms or provision of this Agreement is, to any extent, held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and all prior understandings or agreements, oral or written, regarding this matter are superseded. This Agreement shall not be modified except by written mutual agreement signed by the parties. 10. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California. Courts of competent jurisdiction in Contra Costa County have exclusive jurisdiction over all actions arising out of this Agreement. DISTRICT: COUNTY: By:________________________________ By:________________________________ RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a development plan for 120 St. Albans Road in Kensington, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. DENY the appeal of Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello. 3. DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) (existing structures). 4. APPROVE the development plan for a two-story addition, interior remodel, and new deck at an existing single-family residence at 120 St. Albans Road in the Kensington. (County File #DP19-3019). 5. APPROVE the attached findings and conditions of approval. 6. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Margaret Mitchell, 925-674-7804 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D.3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to uphold Zoning Administrator's approval of 326-sq. ft. addition to residence in Kensington (District 1) FISCAL IMPACT: The applicants are responsible for all of the time and material costs associated with processing the application. BACKGROUND: Project Description This is a hearing of an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Kensington design review development plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upper level and a new deck at the rear of the existing single-family residence at 120 St. Albans in Kensington. The addition to the main level will extend the living room and dining room by five feet, two and one-half inches to the west, with a second access to the deck from the dining room. The existing deck will be removed and replaced by a new deck that extends 10 feet, 8 inches west from the addition to the main level. The addition to the upper level will extend the master bedroom and bathroom seven feet, two and one-half inches to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The remodel of the existing interior space, plus the small addition, will allow for a master bedroom with an ensuite master bathroom and walk-in closet, three smaller bedrooms, and an additional bathroom. The addition to the basement level of the residence will add five square feet of space to the existing storage room, above which will only be the main level but no upper level. The remaining area under the main level is an unfinished and uninhabitable crawlspace. Project Background The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the area of Kensington. The subject property is surrounded by residential lots ranging in size from 3,696 square feet to 8,400 square feet in area, all of which have been developed with residential dwellings and related accessory structures. Interstate 80 is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the property, the El Cerrito city limit is approximately 0.6 miles west and 0.6 miles north of the property, and the Richmond city limit is approximately 0.3 miles east of the property. The existing 2,006-square-foot single-family residence is located towards the front (east side) of the property. The property slopes gently near the front and slopes steeper towards the rear of the property. The existing residence is a two bedroom, one and a half bathroom home built in 1938. In a previous application (County File #VR18-1032) the applicant requested approval of a variance for a three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) on the northern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is three stories due to a small basement/storage space. Staff informed the applicant that variance findings to allow the three story addition could not be made, and in response, the applicant withdrew the variance application and submitted a revised project. In the revised project, the proposed addition was moved to the southern side of the rear of the property and was designed to not require a variance for three stories. Subsequently, a Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011) was submitted on July 26, 2019 by the applicant. Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period for the Kensington design review. In response, the applicant submitted the current development plan application (County File #DP19-3019) for the two-story addition on September 18, 2019. The project was scheduled at the December 16, 2019 Zoning Administrator hearing. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item, public comments were heard, and the item was continued to an open public hearing on January 6, 2020. At the January 6, 2020 meeting, additional public comments were heard. The Zoning Administrator closed and continued the item to the January 22, 2020 meeting. At the January 22, 2020 meeting, the Zoning Administrator re-opened the public hearing for this item, and more testimony was heard. The Zoning Administrator approved the item with changes to finding #3 (that the elimination of the northwestern facing master bathroom window minimizes impacts to the neighboring residence on the north side) and finding #7 (that the new development improves the value of the subject property), and changes to Condition of Approval (COA) #3 (the northwestern facing master bathroom window must be eliminated) and the addition of COA #4 (requiring the deck railing to be cable or glass) and COA #5 (requiring the deck and addition on the southern side to be setback 3’ 2” in order to comply with the 8’ 0” aggregate setback).Staff received one letter on February 3, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission. At the August 12, 2020 County Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission opened the hearing and received public comments on the project. Among the comments heard were concerns related to impacts to long range views of the San Francisco Bay, impacts to privacy, impacts to property values, violations of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance, and variances should be required for three stories and for setbacks to the addition. After receiving testimony, the County Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted on a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. The motion to deny the appeal was passed by the Commission with a 5-2 vote. Within the 10-day appeal period, one appeal was filed on the matter by Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello (appellants). Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Decision On August 24, 2020, Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello, filed an appeal with the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, over the decision of the County Planning Commission to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the County Zoning Administrator to approve County File #DP19-3019. The appeal points have been summarized and addressed below: Summary of Appeal Point #1: A variance is required for the setbacks and a three-story addition. Staff Response: A portion of the existing residence at the rear northwest corner is three stories. Aside from the northwest corner of the residence, the remainder of the existing residence is two stories above crawlspace. The proposed addition will be located along the southern side of the residence and will consist of two stories above crawl space, and does not require a variance for the number of stories since it is only two stories. No part of the addition to the second floor will be over the basement. The basement will be expanded by five square feet and the first floor will be expanded over this area but the second floor will not. The proposed addition will not extend or expand any part of the existing three story portion of the residence and therefore does not require a variance for three stories. Many of the residences in the surrounding area were constructed prior to adoption of the zoning code standards and many contain three stories. County staff routinely processes development plans for additions or improvements to existing three-story residences, including to the appellant’s residence, without requiring a variance if the addition or improvement itself does not itself exceed two-and-a-half stories. Since the lot was created prior to the adoption of zoning for the area, and the width of the front of the property is 35 feet, the sliding scale for side yard setbacks found in Section 82-14.004 of the County Ordinance Code applies. The minimum required sideyard setback for the lot is 3-feet with an aggregate of 8 feet. The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. The proposed plans indicate the addition meets the minimum required 3-foot side yard, and when combined with the existing 5-foot sideyard to the existing nook at the rear of the residence meet the minimum required 8-foot aggregate sideyard. The applicant later submitted a site plan at the Zoning Administrator hearing clarifying that the actual existing side yard setback to the existing nook at the rear of the residence is 4-feet 10-inches; therefore, the aggregate side yard setback is 7-feet 10-inches. The Zoning Administrator added condition of approval (COA) #5, which states that the deck and addition on the south side of the house must be set back by 3-feet 2-inches in order to comply with the 8-foot aggregate setback. Construction plans are reviewed by the Community Development Division (CDD) prior to issuance of a building permit, and CDD will confirm that the required setback is met. The Building Inspection Division conducts inspections during construction to ensure that projects are built to the approved specifications. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The project does not comply with the Kensington Combining District with regard to views, privacy, property values, and use and enjoyment of the home. Staff Response: The appellant’s residence is located adjacent to the subject property to the north. The views of the San Francisco Bay from the subject property and the appellants’ property are primarily to the west (including southwest and northwest). Although the upper floor of the addition will extend approximately seven feet from the existing residence, the addition will only extend approximately 2.5-feet beyond the existing nook of the subject property which is located on the opposite end of the rear of the residence, which is what will be visible to the appellants. The new deck extends approximately an additional eight feet, eight inches beyond the new upper floor. As can be seen in the attached aerial imagery, the appellants’ residence extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject residence, providing many views of the bay that will remain beyond the addition. As also seen can be seen in the aerial imagery, many of the residences in the surrounding neighborhood have rear decks of a similar size or larger, including the appellants’ residence, which has two rear decks of a similar size, one of which was extended under County File #DP08-3016. To address the concerns regarding the new deck, the Zoning Administrator added COA #4, which states that the deck railing shall be cable or glass material to minimize the impacts to the neighboring property. Staff contacted the appellants several times to set up a site visit prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, but the appellants were repeatedly unavailable and asked if photos were sufficient. Therefore, Staff’s analysis of the views presented to the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission were based on the analysis of the plans, and photos provided by the appellants, the applicant, and the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC). Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearings, the appellants invited staff to enter their home, observe the view through relevant windows and take pictures. These pictures are in the slides attached to this report. Despite the differences, all of the photos show that a small portion of the views to the southwest will be impacted by the addition, but none of the western facing bay views will be impacted by this project. Therefore, the impact to the views will not be substantial. The plans submitted by the applicant identify a window in the master bathroom portion of the addition that faces northwest, which may have impacted the privacy of the appellants’ residence. In order to reduce privacy impacts, the Zoning Administrator revised COA #3, stating that the applicant shall remove this window from the addition. The intent of the proposed deck is to be used and enjoyed by the owners of the subject property. Residences are allowed to have decks, and many other residences in the neighborhood, including the appellants’ residence, do. The deck does not substantially increase impacts to privacy relative to what is existing. The proposed deck is on the lower level of the residence and the appellants’ master bathroom is on the top level of the residence, so the privacy of the master bathroom is not substantially compromised. As stated previously, the Zoning Administrator added COA #4 requiring cable or glass railings to reduce impacts to the neighboring views. The primary view is to the west and the addition will not block the existing western views. Typically, additions add value to the subject property and the neighborhood. Given the scale of this modest addition of 326 square feet and extension of the existing deck, the project is consistent with the other neighbors that have added to their residences. The Kensington Combining district standards recognize the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property. In general, adding square footage to a residence, creating a better floor plan that is consistent with the existing residence, and increasing views adds enjoyment and value to a property. The purpose of the Kensington Combining District is to ensure that “future development recognizes the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property while minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors and not substantially impairing the value and enjoyment of their neighbors' property [and to] promote the community's values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale (Section 84-74.204).” As previously stated, COA #3 has been modified to reduce the privacy impacts caused by the northern facing window in the master bathroom portion of the addition, and COA #4 has been added to ensure the railing of the deck is constructed in such a way as to minimize the impact to the appellants’ views to the southwest. As shown in photos, the views to the southwest will be minimally impacted by the modest addition, and none of the views to the west will be impacted. As seen in aerial photographs, the appellants’ residence extends much farther to the west than the subject residence, and therefore has full views to the west that will not be impacted by this project. Therefore, the project has been designed and modifications have been made to ensure that the project meets the Kensington Combining District requirements. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The decision is not based on substantial evidence in the record and the previous staff reports include misstatements. Staff Response: The existing views of the bay are to the west. The addition extends five feet, two and one-half inches (first floor) and seven feet, two and on-half inches (second floor) to the west beyond the existing residence, and the new deck extends ten feet, eight inches to the west beyond the addition to the first floor. The additions are minimal and therefore, will not substantially impact views to the west or southwest. The small addition would not impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties (from the appellants property, the addition is largely obscured by the existing, protruding nook). Although the new deck extends further west than the existing deck, the neighbors’ privacy will be minimally impacted, since there is an existing deck in generally the same location. There are new windows in the addition that face northwest and southwest, but they are angled such that the subject property owners will be able to enjoy the bay views without looking directly into the neighbors’ homes. The addition is on the southern portion of the west side of the residence where there are two stories above crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above an unfinished and uninhabitable crawl space. There is a five square foot addition to the basement, but only the first floor addition overlies the extended basement. The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. Based on the year the lot was established, reduced side yard setbacks are allowed for new construction. The addition and deck meet the minimum three-foot side yard setback required, and with the addition of COA #5, the deck and addition will also meet the required aggregate side yard setback of 8 feet. Summary of Appeal Point #4: There were procedural and substantive due process violations, including failure to provide adequate notice, violations of the Brown Act, failure to require story poles, “impartial” decision-makers testifying on the behalf of the applicant, and relying on biased testimony when rendering a decision. Staff Response: County staff returned concerned phone calls and emails from the appellants, and has Staff Response: County staff returned concerned phone calls and emails from the appellants, and has met with the appellants in person on multiple occasions. The project file has been available to the appellants, and County staff is unaware of the appellants being denied access to the file. County staff followed proper procedures for reviewing the project and informed the appellants of the process. The County properly noticed neighbors within 300-feet of the subject property, which includes the appellants (property owners of 118 St. Albans Road), for County File #KR19-0011. In accordance with the County Code, public notifications were sent for the project including the original notification for the Kensington design review, and the notices for the Zoning Administrator, County Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors hearings. The County Department of Conservation and Development followed all Brown Act requirements. When County staff was asked about a site visit to the appellants’ property, it was regarding a site visit conducted by KMAC as part of their review process. As previously stated, when County staff requested a site visit prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, the appellants were repeatedly unavailable and offered photos instead. County staff met with the appellants when they arrived at the County office without an appointment multiple times when staff was available. Although story poles are not typically required by DCD, story poles were installed at the subject property after the Planning Commission meeting and prior to the Board of Supervisor hearing. General Plan Consistency The subject property is located in an area of the County with a Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) Land Use designation. The primary uses permitted in this land use designation include detached single-family homes and accessory structures. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper level, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The proposed addition and modifications to the existing single-family residence will not change the existing residential use, which is consistent with the primary uses permitted in this land use designation. The County General Plan has adopted policies for specific geographic areas of the County in addition to the countywide policies. Pursuant to the General Plan’s Map of Unincorporated Communities with Adopted Area Policies, the subject property is located within the Kensington specific geographical area. The policies for the Kensington area provide reasonable protection for existing residences, preservation of views of scenic natural features and the developed environment, design compatibility with nearby development, and provisions for adequate parking. The proposed development on the subject property will not increase the total height of the residence and is located at the rear of the residence which is downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence. The views of the bay enjoyed by the neighboring properties are mainly to the west, so although the addition will be visible when looking north or south from the neighboring properties, the primary bay views will not be impacted. The addition is located at the rear of the property and will not be visible from the street. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The addition will not increase the need for more parking or eliminate any of the existing parking. The addition is small enough that it will minimally impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties, especially the property to the north which extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject property. Therefore, this project will not substantially impact existing residences with regard to views, design compatibility, parking, privacy and access to sunlight and thus will not conflict with the adopted policies of the Kensington specific geographic area. Zoning Compliance The existing single-family residence is located within the R-6 Zoning District, and the proposed addition does not alter or change the existing residential use of the property. The proposed addition conforms with all of the development standards (sideyards, height, number of stories) of the R-6 zoning in which it is located. Although a portion of the residence, which was constructed in 1938, which was prior to the adoption of the County Zoning Ordinance, does contain three stories (where only two and one-half are allowed) the proposed addition does not extend or expand the three story portion of the residence. The existing residence has a maximum height of 31 feet 5 inches. The addition is 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence and has a flat roof. The existing residence has a minimum existing 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. Based on the year the lot was established, reduced side yard setbacks (sliding scale) are allowed for new construction. The proposed addition meets the minimum three-foot side yard setback required, and with the addition of COA #5, the deck and addition will also meet the required aggregate side yard setback of 8 feet. The Kensington Combining District (-K) includes seven criteria for approval of residential projects. As detailed in the attached Kensington Combining District Findings, staff finds that the project satisfies all seven criteria. The primary existing views of the bay are to the west. The addition extends five feet, two and one-half inches to the west beyond the existing residence, and the new deck extends approximately ten feet, eight inches to the west beyond the addition. The additions are minimal and therefore, will not substantially impact views to the west or southwest. The small addition would not impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties (from the appellants property, the addition is largely obscured by existing, protruding nook). Although the new deck extends further west than the existing deck, the neighbors’ privacy will be minimally impacted, since there is an existing deck in generally the same location. There are new windows in the addition that face northwest and southwest, but they are angled such that the subject property owners will be able to enjoy the bay views without looking directly into the neighbors’ homes. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The proposed interior remodeling will not change the footprint or exterior design of the residence. As such, no part of this project will significantly affect the architectural appearance of the residence, or the neighborhood in general as seen from the public roadway. Based on the parcel size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area allowed is 2,400 square feet. Although the proposed project would increase the gross floor area of the residence from 2,006 square feet to 2,332 square feet, it is still below the allowed threshold. Therefore, the project is compatible with the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (–TOV) regulations do not apply to the proposed project, because no new trees, nor removal, nor alteration of existing trees are proposed which would alter views in the neighborhood. Conclusion Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential District (R 6), Kensington Combining District (-K), and Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (-TOV). Two conditions of approval have been added to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; one that requires the deck and addition to be setback 3-feet 2-inches in order to comply with the 8-foot aggregate side yard setback, and one that requires the deck railing to be cable or glass. The Zoning Administrator also modified COA #3 to address concerns brought up by the appellant regarding privacy and removes a north-facing window on the second floor. No compelling evidence has been provided by the appellant to overturn the decision of the County Planning Commission to approve the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and sustain the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the County Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the County Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Development Plan for a Kensington Design Review for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition and new deck at the rear of the existing single-family residence, will be overturned. The applicant, Howard McNenny, and the owner, Mary Hanley, would be unable to move forward with the project as proposed. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Nicole Ashar, Appellant; Howard CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal of Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello; DETERMINED that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e) (existing structures); APPROVED the development plan for a two-story addition, interior remodel, and new deck at an existing single-family residence at 120 St. Albans Road in the Kensington. (County File #DP19-3019), as modified today to make modifications to the design of the deck consistent with the drawing presented by staff; APPROVED the findings and conditions of approval; and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Findings and Conditions of Approval Appeal Letter Maps Project Plans CPC Staff Report ZA Staff Reports PowerPoint Presentation 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019; HOWARD MCNENNY (APPLICANT) AND MARY HANLEY (OWNER) FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: Policy 4-c under the Growth Management Program (GMP) requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. The addition to the existing residence will generate minimal traffic trips to and from the project site during construction and no additional traffic trips post construction. Therefore, a traffic impact analysis is not required. 2. Water: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD has reviewed the project, and the project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for water service in the area. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires that new development demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives sanitary sewer service from the Stege Sanitary District. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for sanitary sewer service in the area. 4. Fire Protection: The fire protection standards under the GMP require that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district areas, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The project site is within the El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department jurisdiction and will be required to comply with current fire codes and regulations. The addition to the existing residence would not increase demand for fire services. The Fire Department will review the project for a building permit. 5. Public Protection: Public protection standards under the GMP require that a Sheriff Facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. The addition to the existing residence and will not increase the demand for police service facilities as the project will not increase the population. 6. Parks & Recreation: Parks and recreation standards under the GMP require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. The project will not 2 increase the demand for parks or recreation facilities, as the project will not increase the housing stock in the County. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: No portion of the subject property is located within a 100-year flood area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, the project does not involve the removal, construction, or alteration of any dams or levees within the County. Therefore, further analysis in relation to increased flood risks as a result of the project is not required. B. Kensington Combining District Findings The Kensington Combining District (-K) requires that any permit for development or expansion of the envelope of a building or structure be evaluated by balancing seven factors. Each of the seven factors is addressed below. 1. Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property. Finding: The project includes an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The addition creates more living space and the interior remodel of the upstairs allows for additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom. The development enhances the livability of the residence, and thereby improves the value and enjoyment of the residence. The Board further finds that the project will not extend or expand any part of the existing three-story portion of the residence and therefore does not require a variance. The rear southwest corner of the existing residence is three stories due to the enclosed storage space on the lower level. The remainder of the existing residence is two stories above an uninhabitable and unfinished crawlspace that does not constitute a story. The project includes an addition to the main and upper levels that will be located above the crawlspace. The project also includes a small addition (approximately 5 square feet) to the main and lower levels that will have no upper level above. Thus, the project will not extend or expand any part of the existing three-story portion of the residence and therefore does not require a variance. The Board further finds that the project will comply with the applicable side yard setback requirements (3-foot setback, with an aggregate setback of 8 feet) and therefore does not require a variance. The project has been conditioned to require that the proposed deck and addition be setback from the property’s southern 3 property line by 3 feet, 2 inches. The minimum setback from the property’s northern property line of that portion of the residence opposite from the proposed deck and addition is 4 feet, 10 inches, resulting in a minimum aggregate setback of 8 feet. Thus, the project as conditioned will comply with the applicable side yard setback requirements and does not require a variance. 2. Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design. Finding: The subject property is not vacant, so this criterion does not apply. 3. Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors. Finding: The development has been designed and conditioned to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors while still recognizing the property owners’ right to improve and enjoy their property. Partly in response to comments from the neighbor to the north, the addition is located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the main floor by five feet to the west and the deck will extend another 10.5 feet. The addition to the upper floor will extend the upper floor approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The addition and deck meet the required minimum side yard setback and have been designed to minimally impact the neighbors while still allowing the enjoyment of the views. The applicant has agreed to eliminate the northwestern facing master bathroom window, which also minimizes impacts to the neighboring residence on the north side. Moreover, the project has been conditioned to require cable or glass railing for the deck to further minimize potential impacts to neighbor views. The project has minimized impacts to surrounding neighbors. 4. Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property. Finding: As previously mentioned, the overall project has been designed and conditioned to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighbors. The addition has been designed to extend the existing residence as little as possible, while still allowing for a remodel of the interior to increase the usability and enjoyment of the existing living space. Neighboring properties to the north and south are at similar elevations as the subject property such that views from those properties may be impacted. However, the views of the San Francisco Bay for the subject and neighboring properties are primarily to the west. The Board finds that the project will have only minimal 4 impacts to views from the north and south neighboring properties when looking north or south past the subject property, but will not impact the primary westward facing views of the Bay from the neighboring properties. Moreover, the residence located on the neighboring property to the north extends 20 feet further west than the existing residence, resulting in additional views for those neighbors that will not be impacted by the additions. The existing residence on the subject property is located downhill of the neighbors to the east, and the addition will be lower than the existing residence. The Board finds that the addition will not impact views of the San Francisco Bay visible from properties at a higher elevation. Therefore, the project preserves the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The project will comply with side yard setback requirements. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not result in a structure that encroaches on neighboring properties or impedes light or solar access. The Board further finds that the proposed addition as conditioned, including the removal of a proposed master bath window on the upper level, will protect the privacy of neighboring properties. 5. Maintaining the community's property values. Finding: The project has minimal impacts on views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. The addition will increase the property value of the subject property by adding more living space to the existing residence, including more bedrooms and an additional bathroom, and will therefore increase the property value of the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, existing community’s property values are preserved. 6. Maximizing the use of existing interior space. Finding: The addition will add approximately 326-square-feet of living space to the existing residence, which allows for an interior remodel of the upper floor, including the addition of bedrooms and another bathroom. The overall scope of the project maximizes the use of existing interior space, and minimally increases the existing footprint of the residence. 7. Promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety. Finding: The project does not change the land use of the subject property and, as described earlier, has minimal impact on surrounding properties. The new development improves the value of the property. Also, the project will not use or 5 emit hazardous substances beyond what is normal for a residential property. The project will be required to comply with applicable building and fire codes. Based on the foregoing reasons, the project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety of the Kensington community. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019 Project Approval 1. Development is approved as generally described in the application materials received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on September 18, 2019, and is subject to the conditions listed below. General Provisions 2. Any development or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application may require the review and approval of CDD and may require the filing of an application for modification to a Development Plan and a public hearing, if deemed necessary. 3. The applicant shall eliminate the northwestern facing master bathroom window and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by CDD prior to obtaining a building permit. 4. The deck railing shall be cable railing as shown on sheet A5 elevation dated September 18, 2019, OR shall be glass in compliance with the Building Code requirement to minimize impacts to neighboring property. 5. The deck and the addition on the southern side shall be setback by 3’ 2” in order to comply with the 8’ 0” aggregate setback. Payment of Fees 6. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $1000.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 7. The applicant shall comply with the following restrictions and requirements: 6 A. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (state and federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) Washington’s Birthday (federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (state) President’s Day (state and federal) Cesar Chavez Day (state) Memorial Day (state and federal) Independence Day (state and federal) Labor Day (state and federal) Columbus Day (state and federal) Veterans Day (state and federal) Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) Day after Thanksgiving (state) Christmas Day (state and federal) For information on the calendar dates that these holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol California Holidays: http://www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm B. Transportation of large trucks and heavy equipment is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. C. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition and stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors shall be located as far away from existing residences as possible. E. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored onsite. 7 F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be disposed of as necessary. G. Any debris found outside the site shall immediately be collected and deposited in appropriate receptacles. ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed project: • Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division • Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division • East Bay Municipal Utility District • Stege Sanitary District • El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Room 107 Martinez, CA 94553 Chair Candace Andersen Vice Chair Diane Burgis Supervisors John M. Gioia Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover August 24, 2020 Re: Appeal of the August 12, 2020, Decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on DP#19-3019 Dear Chair Andersen and Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors: On behalf of the owners of 118 St. Albans Road (the “Appellants”), we submit this request to Appeal the Planning Commission’s Approval of Development Plan Application DP# 19-3019 to construct an expansive three-story addition onto a three-story residence in Kensington (the “Project”). This letter serves as Notice of Appeal under Contra Costa County Code 26-2.2406. In accordance with County requirements, this appeal is accompanied by an appeal filing fee of $250. This appeal is based on each of the reasons stated in this letter and in the attached and referenced exhibits. We reserve the right to supplement our grounds for appeal prior to the hearing of the County's Board of Supervisors.1 I.Reasons for the Appeal This application should not be before you. This land use approval should have been sent back to staff long ago to address neighbor concerns and to ensure compliance 1 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 2 with County Code, as staff regularly does with all other projects in Kensington. But in this case, staff has seemingly worked overtime on behalf of this particular applicant to push project approval in the face of obvious inconsistencies with County Code. During the process, the County has caused several procedural and substantial due process violations, has identified variance exceptions that do not exist in County Code, has kept opponents of the Project in the dark about the approval process, has biasedly testified on behalf of the applicant, has coached the applicant on ways to avoid a variance, and has ignored substantial evidence on the record showing this Project violates the Kensington Combining District Ordinance (“KCD Ordinance”) to grant the applicant the special privilege of constructing an enormous deck and three-story addition that will impact the long-range views, privacy, and property values of the neighbors. It appears that County staff and some of the Planning Commissioners believe that this applicant should have a right to build because they moved the original design to the other side of their house. While the Appellants sincerely appreciate the necessary redesign, the revised Project needs to comply with County Code and to avoid impacting Appellants’ long-range views, privacy, and use and enjoyment of their home, which it does not. Appellants have tried to work with these neighbors to resolve the issue, but have been unsuccessful. They tried to highlight their concerns many times and were ignored by the applicant. Before the Planning Commission Hearing, Appellants approached the applicant to see whether they would fix the misrepresentations in the application. The applicant had no issues with misrepresentations and stated “We don’t care. As long as the County believes us, that’s all that matters.” During the Planning Commission Hearing, applicants told Commissioners that they were willing to revise the Project to reduce the enormous deck, but when Appellants approached them after the hearing to follow up on this offer, they were completely unwilling to make project changes.2 As we have been unable to reach resolution either with the applicant or with the help of County staff, we are forced to bring this before the Board of Supervisors to protect Appellants’ due process rights and to ensure the Project complies with both the KCD Ordinance and planning and zoning law. As detailed in the Appeal Letter to the Planning Commission (“PC Appeal Letter”) (attached separately as Exhibit O), the County has violated planning and zoning laws by approving the Project without issuing a variance. County staff also failed to consider substantial evidence on the record showing the potential for significant impacts to Appellants’ privacy, long-range views, and property values. Approving the Project without fully mitigating these impacts violates the special protections afforded to Kensington residents under the unique KCD Ordinance crafted by Supervisor Gioia. The approval process to date has been riddled with both substantive and procedural due process violations, including bias testimony, violations of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act (“PRA”), and repeated failures to notify Appellants and other opponents of the Project during Project review. We look to the Board of Supervisors, an 2 We also note that these same neighbors, who suggested that installing story poles would be too costly, have constructed a deck in their front yard within the last two weeks without obtaining any County approvals that we could find. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 3 impartial body of elected officials hired to protect the public, to ensure a fair process that protects Kensington residents and minimizes view and privacy impacts on neighbors. Appellants are only requesting equal treatment under the law to protect their property rights. They have never, nor would they ever, suggest that the applicant cannot build, which has been falsely stated by County staff and the applicant. Merely, the applicant cannot build in such a way as to impact neighbor’s long range views, privacy, and property values as specifically prohibited under the KCD Ordinance and in violation of County Code. There is a simple solution here that will allow the applicant to expand their home and will protect Appellants’ property rights. Uphold the appeal, require a redesign in the Project to legally avoid a variance and to reduce the size of the proposed addition to avoid impacts to long-range views, privacy, and property values in compliance with County Code and the KCD Ordinance. That is all that is required. This resolution should have happened long ago. We look to this Board of Supervisors to rectify these wrongs and resolve the issue once and for all to avoid a protracted legal battle in court. a. A Variance is Required for the Project A variance is required to comply with both minimum 8’ setback requirements and to construct a three-story addition onto a three-story residence. i. Variance is Required to Construct a Three-Story Addition The Project proposes to construct a three-story addition onto a three-story structure in violation of CCC Code §84-4.802, which requires that all building heights be capped at 2 ½ stories. Any proposed expansion of the third story, a non-conforming structure, requires a variance. For purposes of determining the number of stories of a structure, the bottom level counts as a story if the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point (CCC Code §82-4.266). A basement is further defined in the KCD Ordinance as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower.” (CCC Code §82- 74.404). On the applicant’s house, the finished floor directly above the basement is over 7’ above grade. These definitions confirm that the lower level of the Project house is considered the first story under County Code and the two floors above it are the second and third stories. Every staff report to date on this Project has confirmed that the existing residence is three-stories, a nonconforming use, and that the Project includes an addition to all three stories.3 An expansion of the third story, requires a variance. Instead of requiring a variance for the obvious three-story addition on a three-story structure, staff has used the definition of crawl space to conclude that a variance is not required because the Project is proposed on the south side of the structure above the crawl space. This analysis is flawed for several reasons. First, stories are determined using Section 82-4.266 of the Code, and the definition of a ‘crawl space’ is irrelevant to this 3 We note that the applicants identified the structure as having three-stories in the original application, but then conspicuously identified the same structure as only having two-stories in the revised July 2019 application. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 4 analysis. Second, County staff has ignored the fact that the Project includes a three-story addition, including a 5-foot expansion of the basement. And finally, following this interpretation would lead to the wholly illogical conclusion that the top floor of the house is both a second and third story. When asked about this issue at the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Hernandez admitted that he has never seen the basement, is unsure whether walls will be knocked down on the first floor, and is unaware of the height of the ‘crawl space’ on the south side and whether it is currently used for storage. He also failed to acknowledge that the application includes expanding the first story and suggested that the walls on the first story would not need to be impacted. This response is not only false, it is particularly troubling as the ‘crawl space loophole’ is the lynchpin to the County’s variance exemption. It is clear from the application that the Project includes an expansion of all three stories, which requires a variance in Kensington. We raised this fact with the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (“KMAC”) during their review of the Project in October 2019, but they ignored the issue, incredulously suggesting that the law “wasn’t relevant to their decision”. We then asked the Zoning Administrator (“ZA”) to research the legality of staff’s variance interpretation as we can find no precedent for such a novel interpretation, and she declined, instead relying solely on staff’s illogical interpretation. We then asked the Planning Commissioners to research this issue thinking that they surely would want to ensure the legality of the decision, but they declined, citing staff’s interpretation as gospel. To date, the County has failed to obtain a legal opinion regarding staff’s novel interpretation of variance requirements for this Project. Surprised by staff’s claim that the County regularly relies on the novel interpretation that a structure can be both two and three stories when considering variances, we filed a formal PRA request asking the County to provide any precedent in which they relied on this approach. The County formally replied in December 2019, stating that “[t]he Department has not identified any other ‘legal precedent, findings, records, memorandum, or guidance that would support th[is] Legal Conclusion’”. (See Exhibit A.) This finding is not surprising as the County regularly requires variances for third story additions within this zoning district and does not distinguish small portions of the third story as a ‘second story’ where the basement does not fully cover the entire house. (See Staff Report for #DP16-3040, April 17, 2017, County denied a request for a variance for a three-story structure in Kensington, requiring the applicant to redesign the project to be two stories.) Mr. Hernandez’s explanation during the Planning Commission Hearing further supports our interpretation that a variance should be required for this Project. At the hearing, he clarified unequivocally that a three-story structure and three-story addition would require a variance, which is exactly what is being proposed here. He then offered a strange claim that based on the definition of a crawl space, again irrelevant to the analysis, the house should be considered two-stories on one side and three-stories on the other. He did not provide any reasoning for using an interpretation that would render the top floor of the very same structure both the second and third story, which defies logic and is inconsistent with the County’s finding on countless other projects. County Counsel has thus far deferred making a legal finding on this issue and even suggested that the County regularly uses this interpretation. If that were true, the County would have had no difficulty 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 5 producing precedent requested in the December 2019 PRA request, but instead they offered none. The Board of Supervisors has the discretion, authority, and duty to interpret County Code to ensure that any project proposed complies with the law. We strongly recommend that County Counsel research the issue before finalizing a staff report for this decision. In addition to leaving the County open to legal liability in this case, we anticipate that using this variance interpretation would lead to inconsistent land use regulation and applicants working to skirt variance requirements by doing construction in stages. Indeed, if this approval is upheld, there is nothing preventing this applicant from coming to the County next year to build out the crawl space creating an expansive three-story structure without ever obtaining a variance. It is well settled law in California that a County cannot pick and choose which portions of the code to apply. (See Broadway, Laguna etc. Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 779-780; See also Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (1986).) And courts have a strict policy against the extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses (See County of San Diego v McClurken, 37 Cal.2d 683, 686-87 (1951). County staff has made a finding that squarely conflicts with its own code and would allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use without a variance. This decision must be overturned and a variance must be required for the proposed expansion of the third story of a three-story building that violates the zoning limit to protect not only the rights of the aggrieved neighbors, but also the County’s precedent and integrity in consistently applying land use law. ii. Variance is Required to Meet Minimum Setbacks Similarly, this Project needs a variance to address setback requirements which in this district requires that all new construction provides at least 3’ on each side and a minimum aggregate of at least 8 feet total. (CCC §82-14.004.) This minimum reflects an extremely small allowance for construction on tiny lots in Kensington and must be maintained. The ZA and the Planning Commissioners incorrectly concluded that the Project meets setback requirements despite substantial evidence to the contrary. The applicant has filed several misrepresentations regarding the dimensions of the proposed Project related to setbacks, making it difficult to discern the correct dimensions and imperative that the County confirm these measurements onsite. On July 15, 2019, the applicant submitted an application identifying the right side setback as 2’ 3 ½” from the side yard. (Exhibit B-1.) Once the applicant realized that the setbacks might be an issue, they filed a revised application on July 25, 2019, showing the same side setback as 3’. (See Exhibit B-2.) These plans show two different measurements for the same side without any redesign or explanation as to why this measurement would have changed. To add insult to injury, the applicant’s architect went further to suggest by email that the Project provides over 10’ aggregate, which is not at all correct and reflects this applicant’s willingness to say anything to obtain approval and underscores the need for the County to make independent findings on the ground. (Exhibit B-3, email from applicant’s architect to County.) Critically, County Code requires that the setback measurement be taken at the point where new construction starts, which, as shown on the plans provided in Exhibit B-4, includes a new roofline and accordingly, goes beyond the line currently marked as ‘new’ 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 6 versus ‘existing’ on the project plans. This is yet another misrepresentation on the application that has to be addressed. It is clear from Exhibit B-4 that the newly constructed roofline will establish a setback that is significantly less than the 8’ aggregate requirement and cannot be addressed by a Condition of Approval to add 2” as suggested during the ZA hearing. Accordingly, we similarly request to have County Counsel weigh in on this novel interpretation before the County prepares a staff report. It is paramount that the County vigorously implement its variance regulations to adequately protect the community. Any court reviewing the County’s decision would “meaningfully review grants of variances [or failure to require a variance] in order to protect the interests of those who hold rights in property nearby the parcel for which a variance is sought.” (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1162 (1986). CA courts have clarified that if the interest of neighboring property owners in preventing unjustified variance awards [or exemptions] for neighboring land is not sufficiently protected, the consequences would be dire. See Id. On the contrary, the County’s primary responsibility is to ensure that such ordinances are fairly and consistently applied to protect the community it regulates. Implementing variance protections correctly is particularly important here, where long-range views and privacy are at stake. b. The Project Does Not Comply With the Kensington Combining District The Project currently violates the KCD Ordinance, which requires the County to affirmatively “minimize impacts upon surrounding neighbors; [and] protect the value and enjoyment of the neighbors’ property” (CCC §84-74.1206.) The KCD Ordinance goes so far as to allow sun shadow analysis for even the smallest structures to ensure neighbors are protected from proposed development in Kensington. These important protections, established by Supervisor Gioia, explain why the County – in all other instances – has taken a very hard look at proposed additions in Kensington and regularly denies variances for three-story expansions and expansive decks. As evidenced in the attached and on the record, the Project, even on the south side of the house, will impact long-range views, privacy, and property values of the neighbors, in direct contradiction to KCD Ordinance requirements. While the County is allowed to balance interests between neighbors, the ZA and the Planning Commission have focused their decisions exclusively on the applicant’s interests. During her ruling on January 22, 2020, the ZA only recited Section 84-74.204(a) of the KCD Ordinance to benefit the applicant and neglected to cite Sections 84-74.204 (b), 84-74.1206 (a) and 84-74.1206(b), all of which require the County to protect the surrounding neighbor’s long-range views, use, value, enjoyment, and privacy. At the Planning Commission Hearing, certain Commissioners repeatedly referenced the applicant’s right to enhance their property, but failed to make any kind of finding regarding the minimization of impacts required for neighbors. Development is not a right. No one is entitled to build in the State of California simply because they moved a project to the other side of the house. That is not how the land use process works. A person may be granted the entitlement to build if, and only if, their project complies with planning and zoning laws, which this Project currently does not. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 7 i. The Project Does Not Minimize Impacts to Long-Range Views of the Bay Bridge and Downtown San Francisco The Project, as proposed, will cause significant long-range view and privacy impacts. In addition to expanding the basement (first story), the Project proposes to add an enormous new deck and addition onto the second story that together would extend approximately 16 feet (10’ 8” deck + 5’ 2 ½” addition) behind the existing structure as well as an over 7’ 2 ½” foot expansion of the top third story. The second and third-story expansions will directly impact Appellants’ long-range views from their kitchen window and the master bathroom. As described below and in the attached, the Project will extend beyond the house’s original footprint and will expand the bulk and perception of the overall building. It is visually obtrusive and will block long range views of San Francisco, the Bay Bridge, and the Bay. (See the PC Appeal Letter, Exhibit O for additional detail.) At every step, County staff has been surprisingly unwilling to ask the applicant to install story poles to clarify the extent of impacts of the revised Project or to reduce the size of the deck. The KMAC refused to require story poles even after the applicant offered to install them. (See Exhibit C, KMAC’s failure to accept applicant’s offer to install story poles even though it would clearly help to address the neighbor’s concerns.) The ZA also refused to require story poles even though there was an obvious discrepancy regarding view impacts. The Planning Commission denied the request to have story poles installed because they believed it was too late in the process, even though this simple act would have clarified the actual impacts. Consequently, we are left to rely on story poles from the previous application, which identifies the location of 7’ and 10’ behind the existing house, to estimate likely impacts of the revised Project. We have included KMAC photos from the master bathroom showing the location of where the original design was proposed, extending 7’ and 10’ from the existing structure. (Exhibits D-2.) The revised addition on the top floor will extend 7’2 ½” on the third story on the south side, directly into Appellants expansive southern view from the master bathroom of the Bay and the Bay Bridge. The enormous deck and addition on the second story will cause even greater privacy and view impacts. Exhibit D-3 shows a photo taken by the KMAC from the kitchen window in connection with the previous design. The photo clearly shows that the existing deck does not cause any view or privacy impacts. Using the 7’ story pole in the picture to extrapolate the likely location of the proposed new deck and addition (which will extend approximately 16’ from the existing structure), you can see that the proposed new structure will cause significant view impacts of the Bay, the Bay Bridge, and downtown San Francisco from the kitchen window, a key selling point of the home. (Exhibit D-4.) The proposed deck will also cause significant privacy impacts to the master bathroom on the top floor, which currently enjoys total privacy (see discussion below). We also note that the rendering provided in the Planning Commission’s Staff Report, created by the applicant, shows the proposed deck extending only to the 7’ story pole mark, not 16’ as proposed in the application, which is false and underscores the importance of having County staff confirm the actual dimensions on the ground through story poles rather than rely on misrepresentations from the applicant. (Exhibit D-5.) 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 8 ii. Project Does Not Minimize Impacts to Privacy Even with inaccurate dimensions, the rendering created by the applicant (Exhibit D-5) establishes that the proposed new deck (which will be much larger than the rendering) will look directly into the master bathroom and will cause privacy impacts from the kitchen window as well. The Staff Report incredulously claimed that “the deck does not increase impacts to privacy more than what is existing.” (Planning Commission, Staff Report, p. 7.) This statement is patently false. There currently are NO privacy or view impacts resulting from the existing deck. (See Exhibits D-2 through D-4.) Accordingly, the new impacts proposed by the Project will be infinitely greater than existing conditions. This proposed deck and addition do not minimize impacts to privacy, but indeed cause significant impacts to a once completely private master bathroom and kitchen window view. Where once you could soak in a tub in complete privacy, Appellants will now have an enormous deck with its attendant people and parties looking directly into their bathroom. Where once you could wash dishes looking at a million dollar view of the Bay Bridge and San Francisco, Appellants would now be forced to stare at a massive deck. The staff report completely ignored this potential impact from the expansive deck and addition. Commissioner Allen visited the property and recognized that the proposed deck will have significant privacy impacts to both the upper and lower levels of Appellants’ home. She also recognized that we have to assume that there will be people and parties on this deck that might look directly into the master bathroom and into the kitchen. (PC Hearing, August 12, 2020.) She then suggested reducing the size of the deck to truly ‘minimize’ privacy and view impacts as required by the KCD Ordinance. The applicant verbally offered to adjust the size of the deck to address impacts, but oddly, the Planning Commissioners did not take them up on their offer even though it could have significantly reduced privacy impacts and helped to make the Project consistent with the KCD Ordinance. Appellants have since asked the applicant whether they would follow through on their offer to reduce the size of their deck, and they refused stating that as long as they have the County’s approval, they have no interest in revising the Project to address reasonable neighbor concerns. iii. Project Does Not Minimize Impacts to Property Values As stated in a letter we provided from the prominent real estate agent who sold Appellants’ property, the Project will impact key selling points to Appellants’ home, significantly impacting their property value in violation of the KCD Ordinance. (See Exhibit E.) Rather than address this evidence, and ask the applicant to reduce the size of their structure to avoid these significant impacts, the staff report incredulously concludes that the Appellants’ property values will not be impacted because the applicant’s property values will be improved. This conclusion is nonsensical. The applicant’s property values would be increased by directly stealing Appellants’ views. This is exactly the type of project the KCD Ordinance was created to protect against. The ZA and the Planning Commission ignored the substantial evidence on the record and approved the Project without proposing to reduce the size of the addition to minimize property value impacts. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 9 iv. Appellants’ Use and Enjoyment of Their Home Will be Significantly Impacted by the Project Commissioner Allen visited the property site and identified the significant privacy and view impacts associated with the enormous deck and addition being proposed. She acknowledged that the proposed Project would impact Appellants’ use and enjoyment of their home and suggested a redesign to address this issue, but was overruled by Commissioners who had not visited the property. It is hard to understand why Commissioners would not entertain a potential resolution to this issue when the applicant agreed to make Project changes. Particularly, when the ones voting against the appeal had not viewed the subject property. Assessing the actual impacts of a project is difficult to do on paper. We therefore invite all of the Supervisors to visit Appellants’ home to view the existing long range views and privacy that will be significantly impacted by the Project before rendering their decision. With the exception of Commissioner Allen, no other County staff have visited Appellants’ home. Prior to reviewing the revised application, the Project planner confirmed that even a Project on the south side of the house “would need to be designed to avoid impacting the neighbor's long range views, sunlight, etc. and likely would require a variance if it involves three stories, has certain overhangs, or has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts.” She then promptly recommended approval of a three-story project without a variance, disregarding the significant impact long-range views and privacy caused by the revised design. (See Exhibit F for email from Margaret Mitchell May 2, 2019.) The Project as currently proposed has not been designed to minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors, will not protect the value and enjoyment of the neighbor’s property, and will not maintain the neighbor’s property values. Accordingly, the Project does not comply with the KCD Ordinance and must be redesigned. As previously proposed to County staff, a smaller addition could be constructed on the property that would avoid these significant impacts and would comply with the KCD Ordinance requirements. Rather than deny any development, as the applicant dramatically suggests, Appellants only want to have their views and privacy protected. The applicant could accomplish this by limiting the upper level addition to the size of the existing nook on the north side and reducing the deck to the previous footprint, to be an actual replacement deck. These changes would provide the applicant with a significant addition to their house while protecting the Appellants’ property values and minimizing impacts to long-range views and privacy as required by the KCD Ordinance. These reasonable requests were not even considered in the ZA hearing and were overruled by a majority of the Planning Commissioners. c. Decision Is Not Based on Substantial Evidence in the Record As suggested above and described in the PC Appeal Letter attached, there are countless misstatements in the record that the County has relied on in making its findings to date, underscoring the need to overturn the approval and to confirm actual Project impacts on the ground. The various staff reports for the approval include the following misstatements: 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 10 • Appellants’ views are only to the west and would not be impacted by a southern expansion – FALSE. See Exhibit G, which shows Appellants’ kitchen and master bathroom views are primarily to the south. • Appellants’ house is higher on the street than the applicant’s and therefore their views would not be impacted – FALSE. See Exhibit H, showing Appellants’ house is lower than the applicant’s. • The proposed deck does not increase impacts to privacy more than existing – FALSE. See Exhibit D-2, showing the existing deck which cannot be viewed by Appellants’ house. There are currently NO impacts associated with the existing deck. • County staff claim that Appellants have been repeatedly unavailable for a site visit– FALSE. From Oct 2018- September 2019, Appellants tried repeatedly to have County staff visit the house, but were rebuffed. Staff finally offered to visit the house in October 2019 when Appellants were at a funeral. Appellants tried in earnest to reschedule a site visit in November, but their request went unanswered. (See Exhibit I for email correspondence with County.) • The ZA Staff Report suggests the proposed deck is a ‘replacement deck’ extending only 1 ½’ behind the existing deck - FALSE. See Exhibit D-1 which shows the proposed deck will extend 10’ 8” behind the proposed 5’ 2 ½’foot addition, resulting in a new approximately 16’ extension behind the existing structure. • Most houses on the block have decks – FALSE. All of the houses to the south of the applicant’s house do not have decks because they are uphill and have better views. (See Exhibit J.) We do not relish pointing out these mistakes, but it is important to recognize that the ZA relied on misstatements of fact and ignored substantial evidence on the record to find in favor of the applicant. The false statements also reflect a haphazard process focused on approving the Project at all costs. d. Procedural and Substantive Due Process Violations From the start, this process has been riddled with substantive and procedural due process violations that must be corrected by the Board to avoid potential legal liability. As highlighted in documents filed with the County, there have been several due process violations, including but not limited to: failure to provide adequate notice and violations of the Brown Act, failure to require story poles, ‘impartial’ decision-makers testifying on behalf of the applicant, and relying on biased testimony when rendering a decision. The Board has a duty to act to rectify these wrongs and ensure a fair review process. i. Failure to Notify, Brown Act Violations Throughout the process, the County has failed to provide mandatory notice to Appellants even though their property will be directly affected by the County’s decision. Appellants have been forced to hire land use counsel and file approximately 15 different PRA requests just to understand the development being proposed next door. Property 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 11 owners and affected citizens are entitled to constitutional due process and equal protection when a County regulates projects, but these Appellants have been left out of the process from the beginning and have had to force their way in to protect their property rights. After voicing reasonable concerns and requesting status updates from the County on the initial application in January 2019, the County failed to inform Appellants that the applicant had submitted revised plans on February 12th and failed to notify them that the KMAC would be reviewing those plans at a meeting on February 26, 2019. Appellants had to scramble to attend the February KMAC meeting to voice their concerns. When individual rights are being deliberated in an administrative hearing, interested parties are required to be apprised of the application “so that [they] may have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1172 (1996).) Without adequate notice, it “would be tantamount to requiring a hearing in form but not in substance, for the right of a hearing before an administrative tribunal would be meaningless if the tribunal were permitted to base its determination upon information received without the knowledge of the parties.” (Id.) Once the original application was withdrawn in April 2019, the County planner committed by email on May 2, 2019, to providing direct notice to Appellants of any proposed revised designs or new applications, (see Exhibit F), but failed again to notify Appellants when a new application was filed in July and again in September. On July 29, 2019, Appellants sent an email to the County planner requesting to be informed, as parties in interest, of when the KMAC would review the application and of any updated applications. The County did not provide any updated applications, and instead, the Appellants only learned of a revised application from the neighbor who told them by email about a revised application submitted September 18, 2019. Even then, Appellants could not obtain a copy of the revised September application, even though the planner promised to keep them informed. Appellants were forced to go to the Department of Conservation and Development (“DCD”) Office on September 30, 2019, to obtain a copy of the revised application, but were again denied. Appellants were told by DCD staff that there was no application on file, even though there clearly was. Appellants showed County staff an email from the neighbor confirming that an application had been filed, and the DCD Office staff still refused to provide them with a copy of the application, in direct violation of the PRA. Appellants were forced to file two different PRA requests in October just to receive a copy of the application that the County planner committed to providing back in May. It should not be this difficult for interested parties to obtain publicly available information, particularly when their property rights are being impacted. Perhaps most egregious, the KMAC failed to comply with the Brown Act’s mandatory notice requirement for public meetings. (CA Gov Code 54956.) (See detailed discussion in the PC Appeal Letter, Exhibit O, pp 9-10.) Ms. Snyder, a KMAC member who volunteered to provide public notice for the KMAC meeting and consequently was the same KMAC member who coached the applicant on how to avoid a variance, provided notice to all neighbors surrounding the Project except the two opponents of the Project, the Appellants and Ms. Donna Stanton, the owner of 134 Windsor Road in Kensington. It is imperative that the County notify all residents if they fall within the distance requirements or if the decision will affect their property rights (See Scott v City of Indian Wells, 6 Cal.3d 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 12 541, 549 (1972).) When this issue was raised at the KMAC meeting in October, KMAC members denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Ms. Stanton's property was located outside of the noticing area. We have provided a copy of the KMAC notification area list, clearly showing both Ms. Stanton's and the Appellants’ properties within the notification area (See Exhibit K to the PC Appeal Letter, Exhibit O.) KMAC members lied about their failure to notify opponents and then doubled down on this falsehood during the ZA hearing in direct violation of the Brown Act. The California Constitution makes clear that “[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (California Constitution, Art. 1, section 3 (b)(1).) The Brown Act covers members of virtually every type of local government body, elected or appointed, decision- making or advisory. Public participation is paramount to the land use process. At the very least, these KMAC members, appointed to be impartial decision-makers, should have shown concern for shutting out interested parties and proposed a more formal notification process in the future to avoid these violations. Sadly, these KMAC members were unconcerned and the approval went forward. Appellants have a known, vested interest in the subject application, will be uniquely and directly impacted by the Project, and have indicated they have substantial evidence to submit into the record. Yet, the County has repeatedly failed to notify them of the revised plans ostensibly designed to address their concerns in direct contradiction to planning and zoning laws and the Brown Act. Planning Commissioners did not even address these violations during their deliberations. We are hopeful that this honorable Board of Supervisors takes action to clarify the importance of providing public notice and including interested parties in the land use approval process. To rectify the situation, we seek an impartial determination that protects both parties’ property rights. ii. Evidence of Bias Perhaps most troubling, has been the substantial bias on the part of KMAC members, citizens who are duty-bound to impartially represent the County, and certain County staff, in reviewing and approving this application. Back in August 2018, three months before an application was filed, the applicant’s architect stated that County staff, Joseph Lawlor, told him, after confirming with his supervisor Mr. Hernandez, that a variance would be ‘no problem’, without ever having reviewed an application. (See Attachment A to the PC Appeal Letter, Exhibit O.) This type of pre-determined favoritism is wholly inappropriate in the land use process. At the KMAC hearing in February 2019, once it became clear that it would be difficult to make the stringent variance findings, one of the KMAC members, Ms. Snyder, started coaching the applicant on ways to avoid a variance.4 We also found emails from 4 We also note that Ms. Snyder has failed to attend any other KMAC meeting except the ones involving this Project and the mandatory meetings scheduled by Supervisor Gioia. We find it suspicious that this same person also coached the applicant, failed to notify project opponents, and testified on behalf of the Project at the ZA Hearing. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 13 County staff providing similar guidance on how to skirt County Code requirements. (See Exhibit K.) This same KMAC member failed to notify the project opponents of the October meeting and then went so far as to testify on behalf of the applicant along with Mr. Tahara (KMAC Chair) at the ZA Hearing. If there is evidence of an "unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of a decision-maker", that decision-maker must be disqualified from reviewing the application. (See Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, in which a Planning Commission decision was vacated because one of the Commissioners showed clear bias by speaking out against a pending project.) California law strictly prohibits public representatives from campaigning for, and certainly testifying in favor of, any project that they are reviewing. Rather than chastise the KMAC members for testifying on behalf of an applicant in a wholly inappropriate manner, the ZA relied on, and referenced, both the written and oral KMAC testimony during her ruling in January 2020. Courts regularly overturn decisions that rely on such biased testimony. Id. To this day, we have not been able to review the biased written KMAC testimony relied upon by the ZA in the January ruling. We first requested a copy of the KMAC testimony directly from the ZA (See Exhibit L, email to ZA, January 8, 2020), who ignored the request. We then filed a PRA request on January 16, 2020, to view a copy of the testimony and were told in the PRA response that no such testimony exists, a blatant violation of the PRA. To this day, we have not received a copy of the evidence relied on by the ZA and used to refute Appellants’ claims. The ZA abused her discretion by relying on biased testimony from KMAC members. Unfortunately, it appears that in this case, the County has been unable to remain impartial. They seem to believe that because the Project has been moved from the north side to the south side, that the applicant should be entitled to build. The KMAC members in particular appear indifferent to, and irritated by, Appellants’ concerns. We found emails showing the KMAC chair, Mr. Tahara, had clear disdain for Appellants and their very valid concerns. (See Exhibit M, email from Mr. Tahara wondering whether [Appellants were] ‘even worked up over this [project].’) These Appellants have never before challenged a land use application and do not delight in this process. Because the County has been unwilling to seriously consider their very valid property rights concerns, they have been forced to pay thousands of dollars just to understand the project next door and to protect their property rights. It should not be this difficult to obtain a fair and impartial land use process. When the Appellants were forced to go to the DCD Office in February 2019 (because no planner would agree to meet with them to discuss their issues), Mr. Hernandez spoke with them about their concerns. He stated that he had not viewed any applications or photos of the Project, but then mysteriously stated that he would need to recuse himself from this application for unstated reasons. He did not go into detail when asked why, but to the extent Mr. Hernandez is obligated to recuse himself from reviewing this Project, he has not done so. Mr. Hernandez has been copied on all emails related to this Project and presented on the Project at the Planning Commissioner’s Hearing. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 14 These Appellants only seek due process and equal protection under the law. They have been repeatedly shut out, ignored, and been forced to watch County staff bend over backwards to ensure the Project moves forward. Agency action based on this type of abuse of discretion must be overturned. We look to the Board of Supervisors to rectify these wrongs by impartially reviewing the Project and requiring simple design changes to ensure it complies with County Code. iii. Falsehoods in the Record As highlighted above and discussed in the attached PC Appeal Letter, the County has relied on several falsehoods in concluding that this Project will not cause significant impacts. (See Exhibit O, p. 4-8.) From misrepresentations by the applicant’s architect, to discounting the south-facing views from Appellants’ home, to miscalculating the actual dimensions of both the upper addition and the extent of enormous deck, all of which has led to a misunderstanding of the facts on the ground and a critical errors in concluding the Project would not cause significant impacts to long-range views and privacy. These falsehoods were carried into the staff reports for both the ZA and the Planning Commission and inappropriately relied on in approving this Project. Had County staff taken the time to visit Appellants’ property and to require story poles, all of this could have been avoided. We are hopeful that the Board will accept our invitation to view Appellants’ property to better understand the views, privacy, and property value issues at stake. iv. PRA Violations Appellants have been forced to file repeated PRA requests to track the Project and understand the ways in which their home might be impacted. While not the subject of this Board’s review, the County has committed several PRA violations in responding to Appellants’ requests that could be rectified by this body’s impartial ruling on the issues. Between March-April 2019, Appellants filed several PRA requests asking for all documents, including telephonic notes of discussions between the County and the applicant. We were provided mostly redundant records and were not provided any notes of meetings, phone calls, or other verbal communications between the applicant and the County which are regularly kept on file in municipal records and should have been provided pursuant to the PRA. The County did not provide any justification for withholding this information as required under the PRA. On September 20, 2019, we submitted a PRA request requesting a copy of the updated application that had been filed on September 18, 2019. The PRA response did not include the new application or a justification for failing to provide this publicly available document. (See Exhibit N, Email to Lawrence Huang, October 1, 2019.) It was only after we filed a second PRA request in October that we received a copy of the revised September application, over a month later. In January 2020, after the ZA failed to respond to our request to directly provide the written KMAC testimony referenced in her ruling, we filed a PRA request on January 16, 2020, to obtain the KMAC testimony. The County’s PRA response did not include the KMAC testimony which the ZA identified as critical to her ruling, another clear PRA violation. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 15 While we do not expect the Board to fix these PRA violations, these incidents showcase the history of silence Appellants have endured in being repeatedly shut out of the process and kept in the dark about the proposed Project. Public involvement is paramount in the land use process, and Appellants have had to work far too hard to simply stay informed. For these and the other reasons stated above, it is critical for the Board, an impartial body of elected officials, to take the first step in rectifying these wrongs by addressing Appellants very reasonable concerns regarding long-term view, privacy, and property value impacts. One Planning Commissioner incredulously suggested that the inclusion of these due process claims was merely a ‘shot-gun approach’ strategy to attack the Project. Rather than address serious due process violations, this Commissioner laughed it off as some type of legal strategy. On the contrary, these violations highlight the serious issues associated with this approval. It is critical for higher adjudicatory bodies to understand these procedural and substantive mistakes that have tainted the land use approval, and would subject the County to legal liability in court if not rectified. These violations highlight the need to reverse the approval to ensure a fair process that complies with land use law. II. Requested Resolution There is a simple solution to this ongoing issue. First, County Counsel should research the legal implications of the variance interpretation and provide a legal conclusion to the Board of Supervisors justifying how the same level of a structure can be both two and three-stories and how a nonconforming third story can be expanded without a variance. Staff’s interpretation of County Code is legally unsupportable, and frankly illogical, and should not be relied on to insulate the County from legal liability. To the extent that County Counsel is unable to identify precedent and legal support for staff’s interpretation, the design should be revised to meet variance requirements. Second, we are hopeful that the Supervisors will accept our invitation to visit Appellants’ home to see the long-range views and privacy that would be impacted by the Project. With misrepresentations in various applications and false renderings, it is critical to view the subject property to see firsthand the long-range view and privacy impacts. For all of the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors uphold the appeal and require the applicant to: 1) reduce the size of the enormous deck and addition to minimize long-range view and privacy impacts as verbally offered by the applicant, and 2) reduce the size of the third-story addition to minimize view impacts of the Bay Bridge and San Francisco. The County should require story poles for any redesign to confirm actual impacts on the ground. Without these adjustments, the KCD Ordinance would be rendered meaningless, Appellants’ long-range views and privacy would be permanently impacted, and the County would be subject to legal liability for due process violations and a failure to comply with County Code. Sincerely, Jillian Blanchard Rudder Law Group EXHIBIT A 2 r ITINNS AVE ol j (, E< %- Y", ! I o '} I ,.9 i-w z ( i =o (}ztr 9. : s 4 -r:o szo A I c-2 E tr - E E - I I I E E E I 7 05t,ftl ? I /,\ SitaPlan ! i !l a FI B ri IL ,] - i: ; ,1I I zt ,r EXHIBIT B-1 Side setback shown as 2' 3 1/2" on July 15th application A B "T'llNST I I I I I \ I J x ...J � \ i.___::,4-dr fl=�=r=--=-"'"''ITT ..I t., z 0 ::, lL 118 SI. Albans Rd. 11 I I , I l 1 1 ! �, J, I w I' �:I u.J er· �I " ·10 112· 0 SitePlan Scafe. 1,1,4· • r-<r , / I I I I \ \ \ \ (/) a. "' 1-- I I I I @------�-; II I I I , I I I _,_.., ... □ ("") ... I ii, 122 St. Albans Rd. � z -;: E...,.v.,. __ (!l c:. r a z G> .,, m C � g -= � !,, :& ,; � !? "' � z0 0 5 10 15 FT 1SSLJ1 ■DWW"dtMtJl'-YAIA. -1e,u,-,iTAffAvlN..( ,ttU,a.WlA""'/Ot. �IC)�IWI - 120 St Al!,;w,s Road Kens-nit-on CA Site Pbn IH•J� C-2 c-­,.._,� IXl!il�,_ r ... W"f',.. .. ,. A B EXHIBIT B-2 Same location now shown as 3' in revised July 25th application Margaret Mitchell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Howard, Margaret Mitchell Tuesday, December 31, 2019 2:50 PM Howard McNenny Mary Hanley; David Herberich RE: 120 St. Albans I will get a copy of your attachment to Aruna for Monday. Happy New Year! Margaret From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 11:31 AM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; David Herberich <dherberich@gmail.com> Subject: 120 St. Albans Dear Margaret: I hope you are back from jury duty by now, and will be available for the January 6 continuation of our hear ing. At the initial hearing, there were some issue raised that I am sure you would be well able to answer. One concerned setbacks­ something I did not expect to be in contention at all. Our proposal shows the addition on the south side to be set back 3 ' - 0" from the property line, which is allowed as long as the setback on the other side is at least 5'-0". In our case, the setback on the north sides is IO' -0", or twice what is required. This dimension was left out of the floor plan, so I have added it, and attach below. Please verify that we are in compliance on this issue. Thank you and best wishes for the new year. Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207-7019 h.mcnenny@comcast.net EXHIBIT B-3 EXHIBIT B-4*Setbacks must bemeasured at pointof new construction**2' 10 1/2" setback Friday, october 4, 2019 at 10:39:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Re: 120 St. Albans - KMAC October Meeting - October 29, 2019 Date: Tuesday, September 24,2019 at 5:06:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: PATRICK TAHARA To: Howard McNenny CC: Mary Hanley, Kate Rauch Howard: ln response to your question on story poles, I cannot make this request as KMAC has not met to discuss the revised design. At this time, erecting story poles is a decision between you and your client. While erecting story poles will allow the neighbo(s) to see the impacts, there are costs of erecting the story poles to your client that need to be considered as well. Please let me know iI you plan to erect the story poles as KMAC could conduct a site visit prior to the meeting pending availability and access to the neighbors' properties. Patrick Tahara 4L5-307-404.2 On September 24, 2019 at 4:34 PM Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> wrote: Patrick: The meetin8 date is noted and lwill be there. One quick question: Would it be helpful for us to go ahead and erect story poles? 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-167'l Cell: (510) 207-7019 h.mcnenny_@-c!m!!gllqt Page 1 of 2 Howard McNenny, AIA EXHIBIT C First Floor Plan Garage D W P.R. Kitchen Dining Room Entry Living Room UP Breakfast Deck16'-5"21'-1"5'-2"16'-2" Closet 2'-10" 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNewProperty line Property line Overhang above DN 14'-0" Driveway Approx. 56 ft to rear prop. line3'-0"5'-2 1/2"4'-10 1/8" 10'-0"10'-8"4'-6"26'-5" EXHIBIT D-1 Proposed Deck will extend 15' 10 1/2" behind the existing structure ---------------------------- ------------------------------- EXHIBIT D-2 7' and 10' Story Poles From Original Project Design - Top Story Existing Deck EXHIBIT D-3 KMAC PHOTO: 7' Story Pole installed with previous design. Shows the location of 7' behind the original structure from second story kitchen window.7' Story Pole---Telephone PoleExisting Deck---- EXHIBIT D-4 Telephone Pole-------------------------7' Story Pole from KMAC Photo------------------- Proposed 15' 10 1/2" Deck will wipe out views of Bridge and SF---- Photo from118 St. Albans (KMAC Photo with story poles from previous proposal) Rendered View from118 St. Albans (Proposed) EXHIBIT D-5 7' Story PoleThe proposed Deck extends 15 ' 10 1/2" (~16 feet) from existing structure. This applicant rendering is not correct. 10' Story Pole7' Story Pole10' Story Pole EXHIBIT E On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:03 PM Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> wrote: Thank you, Margaret. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:55 PM Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Jillian, Yes, those statements from our conversation yesterday are correct. We will update you on any changes to the status of the application. Please contact Lawrence regarding the PRA requests. Thank you, Margaret From: Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 3:36 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Nicole Ashar <nicoleashar@ymail.com> Subject: Re: 120 St Albans Road -Follow Up and Confirmation Margaret: I would appreciate your response to my email below as soon as possible. Thank you, 2 EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H Applicant's Home Appellants' Home W EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J Applicant's Home 2 EXHIBIT K -----Original Message----- From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:22 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; David Herberich <dherberich@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: 120 St. Albans Margaret: At this point, we have received at least some of the information on comparable variance applications we requested. Unfortunately, we only got examples from the last 3 years, and some of the attachments we were unable to open. Also, some of the applications were apparently too recent to have been resolved. I have requested an estimate of what it would take to go back at least an additional 3-4 years, but have not to date received any response to that request. Notwithstanding the sparsity of information received, I have discussed with my clients your offer to set up a meeting with Mr. Hernandez, and we agree it would be useful. The absolute best would be if he could agree to meet us on the site as you did initially, to see for himself the issues involved. It appears to us that we are being encouraged to only build on the south side of the house in order to avoid having to file for a variance. However, I do not see personally how it is possible to avoid the variance no matter where we build. As it is, we have configu red our proposed addition to avoid as best we can any infringement on the views from the adjacent house. We do not think it would make much difference if we were to confine the addition to the south portion of the house, and in any event building there would not solve the circulation issues we are trying to address. Absent a meeting with Mr. Hernandez, I do not see how we will ever get a resolution to our dilemma. You have told us to we should submit for a variance, but you have already told us you do not believe the required findings can be made. We would like to submit something that does not require a variance, but that seems impossible. We have to admit that we are unclear on the rules as currently being interpreted, and have very little information on how similar situations have been resolved. We also are afraid that the hearing before the zoning administrator will not result in clarity. That is why we are requesting your help. Let me know if such a meeting with Mr. Hernandez will be possible. We are fairly open as to time and date. Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207-7019 h.mcnenny@comcast.net Margaret M itchell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Margaret Mitchell Tuesday, April 09, 20Lg 8:19 AM 'Howard McNenny' David Herberich; Mary Hanley; Ruben Hernandez; Jennifer Cruz RE: 120 St Albans Hi Howard, lf the lowest level of the addition is left unfinished, unconditioned, and at natural grade, regardless of hei8ht, it will not be considered a story. If the area between the lowest floor and the Bround below does not meet the definition of a crawl space per section 84-7 4.4o4ld), it would need to be included in the gross floor area calculation. Than k you, lvla rga ret From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 03,2019 1:45 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret. M itchell@dcd.cccounty, us> Cc: David Herberich <d herberich@gmail.com>; Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; Ruben Hernandez <Ruben. Hernandez@dcd.cccounty.us>; Jennifer Cruz <Jennifer.Cruz@dcd.cccounty. us> subject: Re: 120 st. Albans Margaret: Thank you for the response, however it is one thing to say that our application for a variance must be weighed against the rights of the neighbors (and possibly could be denied), but quite another thing to say that this project does not meet even the basic qualifications for a variance application. This makes it all the more critical that we understand under what circumstances vadances have been granted in the past. We look forward to getting that information so that we can make a reasoned judgement on next steps. Also, to be clear, my understanding is that any addition where the lowest full floor is more than 4 feet above existins grade, the level below that floor must be considered a floor also. Am I correct? Unless there are exceptions to your position on variances, I do not see how any addition could be built on the west side ofthis house that includes the bedroom level----even on the southem portion. Or, might you be salng that it would still be a variance, but one that might be more likely to be approved? Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (5i0) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207.7019 1 h,mcnennv@comcast.net You will receive the information regarding other third story variance applications from Lawrence Huang. EXHIBIT L Subject: Re: 120 St. Albans Kensington Date: Thursday, August L,2019 at 2iL3:OL PM Pacific Dayiight Time From: patricktahara To: Kate Rauch interesting change in plan. lam assuming that the neighbor, nicole, had seen this change? or she worked up even overthis one. Patrick Tahara 4L5-307 -4042 --..- Original messaBe ------ From: Kate Rauch <Kate. Rauch@bos.cccou nty.us> Date: 8/1/19 10:11 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Aruna Bhat <Aruna. Bhat@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: patrickahara@comcast.net Subject: Re: 120 St. Albans Kensington I assume this redesign needs to go back the the KMAC? Kate Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Aruna Bhat <Aru na.Bhat@dcd.cccounty.us<mailto:Aruna.Bhat@dcd.cccou nty.us>> wrote: Please see the attached Small Lot application KR19-00011that is out for public review. Danielle Kelly Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 925-67 4-7789 925-574-7205- Main Line danielle.kelly@dcd.cccounty.us<mailto:danielle.kelly@dcd.cccounty.us> <image002.png> From:Kate Rauch <Kate.Rauch@bos.cccounty.us<mailto:Kate.Rauch@bos.cccounty.us>> sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 10:28 AM To: Aruna Bhat <Aru n a. Bhat@ dcd.cccou nty. us<m a ilto:Aru n a. B hat@ d cd.cccou nty. us>>; Jennifer Cruz <Jennifer.Cruz@dcd.cccounty.us<mailto:Jennifer,Cruz@dcd.cccounty.us>>; patrickta ha ra @comcast. net< ma ilto:patric kta ha ra @ comcast. net> Subject: 120 St. Albans Kensington Page 1 of 2 Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:13:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT N EXHIBIT O PC APPEAL LETTER (See Separate Attachment Due to File Size) 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 1 REQUEST FOR APPEAL REGARDING ZA RULING ON DP#19-3019 Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of the owners of 118 St. Albans Road (the “Neighbors”), we submit this request to Appeal the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Development Plan Application DP#19-3019 to construct an expansion to a three story residence in Kensington (the “Project”). The approval process has been fraught with land use inconsistencies, misrepresentations, due process violations, and bias. Most importantly, the Zoning Administrator (“ZA”) ignored the substantial evidence on the record establishing that the Project requires a variance and has the potential to cause significant impacts to neighboring long-range views, privacy, and property values. We are hopeful that the impartial review of the Planning Commissioners will correct the due process violations that have occurred to date and ensure that any project approved on this property complies with planning and zoning law and preserves the Neighbors’ long-range views, privacy, and property values. I.INTRODUCTION The applicant proposes to build an expansion to the second and third stories on their three-story house - in violation of current zoning height restrictions- that would potentially cause significant aesthetic impacts to the neighboring property. The approval process for this Project has been riddled with due process violations that the Planning Commission must address to avoid a protracted legal battle. The County has repeatedly failed to properly inform neighbors about the proposed Project, failed to provide adequate notice of meetings, failed to consider the substantial evidence on the record, failed to follow its own code requiring a variance, and failed to address the Neighbors’ very reasonable concerns regarding significant impacts to long-range views, privacy, and property values. First, the County violated planning and zoning laws by approving the Project without issuing a variance. Second, the County repeatedly ignored the substantial evidence on the record that establishes the potential for the Project to cause significant aesthetic impacts. Finally, the County violated due process protections by failing to provide the Neighbors with adequate notice and information related to the Project, by misrepresenting key dimensions relevant to environmental impacts, and by biasedly advocating on behalf of the applicant in a wholly inappropriate manner. In doing so, the County failed to protect the Neighbors’ privacy, long-range views, and property values all of which are specifically protected under the unique Kensington Combining District (“KCD”) Ordinance that applies to this neighborhood. For these reasons, the Planning Commission must overturn the ZA decision, require a variance for this Project, and require the applicant to install story poles to determine the actual impacts that the Project, or any redesigned project, will cause before approving it. Exhibit O - Board of Supervisors Appeal 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 2 We note that the applicant has made repeated personal attacks on the Neighbors, suggesting that their goal is to stop the Project. This is simply not the case. All the Neighbors want – all they have ever wanted- is fair play, impartial decision-making, compliance with County Code, and protection of their long-range views, privacy, and property values as required by the KCD Ordinance. II. VIOLATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING LAWS Despite substantial evidence on the record to the contrary, the ZA approved the Project without issuing a variance and without confirming compliance with both the variance requirements and the KCD Ordinance standards. A. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT i. A Variance Is Required to Expand an Existing Three Story Structure. The Project proposes to expand the second and third story of a house in violation of CCC Code §84-4.802, which requires that all building heights be capped at 2 ½ stories. Any proposed expansion of the third story requires a variance – pure and simple. Many houses on the street currently have three stories, and are nonconforming structures, which does not in itself require a variance. But when an applicant proposes to expand that nonconforming element of their house, a variance is required. The applicant’s own architect acknowledged the need for a variance in his February 2019 testimony to the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (“KMAC”): “A variance is required due to the fact that the house as it already exists is considered a 3-story structure, due to the fact that is built on a down-slope lot that places the first floor in excess of 4-feet above grade at the rear of the structure. Current zoning places a limit of 2 ½ stories on houses in this zoning district.” (Testimony of Howard McNenny, applicant’s architect, KMAC meeting February 2019.) For purposes of determining the number of stories of a structure, a basement counts as a story if the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point (CCC Code §82-4.266). A basement is further defined in the KCD Ordinance as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower.” (CCC Code §82- 74.404). Based on these definitions, the ground floor of the existing structure at 120 St. Albans Road is a story, and the entire house is three stories. Even the Staff Report acknowledges that the house is three stories. (See Staff Report, p.2.) We have made clear in extensive documentation to County Staff (See Public Records Act request March 3, 2019 [Exhibit A ]; Hearing Request to the County, dated August 30, 2019 [Exhibit B]; Second Hearing Request and Update to the County from KMAC Meeting, dated November 4, 2019 [Exhibit C]; and Corrections to the Staff Report, dated 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 3 December 13, 2019 [Exhibit D ]) that the CCC Code requires the applicant to obtain a variance for the proposed expansion of this three story structure. County staff has ignored the substantial evidence on the record and the law and issued a Project approval without a variance. The Staff Report incredulously suggests that while a variance would be required for a proposed expansion of the third story on the north side of the house, a variance is no longer required for a similar sized expansion on the same third story - because it is now constructed on the south side of the building. This tortured definition defies logic and common sense. A building either is, or is not, three stories. It is not two stories on one side and three stories on another. An expansion of the top two floors of a three-story building, when proposed in Kensington – which establishes a 2 ½ story limit requirement - requires a variance. Even the applicant’s own architect was confused by County staff’s novel efforts to avoid variance requirements. In an email from the architect to the County planner on April 16, 2020, he stated: “lt appears to us that we are being encouraged to only build on the south side of the house in order to avoid having to file for a variance. However, I do not see personally how it is possible to avoid the variance no matter where we build.” (See Exhibit B, Attachment A.) He goes on to state: “my understanding is that any addition where the lowest full floor is more than 4 feet above existing grade, the level below that floor must be considered a floor also.” (See Exhibit B, Attachment B.) We note that this same architect conveniently reversed his conclusions two months later once he realized that County staff might offer this particular applicant a special loophole. Indeed, the subsequent application filed by the architect in July erroneously suggests that the Project is now a “2-story addition to existing 2-story house.” (See Exhibit E, Application dated July 25, 2019.) This is patently false and belies the Neighbors’ concern that the applicants repeatedly misrepresent key facts to the County. Moreover, the County’s efforts to guide the applicant in ways to avoid a variance is also troubling, particularly given the Neighbors’ reasonable concerns. We asked County staff to provide any example, any legal precedent, in which it has ever relied on the novel – and legally unsupportable - interpretation that a variance only applies for the proposed expansion of a three-story structure on one side of the building, or any similar ruling, and the County has produced nothing. County staff sent us a letter on December 13, 2019, stating that “[t]he Department has not identified any other ‘legal precedent, findings, records, memorandum, or guidance that would support the Legal Conclusion’” that a variance is not required. (See Exhibit F.) The County’s failure to identify any legal precedent is not surprising as such an approach not only defies common sense, but would likely lead to chaos and legal disputes in processing land use applications throughout the County. Indeed, we can think of several instances in which this tortured interpretation would set terrible precedent for the County and its ability to consistently regulate development. More to the point, it is not appropriate for the 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 4 County to bend over backwards looking for loopholes to avoid variance standards, particularly when significant impacts to neighbors would result from allowing such exceptions. The notion that a proposed expansion to the third story in violation of the County Code would be granted without a variance also suggests the potential for substantive due process violations as well. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 998 (2007).) Development that causes environmental impacts and directly steals the long- range views of another house, and use and enjoyment of a neighbor’s property, not to mention significantly reduces their property values, is exactly what the Kensington height restriction was created to protect against. Unfortunately, County staff seems bound and determined to avoid a variance for the Project, which is particularly troublesome given the significant concerns of surrounding neighbors. It is well settled law in California that a County cannot pick and choose which portions of the code to apply. (See Broadway, Laguna etc. Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 779- 780; See also Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (1986).) County staff has made a finding that squarely conflicts with its own code. This decision must be overturned and a variance must be required for the proposed expansion of the third story of a three-story building that violates the zoning limit to protect not only the rights of the aggrieved neighbors, but also the County’s precedent and integrity in consistently applying land use law. ii. SETBACKS REQUIRE A VARIANCE OR A REDESIGN Similarly, the Project as proposed does not comply with setback requirements and requires a variance for this reason as well. The Staff Report correctly cites the CCC Code requirement that “a reduced side yard minimum of 3 feet and a [minimum] aggregate side yard of 8 feet is allowed for any new construction (CCC Section §82-14.004).” It then goes on to incorrectly conclude that the Project meets these setback requirements. Sheet A-3 of the revised application (Exhibit D, Attachment A.) shows that the Project will result in 3 feet on one side, and 2’10” on the other, for an aggregate of 5’10” with the proposed new construction. While three feet may be allowed for a single side yard, the new addition falls well short of the aggregate requirement to have a minimum of 8’ for both side yards. Accordingly, a variance is required to allow for this continued inconsistency with the County’s Code. What’s worse, the applicant has repeatedly filed misrepresentations regarding the dimensions of the proposed Project regarding setbacks. The revised July Application filed by the architect initially identified the setback as 2’ 3 ½” on one side and 2’ 10 ½” on the left side for a total of 5’ 2” aggregate – well below the setback requirements. (Exhibit G-1.) When the architect realized that the setbacks might become an issue, he filed a revised application to show that the same 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 5 area on the right side was now 3” (See Exhibit G-2.) These plans show two different measurements for the same side without any redesign or explanation as to why this measurement would have changed. The only explanation we can fathom is that the number on the page was changed in an effort to meet setbacks on paper, but not in reality. The architect went further in an email to the County on December 31, 2019, by filing another revised application sheet and stating that: “Our proposal shows . . .the setback on the north sides is 10'- 0", or twice what is required.” (See Exhibit G-3.) As the plan shows, the 10’ measurement does not address the measurements closer to the existing structure which do not comply with setback requirements. These factual misstatements and misrepresentations highlight the lengths to which this applicant appears willing to go to misrepresent the actual dimensions and facts surrounding the Project. Facts matter and so does protecting the residents of Kensington. At the January 6, 2020, ZA hearing continuance, the applicant’s architect submitted the revised plan view in an effort to establish that the Project complies with setback requirements; however, the architect’s own diagram establishes the opposite. Even if viewed in a light most favorable to the applicant, one side of the proposed addition is 3 feet, while the other is 4’10”. (Exhibit G-2.) While it is close, this does not comply with the 8’ foot aggregate CCC Code requirements. Again, the County cannot ignore its own code requirements simply because the measurement is ‘close’. Rather than confirm the dimensions by measuring them independently, and requiring the applicant to submit an application that complies with setback requirements or obtain a variance, the ZA made a vague finding on January 22, 2020, that it would approve the Project as long as the Project was redesigned to avoid setback issues. This abdication of duty is unacceptable. If the Project requires a redesign to meet setback requirements, then the applicant must submit an actual redesign, and the County should independently confirm these dimensions to avoid any misrepresentation by the applicant. The County cannot rely on a verbal commitment to meet setback requirements. Independent confirmation and revised designs are particularly important when the applicant has previously misrepresented the dimensions and components of the Project. It is paramount that the County vigorously implement its variance regulations to adequately protect the community. Any court reviewing the County’s decision would “meaningfully review grants of variances [or failure to require a variance] in order to protect the interests of those who hold rights in property nearby the parcel for which a variance is sought.” (See Orinda Assn v. Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1162 (1986). CA courts have clarified that if the interest of neighboring property owners in preventing unjustified variance awards [or exemptions] for neighboring land is not sufficiently protected, the consequences would be dire. See Id. On the contrary, the County’s primary responsibility is to ensure that such ordinances are fairly and consistently applied to protect the entire community it regulates. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 6 III. THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS We implore the Planning Commission to correctly and consistently implement the CCC Code to protect neighboring long-range views, privacy, and property values. A. The Project May Cause Significant Impacts to Long-Range Views of the Bay Bridge and Downtown San Francisco. The Neighbors have a very unique view of downtown San Francisco and the Bay Bridge, which are key selling points of their home. The Staff Report both misstates facts and glosses over the significant long-range view impacts potentially caused by the Project. First, the Staff Report incorrectly suggests that the Neighbors’ property only has west facing views and relies on this falsehood to claim that views will not be impacted. As is clear from the many photos we have provided to staff (See Exhibit D, Attachment B -1 & B-2 and C-1 & C-2), the Neighbors’ property has views to the southwest of the South Bay, including the Bay Bridge, that may be affected by the Project on both the upper and lower levels. The Staff Report also incorrectly states that “the existing house is located downhill of the neighbors . . . and the addition will be lower than the existing residence. So the addition will not impact views of the San Francisco Bay. . . . “ (Staff Report, p. 15, Finding 4.) This is not correct. Any simple search on Google Maps will show that the existing house is actually slightly uphill from the Neighbors’ property. Again, this faulty logic has led to unsubstantiated findings by the ZA. Indeed, the expansion of the third story proposed in the Project will impact the Neighbors’ views of the Bay and the Bay Bridge. (See Exhibits B, C, & D.) The Staff Report incorrectly suggests that the upper addition proposed will only extend 2 feet beyond the existing house. (Staff Report, p.7, Finding 3.) On the contrary, what is shown in the application is that the upper level addition will extend 7’ 2 ½” from the existing house, and at least 3 ½ feet from the existing structure, directly into the Neighbors’ current views. (Exhibit H.) We provided several pictures to County staff and to the KMAC to establish this, but rather than consider this substantial evidence, the County has ignored this evidence without providing any contrary evidence through the use of story poles to clarify the actual impacts of the Project. To further highlight staff’s lack of care, due diligence, and concern during this process, the Staff Report erroneously asserts that the new deck, which barely overlaps the existing deck, is a replacement deck that extends 1 ½ feet more than the existing. (Staff Report, p.8). Once again, the County misstates the facts and relies on falsehoods to approve the Project. First, it is clear from the Application Sheet C-2 (Exhibit G-2), that the new deck proposed will not be located within the existing deck footprint, but rather will be constructed behind the new addition and will extend 5 2 ½ feet into the Neighbors’ long-range views. We explained this inaccuracy to the ZA and received absolutely no response, acknowledgement, or suggestion that the Staff Report should be revised. (Exhibit D.) As described in extensive correspondence to the County, the new 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 7 deck proposed will extend directly into the best part of the Neighbors’ Bay Bridge view from their kitchen sink window, a key selling point of their home. (See Exhibits B-D.) County staff has never once visited the Neighbors’ property to address the situation. Staff was invited back in February 2019 and declined the request. The County planner for the project has never met directly with the Neighbors to discuss their concerns. Indeed, until late 2019, County staff repeatedly avoided the Neighbors’ requests for meetings and site visits. Instead, the ZA relied on incorrect dimensions in the Staff Report to suggest that southern views, which very much exist, will not be impacted. Had the County visited the property or required the applicant to install story poles before recommending approval, staff would have realized their mistake, and one would hope, requested that the applicants reduce the size of their unnecessarily large new deck structure to minimize impacts to the Neighbors’ long-range views of the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco. B. The Proposed Project Will Impact the Neighbors’ Privacy. As repeatedly described to the County, if a deck this large is approved, not only will the Neighbors’ unique view of the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco be gone from this side of the house, but their privacy will be significantly impacted as well. Every time the applicants have people out on their deck, the Neighbors will be forced to look at them from their kitchen sink window instead of their previous Bay Bridge and Bay views. The proposed new deck is so large that it could also impact privacy from the master bathroom upstairs as well, as indicated on the rendering recently submitted by the applicant to the County. (See Exhibit I.) Having a deck this size impacts both long-range views and privacy and does not comply with the KCD Ordinance requirement to “protect the value and enjoyment of the neighbor’s property”. (CCC Code §84- 74.1206.) C. The Project Will Significantly Impact Property Values. The Staff Report erroneously concludes that the Neighbors’ property values will not be impacted and does not provide any evidence to refute the substantial evidence on the record to the contrary. As stated in a letter we provided from the prominent real estate agent who sold the Neighbors’ property, impacts to the Neighbors’ privacy and views from the kitchen window and master bath, will be impacted by the proposed project, and are major selling points to this particular home. (See Exhibit D, Attachment D.) Rather than address this evidence, and ask the applicants to reduce the size of their structure to avoid these significant impacts, the County suggests in the Staff Report that “since the addition will be increasing the enjoyment and value of the [applicant’s] property, it will in turn increase the value of the neighboring properties”. (Staff Report, p.7). This sentence is nonsensical. Ironically, the applicant’s property values would be increased by directly stealing the Neighbors’ views. This is exactly the type of project the KCD Ordinance was created to protect against. The ZA ignored the substantial evidence from a 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 8 prominent realtor stating that property values would be significantly impacted and approved the Project anyway. D. The Project Does Not Comply with the Kensington Combining District Standards. The County has recognized Kensington as a particularly special place with exceptional long-range views of the Bay and downtown San Francisco. To protect these unique features, the County has established the KCD Ordinance specifically to “promote the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels, and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. (CCC §84-74.204(b).) The KCD Ordinance creates an additional layer of required review by the County to ensure that neighboring views, privacy, and property values are protected. Even if the County was not required to issue a variance here – which it clearly is – the Project will violate KCD Ordinance standards and should not be approved as currently designed. The KCD Ordinance requires the ZA to evaluate siting, size, height, setbacks, window placement, etc. of even the smallest projects to determine a project’s actual “impact on the neighboring properties, with regard to view protection, obstructions, privacy in living areas,. . . .” (KCD §84-74.1206.) Under the KCD Ordinance, the County MUST confirm that the project both “minimize[es] impacts upon surrounding neighbors; [and] protect[s] the value and enjoyment of the neighbors’ property” (Id.) The KCD Ordinance goes so far as to allow hearings for small building permits and requires sun shadow analysis for even the smallest structures to protect the neighbors. These protections explain why the County – in all other instances – has taken a very hard look at proposed additions in Kensington and regularly denies variances for height expansions. As evidenced above and on the record, the Project – even on the south side of the house, has the potential to impact long-range views, privacy, and property values of the neighbors, which directly flouts KCD Ordinance requirements. While the County is allowed to balance interests, the ZA has focused her decision exclusively on the applicant’s interests. During her ruling on January 22, 2020, the ZA only read out loud Section 84-74.204(a) of the KCD Ordinance to benefit the applicant and neglected to read Sections 84-74.204 (b), 84-74.1206 (a) and 84-74.1206(b), all of which require the County to protect the surrounding neighbor’s long-range views, use, value, enjoyment, and privacy. As previously proposed to County staff, a smaller addition could be constructed on the property that would avoid these significant impacts and would comply with the KCD Ordinance requirements. Rather than deny any development – as the applicant dramatically suggests–the Neighbors only wants to have their views and privacy protected. The applicants could easily accomplish this by limiting the upper level addition to the size of the existing house on the north side and reducing the deck to the previous footprint, to be an actual replacement deck. These changes would provide the applicant with a significant addition to their house while protecting the value of the Neighbors’ privacy, and property values and minimizing impacts to long-range 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 9 views as required by the KCD Ordinance. These reasonable requests were not even considered in the ZA hearing. Instead, the ZA relied on incorrect dimensions and falsehoods in rendering a decision. When two sides posit such differing positions regarding precious views and privacy, the only reasonable approach is to require the installation of story poles to confirm that the Project will not cause aesthetic impacts. In the unlikely event that story poles establish that view and privacy impacts will in fact be protected, then the Neighbors would have no issue with the Project. As stated repeatedly, the Neighbors have no interest in stopping development, and have never before challenged a land use decision by the County. But given the County’s current failure to follow its own code, the apparent bias in decision-making, and the very real impacts this Project could cause to their enjoyment of their home, the Neighbors have been left with no other choice but to challenge the ZA’s decision. E. This Project May Cause Potentially Significant Impacts that Need to be Analyzed Under CEQA. Without story poles to confirm otherwise, it’s very possible that the Project could cause significant aesthetic impacts that have not been properly reviewed under CEQA. “A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Public Resources Code §21084(d); CEQA Regulations §15300.2(c).) The record contains evidence to suggest potentially significant environmental impacts associated with this Project that could make use of a categorical exemption inappropriate here. IV. DUE PROCESS CONCERNS The land use approval process for this Project has been plagued with due process violations ranging from inadequate notice to potential bias from what should be impartial decision-makers. A. Failure to Inform Interested Parties. From the beginning, the County has stonewalled the Neighbors’ attempts to learn about the proposed project, a development that will directly impact their home. The Neighbors were denied access to the file on multiple visits to the County starting back in late 2018. Even though the Neighbors repeatedly voiced their reasonable concerns to the Project planner, County staff failed to keep them informed. The Neighbors were ultimately forced to hire land use counsel, who have had to file not one, but 12 Public Records Act (“PRA”) requests with the County to learn about the Project. (See discussion of the issue in Exhibit A, PRA request to the County March 3, 2019.) California law requires the land use process to be open and transparent, and the planner’s job is to inform the public. Unfortunately, County staff did not take the Neighbors seriously – or even respond to them- until they hired a land use firm to handle the matter. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 10 B.Inadequate Notice. As discussed extensively with the County (See Exhibits A, B, C, and D), throughout the process, the County has failed to provide mandatory notice of the various land use proposals for a property located next door – even after the Neighbors specifically requested to be notified. In February, County staff misrepresented the status of the revised application and told the Neighbors that the Project was on hold when in fact a meeting was scheduled to review a revised application in front of the KMAC two weeks later. The Neighbors were forced to scramble to attend the February 26, 2019, KMAC meeting to ensure their property rights would be protected. As an advisory committee that represents the County charged with providing valuable input to the Board of Supervisors regarding land use decisions, the KMAC is required to hold meetings that follow Brown Act requirements and provide objective recommendations based on the legal standards established in California planning and zoning law. Unfortunately, the KMAC repeatedly failed to comply with these legal protections when reviewing the Project. At the February 2019 KMAC meeting, KMAC members appeared be coaching the applicant on ways to avoid a variance (discussion below). The Neighbors were naturally concerned after this meeting and emailed County staff requesting a meeting to discuss the likely impacts of the Project. County staff never responded to this request. The Neighbors then asked County staff to visit their property to better understand the issues, but County staffed refused. The Neighbors were forced to go directly into the DCD office wherein they met with Mr. Rubin Hernandez, who listened to their plight, but did not indicate that such facts would be considered, and upon seeing the significant impacts the Project would cause to long-range views, mysteriously stated that he would need to recuse himself from reviewing this application. We learned later that Mr. Hernandez was the one who had verbally guaranteed approval to the applicants back in September (See Exhibit J, applicant email confirming his understanding from County supervisor that a variance would be approved.) The October KMAC meeting was even more troubling. The KMAC members failed to comply with the Brown Act’s requirement to provide adequate notice to the public. (CA Gov Code 54956.) Ms. Snyder, who volunteered to provide KMAC notice -and consequently was the same KMAC member who coached the applicant in February- provided notice of the meeting to all other neighbors surrounding the Project, except to the two opponents of the Project, the Neighbors and Ms. Donna Stanton, the owner of 134 Windsor Road in Kensington. When the issue of adequate notice was raised at the October meeting by Ms. Stanton, the KMAC members did not apologize or suggest a new process to ensure adequate notice going forward, they instead suggested that Ms. Stanton’s property must have fallen outside the noticing area. This assertion is patently false. Through PRA requests, we have learned that both Ms. Stanton’s 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 11 and the Neighbors’ properties fall within the notification area for this KMAC meeting (See Exhibit K which contains the KMAC’s list of all properties within the KMAC noticing area for this Project– relevant properties highlighted.) Indeed, both of Ms. Stanton’s neighbors on either side received notice of the KMAC meeting. When individual rights are being deliberated in an administrative hearing or similar meeting, interested parties are required to be apprised of the application “so that [they] may have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1172 (1996).) Without adequate notice, it “would be tantamount to requiring a hearing in form but not in substance, for the right of a hearing before an administrative tribunal would be meaningless if the tribunal were permitted to base its determination upon information received without the knowledge of the parties.” (Id.) Without such required notice, the KMAC meeting should not have been held and should have been rescheduled. At the very least, the KMAC members could have suggested a more robust notice process going forward to avoid these due process issues. C.Bias. Perhaps most troubling, is the evidence on the record of bias by KMAC members in what the law requires must be an impartial decision-making process. At the February 26, 2019, KMAC meeting a KMAC member provided the applicant with specific guidance on how they could “avoid a variance” in what could be viewed as a spurious effort to circumvent the variance requirements. Sadly, when the Neighbors raised the concern about this KMAC member with the Supervisor’s Office back in March of 2019, the Supervisor’s assistant dismissed the issue saying that rather than work with the Neighbors, they could always appeal it to the Board of Supervisors. (See Exhibit L.) Rather than address direct issues early on, the County has ignored the problem, probably hopeful that the Neighbors would simply give up. It should not be this difficult for a County resident to receive fairness and consideration in the land use process. The same KMAC member who coached the applicant in February and failed to provide adequate notice to Project opponents in October, Ms. Snyder, appears to have a clear conflict of interest. The Neighbors have learned from various neighbors in the area that Ms. Snyder solicited support for the Project when notifying them about the October KMAC meeting. The Neighbors obtained signatures from 35 different neighbors confirming that Ms. Snyder asked them to attend the meeting in support of the Project, which would be clear evidence of campaigning in violation of California laws protecting impartial decision-making. If there is evidence of an "unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of a decision- maker", that decision-maker must be disqualified from reviewing the application. (See Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, in which a Planning Commission decision was vacated because one of the Commissioners showed clear bias by speaking out against a pending 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 12 project.) While it may not be objectionable for a KMAC member to have a personal preference regarding a project, California law prohibits public representatives from campaigning for any project that they are reviewing. With these legal standards in mind, we sent an email to Ms. Snyder before the KMAC meeting respectfully asking her to either explain the situation or to recuse herself from deliberating on the Project. (Exhibit C, Attachment A). Ms. Snyder did not respond to our email request. When the KMAC Chair raised the issue with Ms. Snyder at the meeting, she said the accusation was false, but provided no evidence to counter the 35 signatures from neighbors establishing her efforts to campaign for the Project. The KMAC Chair accepted Ms. Snyder’s statements without any further precautions and allowed her to vote on the Project. To avoid even the appearance of bias, Ms. Snyder should have recused herself from deliberating on this Project. The KMAC Chair himself seemed to show bias against the Neighbors when he snidely discounted the Neighbors’ concerns in an email to the Supervisor’s office on August 1, 2019, asking “is [Nicole] worked up even over this [revised application].” (Exhibit M.) It appears that the KMAC members have been irritated with the Neighbors all along. Perhaps they are friends with the applicant, we do not know. But one of the potential flaws in having residents without government experience sit on advisory committees to the County, is that they are less familiar with the requirement to be impartial and can let personal issues cloud their rulings. During the October KMAC Meeting, evidence of potentially significant impacts to the Neighbors’ privacy and long-range views resulting from the proposed construction were ignored by the KMAC. Rather than request to have story poles installed to confirm actual impacts, the KMAC members found that while the Project may “block the view,” it wouldn’t be “that bad”. They made this arbitrary finding without any evidence, just the word of the applicant. The KMAC members appeared to believe that because the applicants had moved their project to the other side of the house, they should now be entitled to build. Thankfully, California law prevents such arbitrary decisions. The most egregious display of bias came at the ZA hearing in December 16, 2019, when the two relevant KMAC members, Ms. Snyder and Mr. Tahara, testified on behalf of the Project applicant. These ‘impartial decision-makers’ testified on behalf of the Project, directly violating their legal obligation to remain impartial. Rather than chastise the KMAC members for testifying on behalf of a project in violation of their duties as impartial decision-makers, the ZA considered the KMAC testimony and cited it during her ruling on January 22, 2020. When we followed up with the ZA on this point and requested to receive a copy of the written testimony provided by the KMAC members, the ZA did not respond. (Exhibit N, Email to ZA.) Indeed, the County has yet to provide us with a copy of the written testimony from the KMAC despite repeated requests, including a PRA request. (See Exhibit O, PRA Request dated January 16, 2020). It simply should not be this difficult to ensure fairness in a land use approval process. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 13 All affected parties have the right to an impartial tribunal and unbiased decision makers such that “even the probability of unfairness is to be avoided.” (Clark v. City, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1170. Due process “demands an appearance of fairness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the adjudication. In fact, the broad applicability of administrative hearings to the various rights and responsibilities of citizens and businesses, and the undeniable public interest in fair hearings in the administrative adjudication arena, militate in favor assuring that such hearings are fair.” (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal. App. 4th 81, 83 (2003)(emphasis added).) Any agency action that reflects an abuse of discretion must be disregarded to avoid further tainting the land use process. The Planning Commission must overturn the previous decision to rectify these critical wrongs and prevent another protracted legal battle against the County for due process violations. (See Fratus v. Contra Costa Cty. Dep't of Conservation & Dev., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5877 in which the court issued a writ against Contra Costa County DCD representatives for failing to follow CCC Code.) To protect the Neighbors’ civil rights, there must be due process to ensure fairness in the process. The Planning Commission can do this by overturning the ZA’s decision and requiring a variance, by the having County come to the property to see the impacts for themselves, and by requiring the applicant to install story polls. Without implementing such simple safeguards to protect property and civil rights, the system appears rigged. D. Additional Falsehoods in the Record. The Planning Commission must reverse this decision not only to rectify due process concerns, but to correct the various misstatements made by both County staff and the applicant throughout this process. As described above, the Staff Report includes numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies, including the dimension of the proposed deck, the dimensions of the upper level, the elevation of the property, and stating that there are no views to the south from the Neighbors’ property. The applicant’s architect has repeatedly misrepresented the Project. Early on in the process, he explained clearly why a variance would be required, but then flip flopped once he realized the County was willing to create a loophole for this Project. During his ZA testimony and in the application, he described the addition as a “two story addition on a two story house” in an effort to support the variance loophole, even though the Staff Report clearly states that the subject property is a three-story house. The architect then claimed setback requirements had been met while submitting an application that clearly shows that while close, the current design does not meet the aggregate 8’ setback requirement. The architect has gone so far as to accuse the Neighbors of ‘leaning out the window’ when taking the relevant photos, a ridiculous claim made to the ZA in private after the hearing. (See Exhibit P.) These misstatements and misrepresentations underscore the need for the Planning Commission – a neutral body- to review the facts and ensure that the CCC Code is correctly enforced, that dimensions are confirmed by 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 14 County staff through site visits, and story poles are installed to confirm actual impacts before approving a Project that could permanently destroy long-range views of the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco. V. CONCLUSION All of this could have been avoided. Had the applicants, or their architect, contacted the Neighbors to have an honest discussion about the type of expansion that would preserve the Neighbors’ views and privacy, this could have been avoided. Rather than work with their neighbors, the applicants instead worked with County staff to identify nonexistent loopholes to variances. By ignoring the substantial evidence in the record and avoiding CEQA review, the ZA approved a Project that is inconsistent with current zoning, and ignored potentially significant aesthetic impacts to long-range views, privacy, and property values. The residents of Kensington deserve a County review process that consistently applies the law and protects its citizens. They deserve a ZA who does not rubber stamp bad projects and waive CEQA review, but rather one that takes the necessary time to thoroughly review the project and ensure that the County addresses the substantial evidence on the required and confirms compliance with land use laws without bias or favoritism. We understand that this County has been held legally liable for failing to consistently and fairly apply its regulations in the past. Fortunately, there is still time for the Planning Commission to comply with its code and require a variance for the Project and a revised application to address setback issues and to minimize aesthetic impacts. Based on all of the above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reverse the ZA’s decision, require a variance for the Project, and require story poles to confirm the actual extent of impacts. To the extent that the Project does not preserve long-range views, privacy, and property values, it must be rejected and redesigned. Respectfully submitted, Jillian Blanchard, Rudder Law Group, LLP cc: Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County Attorney DCD Planning Director Ms. Nicole Ashar Mr. Joseph Petrizello EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT A Ms. Margaret Mitchell Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Public Records Request re 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA Dear Ms. Mitchell: We have been retained by parties interested in the development proposed for 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA (the “Property” as defined below) in application #VR18-1032. Based on the approach the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (“KMAC”) and the County have followed to date, we have serious procedural due process concerns, substantive due process concerns, and land use and zoning consistency concerns related to the processing of this application and the proposed development of the Property. We are making this Public Records Act request to better understand the County’s and the KMAC’s respective processes in reviewing this application to ensure that the proper procedures and review standards are followed before any formal decision is rendered by the County. The applicant proposes to build an addition to the structure on the Property that would violate current height restrictions and would cause significant aesthetic impacts and significantly damage the long-range views, incoming sunlight, use, enjoyment, and property values of the neighboring property. The applicants have presented the project to the KMAC (with two different proposals) on two occasions and both times, the KMAC has recommended denying a variance because the project cannot meet the statutory requirements for such an approval. Due Process Concerns Throughout the process, the County has failed on several occasions to provide mandatory notice to our clients even though their property will be directly affected by the County’s decision. After repeatedly voicing their concerns and requesting status updates from the County, the County failed to inform our clients that the applicants had submitted revised plans on February 12th and failed to provide them notice that the KMAC would be reviewing these plans at the February 26, 2019 meeting. Indeed, when our clients spoke with you by phone on February 11th to learn the status of the application, you stated that since revised plans had not yet been filed, the project would be very unlikely to make it onto the February 26th KMAC agenda. Unfortunately, when the revised plans arrived the following day, you failed to notify our clients when they were undeniably an interested party to the proceedings. When individual rights are being deliberated in an administrative hearing, interested parties are required to be apprised of the application “so that [they] may EXHIBIT A 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 2 have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1172 (1996).) Without adequate notice, it “would be tantamount to requiring a hearing in form but not in substance, for the right of a hearing before an administrative tribunal would be meaningless if the tribunal were permitted to base its determination upon information received without the knowledge of the parties.” (Id.) Our clients have a known, vested interest in the subject application, will be uniquely and directly impacted by the project proposed, and have indicated they have substantial evidence to submit into the record. Yet, the County failed to notify them of the revised plans ostensibly designed to address their concerns. Our clients emailed you immediately after the February 26, 2019 KMAC meeting and requested a meeting to provide substantial evidence regarding the potential impacts the revised plans will cause, to which the County has yet to respond. Our clients were forced to go directly to the DCD office wherein they met with Mr. Rubin Hernandez, who listened to their plight, but did not indicate that such facts would be considered in the application and upon seeing the very real long-term views impacted by this project, mysteriously stated that he would need to recuse himself from reviewing this application. You can imagine our confusion at this kind of reaction and the need to better understand the history of communications between the parties related to this application. The KMAC process has been equally fraught with due process concerns. While the revised designs were ostensibly created to address the impacts to our clients’ long-range and impressive views of San Francisco and the Bay Bridge, the applicants did not even bother to install new story poles to identify the location of the new design. Neither the KMAC nor the County have yet required the applicant to install these poles to better analyze the very real impacts this addition would cause. At the February 26, 2019, meeting, one of the KMAC members appeared to be coaching the applicant through the process rather than offering an objective viewpoint based on the facts. Indeed, at one point, a KMAC member provided the applicant with specific guidance on how they could “avoid a variance” in what could be viewed as a spurious effort to circumvent the variance requirements, which this application clearly cannot meet. All affected parties have the right to an impartial tribunal and unbiased decision makers such that “even the probability of unfairness is to be avoided.” (Id at 1170.) Due process “demands an appearance of fairness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the adjudication. In fact, the broad applicability of administrative hearings to the various rights and responsibilities of citizens and businesses, and the undeniable public interest in fair hearings in the administrative adjudication arena, militate in favor assuring that such hearings are fair.” (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal. App. 4th 81, 83 (2003).) And while the KMAC may only be an “advisory” committee, its recommendations are a significant factor in informing the County’s ultimate land use decision and is instrumental in supporting the County’s staff report regarding the application and the subsequent determination by the Zoning Administrator. Unfortunately, it is impossible to confirm exactly how KMAC members handled the meeting, or the reasoning for any of their findings for that matter, because the meeting “minutes” are not minutes as that term is used by all other public agencies in California. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 3 They do not include any details or findings, and simply list the members’ votes on the project. Having a transcript or detailed minutes of the February KMAC meeting is particularly important here to understand the support, reasoning, or findings related to the KMAC’s critical, and dumbfounding, recommendation to “approve the revised plans, but deny the variance,” which plans would cause significant, unmitigated environmental impacts. The notion that a proposal to increase the height of a structure in violation of the Kensington Planning Ordinance and the Contra Costa County Code would be granted without a variance boggles the mind and suggests the potential for substantive due process violations as well. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 998 (2007), in which the Court overturned a county’s approval of a nightclub that was inconsistent with the zoning ordinance without a variance.) Development that causes environmental impacts and directly steals the long-range views of another house, sunlight, and use and enjoyment of a neighbor’s property, not to mention significantly reduces their property values, is exactly what the height restriction was created to protect against. It is unclear how the KMAC believed it was authorized to “approve the revised plans” but “deny the variance.” Unfortunately, the non-existent meeting minutes do not shed any light on the reasoning or basis for such a conclusion. We remain hopeful that the KMAC kept a transcript of the meeting, or at least detailed notes, to help us better understand the KMAC’s reasoning on the matter. Land Use and Zoning Consistency Issues At base, our primary concern is that the applicants’ revised proposal violates the standards stated in the Kensington Planning Ordinance (Section 84-74.1206) and the variance standards required in County Code Section 26-2.2006. •The proposed project does not minimize impacts to its neighbors, it creates significant impacts on the long-term use and enjoyment of our clients’ property. •The revised design does not protect the value and enjoyment of our clients’ property and we have substantial evidence to this effect; •Creating this type of addition to one of the highest houses on the street to block other views is not consistent with a neighborhood dependent on long-range views for its property values; •There is nothing unique about the Property that would justify a variance to the specific height requirements; •Granting this application would constitute a special privilege to increase heights in a neighborhood in which the subject house is already one of the tallest; •There are no special circumstances applicable to the Property that justify such a special privilege. Indeed, the applicants are able to construct the addition on the other side of the house while gaining the same benefits and avoiding all impacts to our clients’ property. They simply don’t want to. •The proposed variance does not meet the intent and purpose of the Kensington Combining District, which unlike many other neighborhoods, has a specific planning ordinance to protect neighbor’s use, view, privacy, and light and solar access, all of which will be significantly impacted under the revised plans. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 4 Variances should only be granted when the applicant has made a clear showing of undue hardship. “The essential requirement of a variance is a showing that a strict enforcement of the zoning limitation would cause unnecessary hardship.” (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 998 (2007.) The applicants have made no showing that allowing for a third-floor addition to their house is in anyway necessary to avoid an undue hardship on their property. Indeed, the applicants could construct this addition on the other side of their house and not in any way affect the neighbor’s property. It is clearly the applicant’s burden of demonstrating that a variance is necessary to avoid an undue hardship. (See Orinda Ass'n v. Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1145, 1150 (1986) (judgment vacating approval of a height variance because the applicant failed to make the affirmative showing that a variance was warranted where less impacting alternatives were available.) Our clients are reasonable people, but they have very serious and reasonable concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project, including specific impacts to their use, enjoyment, sunlight, long-range views, and property values. The applicants are proposing a project that violates the Kensington Planning Ordinance and does not meet the high standards necessary to justify a height variance under the County Code. Indeed, there is a clear alternative to the proposed design that would avail applicants of a larger house with a third story and avoid all of these impacts. We will contact you soon to schedule a meeting to discuss these alternatives in greater detail to facilitate the County’s decision- making process. To better understand the development proposed on the Property and to address the serious concerns we have regarding this application process, we submit this request for public records pursuant to the California Constitution (as amended by Proposition 59) and the Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.). For purposes of this request, we provide the following clarifying definitions for the following terms: “All” and “any” each mean “any and all.” “Communications” mean all verbal and written communications of every kind between and among the parties specified, including but not limited to telephone calls, conferences, conversations, meetings, notes, correspondence, emails, and memoranda. “County” means Contra Costa County, including its officers, staff, managers, appointees, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, attorneys, and consultants, including in particular, employees of the Department of Conservation and Development. “KMAC” means the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee, including its officers, staff, managers, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, attorneys, and consultants. “Property” mean that certain real property commonly referred to as 120 St. Albans Road in Kensington, California. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 5 “Records” include, without limitation, all writings and documents of every type in your possession, control, or custody, including but not limited to the following items, whether printed or reproduced by any process, including documents sent and received by electronic mail, or written or produced by hand: computer data files, information stored in electronic media, including on computer tapes, disks, or diskettes, tapes, inputs, outputs, and printouts; notes; letters; correspondence; communications; telegrams; memoranda; summaries and records of telephonic and telegraphic communications; summaries and records of personal conversations; diaries; appointment books; reports (including any and all draft, preliminary, intermediate, and final reports); surveys; studies; comparisons; tabulations; budgets; workpapers; charts; plans; maps; drawings; engineering and other diagrams; photographs; film; microfilm; microfiche; tape and other mechanical and electrical audio and video recordings; data compilations; log sheets; ledgers; vouchers; accounting statements; books; pamphlets; bulletins; minutes and records of meetings; transcripts; stenographic records; testimony and exhibits, including workpapers; copies, reports, and summaries of interviews and speeches; reports and summaries of investigations; opinions and reports of consultants; reports and summaries of negotiations; press releases; newspaper clippings; drafts and revisions of draft of documents; and any and all other records, written, electrical, mechanical, and otherwise. “Relating To” means concerning, pertaining to, referring to, describing, mentioning, containing, evidencing, constituting, dealing with, discussing, considering, analyzing, studying, reporting on, commenting on, setting forth, supporting, recommending or otherwise concerning in any manner whatsoever the subject matter of the request. “Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by email or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored. We hereby request the following categories of Records: 1. All Records and Writings Relating To the Property within the last four years. 2. All Records and Writings Relating To improvements proposed for or conducted upon the Property within the last four years. 3. All Records and Writings Relating To Communications by and between the County and the owners of the Property (including David Herberich and Mary Hanley) within the last four years. 4. All Records and Writings Relating To Communications by and between the KMAC and the owners of the Property (including David Herberich and Mary Hanley) within the last four years. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 6 5. All Records and Writings Relating To Communications by and between the County and individuals known to the County to be working for the owners of the Property within the last four years (including architect Howard McNenny). 6. All Records and Writings Relating To Communications by and between the KMAC and individuals known to the KMAC to be working for the owners of the Property within the last four years (including architect Howard McNenny). 7. All Records and Writings Relating To Communications by and between the County and the KMAC Relating To the Property within the last four years. 8. All Records or Writings Relating To plans, submittals, applications, or requests submitted to the County Relating To the Property within the last four years. 9. All Records and Writings Relating To the KMAC meetings on November 27, 2018, January 8, 2019, and February 26, 2019. Pursuant to Government Code § 6253.1, if you have any difficulty identifying responsive Records, we request that you provide assistance and suggestions for identifying responsive Records and for overcoming any practical basis for denying access. We believe that no express provisions of law exist that exempt the Records from disclosure. As you determine whether this request seeks copies of disclosable public records, be mindful that Article I, Section 3 (b)(2) of the California Constitution requires the County to broadly construe a statute, court rule, or other authority if it furthers the right of access to the information we have requested and to narrowly construe a statute, court rule, or other authority if it limits the public’s right of access. To the extent that there are any responsive Records, or portions thereof, which the County or the KMAC determines to be exempt from disclosure and seeks to withhold, please provide us with prompt notification of the County’s or the KMAC’s intent to withhold such Records, together with an index and general description of such Records, the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of our request, and the reason(s) for the denial. If a portion of the information we have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code Section 6253(a) additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be released. We agree to appropriately reimburse you for your copying, scanning, and reproduction costs. Where feasible, we strongly prefer electronic copies of all responsive Records. It is our understanding that, by submitting this single request to your office, you will notify all appropriate divisions and departments within the County to produce any and all responsive Records. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(b), we ask that you make the Records “promptly available,” for inspection and copying, based on our payment of “fees covering direct costs of duplication, or statutory fee, if applicable.” Given that the County’s 30-day review period for the revised application is coming to a close, time is of the essence, and we therefore request a reply with responsive Records within 10 days. To expedite the process, we agree to receive responsive Records on a rolling basis, as they are identified. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 7 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jillian Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP Cc (by electronic mail): Supervisor District 1, John M. Gioia Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel John Kopchik, DCD Director Aruna Bhat, DCD w/attention to KMAC Members: Patrick Tahara, Lloyd Cowell, Larry Nucci, Christopher Brydon, and Melissa Holmes Snyder Ms. Nicole Ashar and Mr. Joseph Petroziello 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT B Application and Permit Center Community Development Counter 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: File #CD KR19-0011 and Margaret Mitchell August 30, 2019 Hearing Request re 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA Dear Ms. Mitchell and County Staff: We have been retained by parties interested in the development proposed for 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA (the “Property” as defined below) in application #KR19-00111 (the “Application”). As described further below, there are several issues with the current Application that need to be resolved before a permit can issue for the proposed construction, but the primary issues are: 1) a land use permit and a variance is required for this type of construction, not just a Building Permit and Design Review; and 2) a hearing is required to confirm that the proposed construction will comply with the strict variance standards and the Kensington Combining District requirements to minimize impacts to a neighboring property’s privacy, sunlight, and views. Unfortunately, the County has once again failed to follow its own land use process, but there is still time to rectify the situation and potentially approve construction that does not impact the sunlight, privacy, and views of neighboring properties, and complies with the County’s land use code. I.The Proposed Project Requires a Variance a. Variance Required to Expand Existing Nonconforming Use The existing property currently contains a nonconforming use, which automatically requires a variance to approve any expansion or extension of such use. The existing residential structure appears to violate both the 2 ½ story and setback requirements, and potentially other existing land use requirements. The Contra Costa County (“CCC”) Code requires that: 1) building heights must be capped at 2 ½ stories and 35-feet from grade. (CCC Code §84-4.802); and 2) side yards must be setback to a minimum of five feet (CCC Code §84-4.1002). For purposes of determining the number of stories, a basement counts as a story if the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point (CCC Code §82-4.266). A basement is defined in the Kensington Combining District as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower.” EXHIBIT B 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 2 (CCC Code §82- 74.404). The existing lower level on the property clearly falls within this definition, thereby establishing three stories on the existing structure, in violation of County Code. Moreover, the existing residential structure at 120 St. Albans Rd. does not currently meet minimum side yard setback requirements. The existing side yards are well below the five foot requirement. Accordingly, the existing structure is currently, without any proposed expansion, already a nonconforming use. We note that the County’s Code regards any structure maintained contrary to its Zoning Ordinance to be unlawful and a public nuisance. (CCC §82-2.006). Courts have a strict policy against the extension or enlargement of nonconforming uses (See County of San Diego v McClurken, 37 Cal.2d 683, 686-87 (1951). Indeed, California courts regularly allow municipalities to require the termination of a nonconforming use without compensation if it provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved. (See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848 (1980). In this instance, our clients are not proposing a termination of the existing use, but merely a careful examination and strict scrutiny against any proposed expansion of that nonconforming use, particularly, when such expansion could cause negative environmental impacts and impact a neighboring property’s use, enjoyment, privacy, and views. Any proposal to increase a nonconforming use clearly requires a land use permit under the County’s Code. (CCC §82-8.006.) The work proposed in Application# KR 19-00111 involves a substantial increase to the existing nonconforming use. Accordingly, it is unclear why County staff would ever suggest to the applicant that a simple Building Permit and Design Review would be sufficient. The County must follow its required land use process, including public hearings and KMAC review, and land use permit and variance review and approval, before allowing any construction of the proposed project. b.Proposed New Construction Requires a Land Use Permit & Variance Even if the existing structure were in compliance with the County Code, the work proposed in the Application clearly requires a variance pursuant to the County Code. The architect in charge of designing the project did not understand staff’s suggestion that an expansion could be constructed on either the north or the south side of the property without a variance (See Exhibit A, Email from Howard McNenny to Margaret Mitchell, p. 1.) County staff based its faulty reasoning on a tortured definition of a ‘crawl space,’ which has no relevance to the issue. (See Exhibit B, Email from Margaret Mitchell, p. 1.) Not only is this reasoning incorrect, but it smacks of bias to coach an applicant on ways to avoid certain permitting requirements, particularly, when those permitting requirements help protect the rights of neighboring properties. The proposed substantial upgrade requires a land use permit because the existing structure is already nonconforming (as described above) and a variance to address proposed construction on a three story building, the proposed height increase, the proposed roof overhang, and perhaps most importantly, the exceedance of the Kensington Combining District’s threshold standards (CCC §84-74.802). 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 3 Based on the Application, the proposed work would expand the existing three-story structure. The Application erroneously claims that it’s a “two-story addition to a two-story structure.” It’s clear from every depiction in the Application, that the existing structure is more than two and one-half stories. It’s precisely these types of misstatements that the County needs to identify and correct through a more rigorous land use review and approval process, including the required hearings. It also appears that the while the pitched roof may not increase in height, the proposed addition to the third story would involve a slight increase in height, which clearly triggers the variance requirement for height increases. The notion that a proposal to increase the height of a structure in violation of the Kensington Planning Ordinance and the Contra Costa County Code would be granted without a variance boggles the mind and suggests the potential for substantive due process violations as well. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 998 (2007), in which the Court overturned a county’s approval of a nightclub that was inconsistent with the zoning ordinance without a variance.) Moreover, the increased roof overhang itself may require a variance. Development that causes environmental impacts and directly steals the long-range views of another house, sunlight, privacy, and use and enjoyment of a neighbor’s property, not to mention significantly reduces their property values, is exactly what the variance standards were created to protect against. Moreover, the proposed project exceeds the threshold standards established in the County Code. The threshold standard based on the existing parcel area is 2320.5 square feet, and the applicant proposes to increase the total gross floor area (“GFA”) to 2,332 square feet. The County Code unequivocally requires a hearing when the GFA thresholds will be exceeded. (CCC 84-74.802). While we appreciate the applicant’s willingness to re-design their project on the south side of the property, the proposed project, in its current design, still likely will impact our clients’ privacy and potentially their long-range views of San Francisco Bay. In addition to completing all necessary reviews associated with a land use permit, it is paramount that the County hold a public hearing to: 1) confirm that a land use permit and variance is required; 2) address existing nonconforming uses; 3) address the threshold standard exceedance; and 4) confirm whether the proposed construction meets both the strict standards for a variance and the Kensington Combining District Standards, which were created to “minimize[e] impacts upon surrounding neighbors and not substantially impair the value and enjoyment of their neighbors' property; maintain the community's property values; and promote[] the general welfare, public health and safety.” (CCC §84-74.204). Based on the current Application, is it likely that some design changes may be required to avoid negative impacts to the neighboring property’s privacy, views, and sunlight. II. Project May Not Comply with Variance Standards or the Kensington Combining District Standards At base, our primary concern is that we need further investigation to confirm that the applicants’ revised proposal complies with both the Kensington Planning Ordinance 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 4 (Section 84-74.1206) and the variance standards required in County Code Section 26- 2.2006. •While moving the project to the south side does minimize impacts to its neighbors somewhat, the currently proposed design, with attendant windows on the north side, may create new impacts to the long-term use, privacy, and enjoyment of our clients’ property. •A hearing and story poles are required to confirm that the revised design protects the value and enjoyment of our clients’ property; •To the extent the proposed addition to one of the highest houses on the street continues to block our clients’ views, it would be inconsistent with a neighborhood dependent on long-range views for its property values; •There is nothing unique about the Property that would justify a variance to the specific height requirements; •Granting the Application without modification to protect neighboring properties could constitute a special privilege to increase heights in a neighborhood in which the subject house is already one of the tallest; •There are no special circumstances applicable to the Property that justify such a special privilege; and •The proposed variance may not meet the intent and purpose of the Kensington Combining District, which unlike many other neighborhoods, has a specific planning ordinance to protect neighbor’s use, view, privacy, and light and solar access, all of which could be impacted under the revised plans. Variances should only be granted when the applicant has made a clear showing of undue hardship. “The essential requirement of a variance is a showing that a strict enforcement of the zoning limitation would cause unnecessary hardship.” (Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne, 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 998 (2007.) We need a hearing to determine whether applicants have made the prerequisite showing that extending a three story addition to their house is appropriate and necessary to avoid an undue hardship on their Property. It is clearly the applicant’s burden of demonstrating that a variance is necessary to avoid an undue hardship. (See Orinda Ass'n v. Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1145, 1150 (1986) (judgment vacating approval of a height variance because the applicant failed to make the affirmative showing that a variance was warranted where less impacting alternatives were available.) We also need confirmation through the use of story poles and other methods, that the project as proposed will not impact our clients’ long range views, sunlight, and privacy. The project, as currently designed, still extends far enough to impact long range views and includes a window that would look directly into our clients’ house, significantly impacting their privacy. Not only is a hearing required as part of the land use process, it is absolutely essential here to establish that the proposed construction complies with both the Kensington Combining District and variance standards. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 5 III. Hearing Is Required to Ensure Land Use Laws Are Being Followed and Neighboring Rights are Protected All affected parties have the right to an impartial tribunal and unbiased decision makers such that “even the probability of unfairness is to be avoided.” (Id at 1170.) Due process “demands an appearance of fairness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the adjudication. In fact, the broad applicability of administrative hearings to the various rights and responsibilities of citizens and businesses, and the undeniable public interest in fair hearings in the administrative adjudication arena, militate in favor assuring that such hearings are fair.” (Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal. App. 4th 81, 83 (2003).) As indicated above, a hearing is required here for several reasons, including: 1) to ensure the project meets land use permit, variance, and Kensington Combining District requirements; 2) because threshold standards will be exceeded under County Code; and 3) because a hearing is required whenever an interested party submits a written request. Our clients are reasonable people, but they have very serious and reasonable concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project, including specific impacts to their use, enjoyment, sunlight, long-range views, and property values. The applicants are proposing a project for an existing nonconforming structure that requires a land use permit, a variance, potentially violates the Kensington Planning Ordinance, and may not meet the high standards necessary to justify a variance under the County Code. We believe that a hearing will help address these land use concerns and help the applicants design a project that does not impact the sunlight, privacy, and long-range views of their neighbors. Please schedule a hearing at your earliest convenience. IV. Adequate Notice We also note that the County continues to falter on providing adequate notice to our clients. Even though County staff committed to providing direct notice to our clients as real parties in interest (see Exhibit C, Email from Margaret Mitchell to Jillian Blanchard, May 2, 2019, p. 1), the County failed once again to notify our clients of this new application. When individual rights are being deliberated, interested parties are required to be apprised of the application “so that [they] may have an opportunity to refute, test, and explain it, and the requirement of a hearing necessarily contemplates a decision in light of the evidence there introduced. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1172 (1996).) Our clients have a known, vested interest in the Application, will be uniquely and directly impacted by the project proposed, and have indicated they have substantial evidence to submit into the record. Yet, the County failed to notify them of the revised plans ostensibly designed to address their concerns. Accordingly, please provide any future notices or information related to this Application directly to our clients, Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello (118 St. Albans Rd), and to me, as their representative, on all matters related to this Application. 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 6 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. We look forward to receiving notice of the hearing date as soon as it set. Sincerely, Jillian Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP Cc (by electronic mail): John Kopchik, DCD Director Ms. Nicole Ashar and Mr. Joseph Petroziello -----Original Message----- From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:22 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; David Herberich <dherberich@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: 120 St. Albans Margaret: At this point, we have received at least some of the information on comparable variance applications we requested. Unfortunately, we only got examples from the last 3 years, and some of the attachments we were unable to open. Also, some of the applications were apparently too recent to have been resolved. I have requested an estimate of what it would take to go back at least an additional 3-4 years, but have not to date received any response to that request. Notwithstanding the sparsity of information received, I have discussed with my clients your offer to set up a meeting with Mr. Hernandez, and we agree it would be useful. The absolute best would be if he could agree to meet us on the site as you did initially, to see for himself the issues involved. It appears to us that we are being encouraged to only build on the south side of the house in order to avoid having to file for a variance. However, I do not see personally how it is possible to avoid the variance no matter where we build. As it is, we have configu red our proposed addition to avoid as best we can any infringement on the views from the adjacent house. We do not think it would make much difference if we were to confine the addition to the south portion of the house, and in any event building there would not solve the circulation issues we are trying to address. Absent a meeting with Mr. Hernandez, I do not see how we will ever get a resolution to our dilemma. You have told us to we should submit for a variance, but you have already told us you do not believe the required findings can be made. We would like to submit something that does not require a variance, but that seems impossible. We have to admit that we are unclear on the rules as currently being interpreted, and have very little information on how similar situations have been resolved. We also are afraid that the hearing before the zoning administrator will not result in clarity. That is why we are requesting your help. Let me know if such a meeting with Mr. Hernandez will be possible. We are fairly open as to time and date. Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207-7019 h.mcnenny@comcast.net 2 Attachment A Margaret M itchell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Margaret Mitchell Tuesday, April 09, 20Lg 8:19 AM 'Howard McNenny' David Herberich; Mary Hanley; Ruben Hernandez; Jennifer Cruz RE: 120 St Albans Hi Howard, lf the lowest level of the addition is left unfinished, unconditioned, and at natural grade, regardless of hei8ht, it will not be considered a story. If the area between the lowest floor and the Bround below does not meet the definition of a crawl space per section 84-7 4.4o4ld), it would need to be included in the gross floor area calculation. Than k you, lvla rga ret From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 03,2019 1:45 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret. M itchell@dcd.cccounty, us> Cc: David Herberich <d herberich@gmail.com>; Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; Ruben Hernandez <Ruben. Hernandez@dcd.cccounty.us>; Jennifer Cruz <Jennifer.Cruz@dcd.cccounty. us> subject: Re: 120 st. Albans Margaret: Thank you for the response, however it is one thing to say that our application for a variance must be weighed against the rights of the neighbors (and possibly could be denied), but quite another thing to say that this project does not meet even the basic qualifications for a variance application. This makes it all the more critical that we understand under what circumstances vadances have been granted in the past. We look forward to getting that information so that we can make a reasoned judgement on next steps. Also, to be clear, my understanding is that any addition where the lowest full floor is more than 4 feet above existins grade, the level below that floor must be considered a floor also. Am I correct? Unless there are exceptions to your position on variances, I do not see how any addition could be built on the west side ofthis house that includes the bedroom level----even on the southem portion. Or, might you be salng that it would still be a variance, but one that might be more likely to be approved? Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (5i0) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207.7019 1 h,mcnennv@comcast.net You will receive the information regarding other third story variance applications from Lawrence Huang. Attachment B On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:03 PM Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> wrote: Thank you, Margaret. On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:55 PM Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Jillian, Yes, those statements from our conversation yesterday are correct. We will update you on any changes to the status of the application. Please contact Lawrence regarding the PRA requests. Thank you, Margaret From: Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 3:36 PM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Nicole Ashar <nicoleashar@ymail.com> Subject: Re: 120 St Albans Road -Follow Up and Confirmation Margaret: I would appreciate your response to my email below as soon as possible. Thank you, 2 Attachment C 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT C Application and Permit Center Community Development Counter 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: File #CD KR19-0011 and Margaret Mitchell November 4, 2019 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA Application – 2nd Hearing Request and KMAC Update Dear Ms. Mitchell and County Staff: On behalf of my clients, the owners of 118 St. Albans Road, I am writing this update as an addendum to the Hearing Request letter sent to you on August 30 2019, to inform you of the unlawful hearing that occurred before the KMAC on October 29, 2019, and more importantly, to articulate my clients outstanding concerns regarding the development proposed for 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA (the “Project ” as defined below) in application #DP- 19- 3019. I.KMAC Meeting Did Not Comply with Legal Requirements; KMAC Recommendation Is Not Based on an Objective Review of the Facts The Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (“KMAC”) Meeting held on October 29, 2019 (“KMAC Meeting”) to discuss the Project violated planning and zoning laws, the Brown Act, and the KMAC’s own by-laws. The KMAC is an advisory committee that represents the County and is charged with providing valuable input to the Board of Supervisors regarding land use decisions. As such, they are required to hold meetings that follow Brown Act requirements and provide objective recommendations based on the legal standards established in California planning and zoning law. Unfortunately, the KMAC failed to comply with these legal requirements when reviewing the Project. First, the KMAC Meeting failed to comply with the Brown Act’s requirement to provide adequate notice to the public. (CA Gov Code 54956.) Ms. Snyder, who volunteered to provide KMAC notice, managed to provide notice of the KMAC Meeting to all other neighbors surrounding the Project, but failed to provide it to the two interested parties who are on the record in opposition to the Project, my clients and Ms. Donna Stanton, the owner of 134 Windsor Avenue in Kensington. When this issue was raised at the KMAC Meeting by Ms. Stanton, the KMAC members did not concede the error or suggest a new process to ensure adequate notice going forward, they instead suggested that Ms. Stanton’s property must have fallen outside the noticing area. The fact that both of Ms. Stanton’s immediate neighbors on either side did receive notice shows the fallacy of this claim. Strangely, the KMAC members did not appear to have any concern that neither Ms. Stanton, nor my clients, the owners most likely to be impacted by the Project, failed to receive notice of the meeting. The Brown Act absolutely requires adequate notice to all interested parties. Without it, the meeting should not have been held and should have been rescheduled. At the very least, the KMAC members could have suggested a more robust notice process going forward to avoid these due process issues. EXHIBIT C 2 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com The same KMAC member, Ms. Snyder, who failed to provide adequate notice to Project opponents also had a clear conflict of interest. We learned from various neighbors in the area that Ms. Snyder affirmatively solicited support for the Project when notifying them about the KMAC meeting. My clients obtained signatures from 35 different neighbors who stated that Ms. Snyder asked them to attend the meeting in support of the Project, which is clear evidence of campaigning in violation of California laws protecting impartial decision-making. Under California law, all interested parties have the right to a hearing in front of "a fair and unbiased decision-maker under the due process clause." (See Noble v. City of Palo Alto (1928) 89 Cal.App.47, 51.) If there is evidence of an "unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of a decision-maker", that decision-maker must be disqualified from reviewing the application. (See Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, in which a Planning Commission decision was vacated because one of the Commissioners showed clear bias by speaking out against a pending project.) While it may not be objectionable for a KMAC member to have a personal preference regarding a project, California law clearly prohibits public representatives from campaigning for or against any project that they are reviewing. Asking neighbors to attend a meeting to vocally support the Project while failing to provide Project opponents with adequate notice would be clear examples of unacceptable bias and due process violations. With these legal standards in mind, we sent the attached email to Ms. Snyder before the KMAC Meeting respectfully asking her to recuse herself from deliberating on the Project based on the facts available (Attachment A). Ms. Snyder did not respond to our email request. The KMAC Chair, Mr. Tahara, raised the issue at the KMAC Meeting, wherein Ms. Snyder claimed to not have seen the email request. She then reviewed the email and dismissed it without any concern whatsoever for the appearance of bias. She said the accusation was false, but provided no evidence to counter the 35 signatures from neighbors establishing her efforts to campaign for the Project. Mr. Tahara accepted Ms. Snyder’s statements without any further precautions and allowed her to vote on the Project. To avoid even the appearance of bias, Ms. Snyder should have recused herself from deliberating on this Project. She failed to provide adequate notice to the Project opponents, and was presented with 35 signatures of neighbors stating their belief that she attempted to coerce them into supporting the Project. There were five KMAC members in attendance at the meeting. Ms. Snyder could have recused herself to protect the process and allowed the remaining four members to make an objective determination. Instead, she insisted on participating, speaking forcefully in favor of the Project during deliberations. The experience left all of us with the impression that the KMAC had decided well before the meeting that they would approve the Project and that my clients,’ and other residents’ reasonable concerns simply did not matter. The substance of the deliberations provided further evidence of the KMAC’s pre-ordained conclusions. During the meeting, we presented evidence of potentially significant impacts to my clients’ privacy and long-range views resulting from the revised application. Rather than acknowledge these points, and at the very least request that story poles be put in, the KMAC members found that while the Project may “block the view” it wouldn’t be “that bad”. They made this extremely arbitrary finding without any evidence. We provided clear evidence that anything beyond the existing nook (described further below) and the expansive deck would block my clients’ view of the Bay and the Bay Bridge, but the KMAC ignored these concerns. Apparently, KMAC members believed that because the applicants had moved their project to the other side of the house, they should be entitled to build. Thankfully, California law prevents such arbitrary decisions. 3 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com KMAC members stated that it was acceptable for views to be blocked, which would be a violation of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance. As the only attorney in the room, I offered to read for the KMAC members the standards from the actual code to help them apply the law to their deliberation, but they refused my offer, apparently unconcerned with the legal standards or the applicable law. Land use decisions must be conducted impartially, based on the facts of the Project at hand with real evidence to determine whether the Project will comply with the applicable legal standards to avoid the abuse of discretion. Unfortunately, none of that happened at the KMAC Meeting. As a result, the KMAC abused its discretion by ignoring evidence of potential bias and significant impacts to long range views and privacy. The KMAC also disregarded the variance requirement. When we referenced the County Code provisions that require a variance to approve an expansion to an existing non-conforming use, which understanding is shared by the applicant’s own architect, the KMAC deemed this law irrelevant to their findings. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the County to disregard the KMAC recommendation in making its determination regarding the Project. It is clear that the KMAC has little regard for the law it is required to follow in administering its duties. Any agency action that reflects an abuse of discretion must be disregarded to avoid further tainting the land use process. II. The Project Requires a Variance for an Existing Non-Conforming Use. As described in detail in our August 30, 2019, letter (attached as Attachment B for convenience), the Project, as proposed, requires a variance to approve the existing non- conforming use both for setback and story requirements under the Contra Costa Code. When we raised this issue with the KMAC, they stated that they were not required to consider the law here, and accordingly, did not make any findings related to the variance. Any proposal to increase a nonconforming use clearly requires a land use permit under the County’s Code. (CCC §82-8.006.) For an existing non-conforming use, the land use permit required here is a variance. (CCC §82-28.516.) The Project application incorrectly describes the proposed development as a “2-story expansion on a 2-story structure”. The existing structure is, and has always been, three stories. As correctly described by the applicant’s architect at the February KMAC: “A variance is required due to the fact that the house as it already exists is considered a 3-story structure, due to the fact that is built on a down-slope lot that places the first floor in excess of 4-feet above grade at the rear of the structure. Current zoning places a limit of 2 ½ stories on houses in this zoning district.” (Howard McNenny, February 2019, KMAC Meeting.) Mr. McNenny’s interpretation is correct. The structure does not magically become two stories when the project is constructed on the other side of the house. The existing structure is three stories, as defined under Contra Costa County’s Code, and accordingly, requires a variance for any expansion of the existing non-conforming use, whether on the north or south side. Accordingly, we request that you ask the applicant to demonstrate how the necessary variance findings may be colorably made, including a clear showing of an undue burden on the property justifying the Project, before issuance of a staff report on this Project. As described further below, we believe these findings cannot be made based on the current design of the Project, but it may be possible to meet the high variance standards if the applicant eliminates or significantly reduces the size of the deck, removes the north-facing window, and does not expand beyond the existing upper level nook. 4 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com III. The Project, As Currently Proposed, Will Cause Significant Impacts to My Clients Long-Range Views, Privacy, and Property Values. As confirmed in your May 2, 2019, email to us, the Project, even when constructed on the south side of the property must be designed “to avoid impacting the neighbor’s long range views, privacy” and property values. Unfortunately, the Project on the south side still causes significant impacts to my clients’ long range views, privacy, and property values. As described in detail at the KMAC meeting (which facts were sadly ignored), the proposed Project will cause impacts to my clients’ long-range views on both the first and second floors because: 1) the proposed expansion will go beyond the existing nook; and 2) the expansive deck will block Bay views. Both the upper expansion beyond the existing house and the enormous deck will impact my clients side view of the Bay Bridge and the Bay. While the full extent of the impact cannot be determined because the application lacks specific dimensions for either component, it is clear from a conservative review that any expansion beyond the nook will impact Bay views (see Picture #1, Attachment C-2) and that the expansive deck will impact my clients’ view of the Bay and the Bay Bridge (see Picture #2, Attachment D). My clients only desire is to have their views of the Bay and the Bay Bridge and privacy preserved. That is what the Kensington Combining District and the variance standards require. We also note that at the KMAC Meeting, the applicants showed a figure that misplaced the location of the bathtub in the master bath where views will be impeded. The correct angle is shown in Attachment C, in which it is undeniable that any expansion beyond the nook will cause long-range view impacts. Also, as indicated at the KMAC Meeting, the proposed window on the top floor will look directly into my clients’ master bathroom. My clients bought their house in part because of the master bathroom, which allows you to view the Bay Bridge from the tub and the shower. Having a window on the north side of the proposed Project will kill that privacy. In addition, the proposed expansive deck would cause significant impacts to my clients’ privacy, use, and enjoyment of their home. If a deck this large is approved, not only will my clients’ unique view of the Bay Bridge be gone from this side of the house, but their privacy will be significantly impacted as well. Every time the applicants have people out on the new deck, my clients will be forced to look at them instead of their previous spectacular Bay Bridge view. Having a deck this size impacts both long-range views and privacy and does not comply with either the Kensington Combining District or the County Code regarding variances. We have included a letter from the realtor (Attachment E) who sold the house previously, Ms. Bebe McRae, that identifies the importance of both privacy and long-range views as a selling point of this particular house. It is clear that any impacts to these two factors will cause a significant decrease in my clients’ property value. If the applicants are willing to remove the north facing window, eliminate or significantly reduce the deck, and avoid expansion beyond the existing nook, it would significantly improve the Project. IV. Hearing Is Required to Ensure Land Use Laws Are Being Followed and Neighboring Rights are Protected While we appreciate the applicant’s willingness to re-design their project on the south side of the property, the Project, in its current design, will still impact our clients’ privacy and long- range views of San Francisco Bay. In addition to completing all necessary reviews associated 5 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com with a land use permit, it is paramount that the County hold a public hearing to: 1) confirm that a land use permit and variance is required; 2) address existing nonconforming uses; and 3)confirm whether the proposed construction meets both the strict standards for a variance and the Kensington Combining District Standards, which were created to “minimize[e] impacts upon surrounding neighbors and not substantially impair the value and enjoyment of their neighbors' property; maintain the community's property values; and promote[] the general welfare, public health and safety.” (CCC §84-74.204). Our clients are reasonable people, but they have very serious concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the Project, including specific impacts to their use, enjoyment, privacy, long-range views, and property values. The applicants are proposing a project for an existing nonconforming structure that requires a variance, violates the Kensington Planning Ordinance, and does not currently meet the high standards necessary to justify a variance under the County Code. We believe that a hearing will help address these land use concerns and help the applicants design a project that complies with the existing code. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. We look forward to receiving notice of the hearing date as soon as it set. Sincerely, Jillian Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP Cc (by electronic mail): Ruben Hernandez, CDCDJennifer Cruz, CDCD Sharon Anderson, County Counsel Ms. Nicole Ashar and Mr. Joseph Petroziello 11/4/2019 Rudder Law Group Mail - KMAC Meeting October 29, 2019 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1?ik=ed70044ed9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar803031226930666305&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-587760971288771048…1/3 Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> KMAC Meeting October 29, 2019 7 messages Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com>Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 8:14 PM To: melissaanneholmes@gmail.com Cc: patricktahara@comcast.net, jgioi@bos.cccounty.us, sande@cc.cccounty.us, sarena.burke@cc.cccounty.us, Nicole Ashar <nicoleashar@ymail.com> Bcc: Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> Dear Ms. Snyder: We represent the owners of the 118 St. Albans property in connection with Land Use Application #DP19-3019 to expand the 120 St. Albans Rd Property (the "Project"). On the basis of our discussions with neighbors of the Project, we understand that you approached several neighbors to solicit their specific support for the Project. We have signatures from 35 different neighbors who stated that you asked them to come to the KMAC meeting to support the Project, which, if true, is very troubling for my clients, who are concerned about receiving a fair and objective review of the Project. We also understand from a public records act ("PRA") response that you personally volunteered to provide to the neighborhood the necessary notice of the KMAC meeting tomorrow night. Unfortunately, my clients and one other neighbor, Donna Stanton at 134 Windsor Ave in Kensington, who are both known to have raised concerns about the Project, did not receive notice from you regarding the October 29, 2019 KMAC meeting. My clients instead learned about the KMAC meeting by calling County staff and through PRA responses. Ms. Stanton received notice about the meeting from my clients. This lack of required notice to Project opponents is particularly troubling given the statements from neighbors regarding your alleged efforts to campaign in favor of the Project. Under California law, all interested parties have the right to a hearing in front of "a fair and unbiased decision-maker under the due process clause." (See Noble v. City of Palo Alto (1928) 89 Cal.App.47, 51.) If there is evidence of an "unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of a decision-maker", that decision-maker must be disqualified from reviewing the application. (See Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal. App. 4th 470, in which a Planning Commission decision was vacated because one of the Commissioners showed clear bias by speaking out against a pending project.) While it may not be objectionable for a KMAC member to have a personal preference regarding a project, California law clearly prohibits public representatives from campaigning for or against any project that they are reviewing. Asking neighbors to attend a meeting to vocally support the Project while failing to provide these Project opponents with adequate notice, if true, would be clear examples of unacceptable bias and due process violations. It is particularly important for decision-makers to remain impartial when they live in the same area or have ties to a project applicant, in order to ensure a fair hearing and non-biased decision making in connection with land use decisions. Assuming the information we have received from such neighbors (stating that you campaigned in favor of the Project) is true, and we have no reason to believe that it is not, and given the fact that my clients still have not received notice from you about the KMAC meeting, we respectfully ask that you recuse yourself from discussing the Project at the October 29, 2019, KMAC meeting to ensure that KMAC holds a fair and impartial review of this Project. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Jillian -- Jillian B. Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201 Alameda, CA 94501 Direct: 415.867.6769 www.RudderLawGroup.com CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE ATTACHMENT A - EMAIL TO MS. SNYDER 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT D Application and Permit Center Community Development Counter 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: File #DP 19-3019, Aruna Bhat, and Telma Moreira December 13, 2019 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA Application Corrections to Staff Report Dear Ms. Bhat and Ms. Moreira: On behalf of our clients, the owners of 118 St. Albans Road, I am writing to clarify certain facts on the record and correct misstatements in the Staff Report issued by the County on December 10, 2019 (“Staff Report”), in advance of the public hearing set for December 16, 2019. We want to ensure that as the potential Zoning Administrators (“ZA”) for this hearing, you have all of the facts regarding the development proposed for 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington, CA (the “Project”) in application #DP- 19-3019 before issuing a decision. 1.Variance Required for an Expansion of the Three Story Structure and Setbacks a.The House is Three Stories The Staff Report suggests that while a variance was required for the expansion of the three-story house on the north side, a variance is no-longer required for a similar sized expansion on the same nonconforming structure – because it is now constructed on the south side of the building. This tortured definition defies logic and common sense. A building either is, or is not, three stories. It is not two stories on one side and three stories on another. An expansion of the top two floors of a three-story building requires a variance whether it is on the north or south side. The applicant’s own architect made this clear when he stated correctly in the February KMAC meeting that “A variance is required due to the fact that the house as it already exists is considered a 3-story structure, due to the fact that is built on a down-slope lot that places the first floor in excess of 4- feet above grade at the rear of the structure. Current zoning places a limit of 2 ½ stories on houses in this zoning district.” (Oral Testimony of Howard McNenny, applicant’s architect, KMAC meeting February 2019.) As repeatedly described in previous correspondence to County staff, for purposes of determining the number of stories, a basement counts as a story if the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point (CCC Code §82-4.266). A basement is further defined in the Kensington Combining District (“KCD”) as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower.” Based on these definitions, the ground floor is considered a story, and the entire house is three stories. We asked the County to provide any example, any legal precedent, in which the County relied on the novel interpretation that a variance only applies for expansion to a three story structure on one EXHIBIT D 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 2 side of the building, and the County has produced nothing. County staff has not provided any other example in which the County has used this twisted and inconsistent interpretation to avoid variance requirements. In determining whether a variance applies, the question is whether the proposed project expands a nonconforming use. Here, the proposed development expands the top two floors of a three-story structure, and clearly requires a variance. The practical implications of implementing the inconsistent approach suggested in the Staff Report would lead to chaos and legal disputes. Indeed, we can think of several instances in which this particularly tortured interpretation would set terrible precedent for the County and its ability to regulate development, leading applicants to design contorted additions to avoid variance requirements. Moreover, it is not appropriate for the County to bend over backwards looking for loopholes to avoid applying variance standards, particularly in this situation where million dollar views are at stake and significant impacts to neighbors would result from allowing such nonexistent loopholes. b.Setbacks Similarly, as stated several times previously, the proposed project does not comply with setback requirements, and accordingly, requires a variance. The Staff Report correctly cites the Contra Costa Code (“CCC”) Code requirement that “a reduced side yard minimum of 3 feet and a [minimum] aggregate side yard of 8 feet is allowed for any new construction (CCC Section 82-14.004).” It then goes on to incorrectly conclude that the addition and deck meet these setback requirements. Sheet A-3 of the application (attached for convenience as “Exhibit A”) shows that the new construction will allow for 3 feet on one side, and 2’10” existing on the other, for an aggregate of 5’10” with the proposed new construction. While three feet may be allowed for a single side yard, the new addition will fall well short of the aggregate requirement to have a minimum of 8’ for both side yards. Accordingly, a variance is required to allow for this continued inconsistency with the County’s Code. Unfortunately, County staff seems bound and determined to avoid a variance for this project, which seems particularly odd and troublesome given the significant concerns of surrounding neighbors and the need to avoid significant impacts to long-range views. It is well settled law in California that a County cannot pick and choose which portions of the code to apply. (See Broadway, Laguna etc. Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 779-780; See also Orinda Assn v Board of Supervisors, 182 Cal.App.3d 1145 (1986).) We respectfully request that the County correctly apply its land use regulations and require a variance for the proposed construction. 2.Land Use Permit is Required The Staff Report also suggests that a land use permit is not required to authorize the existing non- conforming 3-stories and setbacks. The Staff Report states: “The applicant proposes to expand the existing residential building, as allowed under the R-6 Zoning District. Contra Costa County (CCC) Section 82-8.006 requires a land use permit for expansion of non-conforming uses. The use in this case is residential, permitted by right in the R-6 Zoning District, and therefore, does not require a land use permit.” The CCC Code clearly defines “nonconforming use” to include a “building or structure on land that does not conform to Divisions 82 and 84 for the district in which it is situated” in addition to inconsistent uses (CCC 82-4.280.) This definition does not only include zoning ‘uses’ but also includes buildings and structures that do not conform with zoning requirements. In this case, as described in painstaking detail in previous correspondence to the County, the existing structure at 120 St. Albans Road does not comply either with the 2 ½ story requirement or the minimum setback 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 3 requirements. Accordingly, as acknowledged by staff, a land use permit is required to expand the existing nonconforming use. The Staff Report should be revised and the land use process amended for this reason alone. At the very least, a variance for the proposed continued inconsistency should be required, per the discussion above. 3. Views Will Be Affected– Upper and Lower Level a. Upper Level – Master Bathroom Views Significantly Impacted The Staff Report glosses over the most important issue to our clients – the significant view impacts caused by the proposed project. The Staff Report incorrectly suggests that the property only has west facing views. As is clear from the photos we have provided to staff, our clients’ property has expansive views of the South Bay, including the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco, that will be affected by the proposed project, on both the upper and lower level. Rather than visit the subject property, staff provides an incorrect description in the Staff Report based on inaccurate dimensions to suggest that southern views, which very much exist, will not be impacted by the proposed project. The Staff Report incorrectly states that the upper floor of the addition to the rear (west side) of the subject residence will only extend two and a half feet beyond the existing residence. It is unclear how staff determined this measurement because these specific dimensions are never identified in the application, which we note is a glaring omission. To the contrary, what is shown in the application, as indicated in the attached sheet A-3 (Exhibit A), is that the upper level addition will extend 7’ 2 ½” from the existing house. As shown, there is an existing nook that extends approximately 4 feet from the house on the upper level on the north side, leaving the proposed addition to extend approximately 3’ 2 ½” into our client’s expansive master bath views. It is hard to know the exact size of the existing nook because this critical dimension has been left out of the application, but any extension beyond the existing nook will block our clients’ expansive views from the master bath. (See attached Exhibit B.) At the very least, the application needs to be revised, and story poles installed, to confirm the extent of impacts to our clients’ master bath views. Unfortunately, the KMAC ignored our requests to have story polls installed. b. Lower Level – Kitchen Window Views Significantly Impacted To further highlight staff’s lack of care, due diligence, and concern in this process, the Staff Report erroneously asserts that “[t]he new deck is to replace the existing deck and extends 10.5 feet to the west from the new addition, which is only one and a half feet more than the existing deck.” (p.8). This statement is wrong for a number reasons. First, it is clear from the Application Sheet A-3 (Exhibit A), that the new deck proposed will not be located within the existing deck footprint, but rather will be constructed behind the new addition, which will be 5’ 2 ½” beyond the existing structure. The Staff Report states that the new deck is 10.5 feet (or 10’ 5”). The application notably fails to include this critical dimension of the deck, but assuming the Staff Report is correct, the project would result in a deck that extends at least 15’ 7 ½” out from the existing structure (5’ 2 ½” of the additional house plus 10’ 5” feet of the proposed new deck). The existing deck currently extends only 9 feet from the existing house. Accordingly, the new deck will extend nearly 6 feet (5’ 7½”) directly into the best part of our clients’ Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco views from their kitchen sink window. (See attached Exhibit C for a rendering of likely impacts.) Staff’s suggestion that there will only be 1 ½ feet of new deck is not only wrong, but reflects a complete lack of concern for the very significant view impacts that this project will cause. Had the County required the applicant to install story poles before recommending approval, staff would have realized their mistake, and one would hope, required the applicants to reduce the size of their 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 4 unnecessarily large new deck structure. Unfortunately, the County has ignored our request to have story poles installed and has recommended approval based on incorrect calculations. The fact that the Staff Report describes a proposed deck that is almost entirely outside of the original deck footprint as a ‘replacement deck’ further illustrates staff’s misunderstanding of the size and extent of the proposed project. These facts may seem like trivial numbers on a page to County staff, but as shown in the various photos that have been repeatedly provided to the County –attached here as Exhibits B and C for convenience – the proposed deck will significantly impact our clients’ current view from their kitchen sink window, a key selling point of their home. If a deck this large is approved, not only will our clients’ view of the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco be gone from this side of the house, but their privacy will be significantly impacted as well. Every time the applicants have people out on their deck, our clients will be forced to look at them instead of their previous Bay Bridge and San Francisco views. Having a deck this size impacts both long-range views and privacy and does not comply with either the KCD or the County Code requirements regarding variances. As confirmed in Ms. Margaret Mitchell’s May 2, 2019, email to us, the Project, even when constructed on the south side of the property must be designed “to avoid impacting the neighbor’s long range views, privacy” and property values. Unfortunately, the Project as designed still causes significant impacts to our clients’ long range views, privacy, and property values. As described in detail at the KMAC meeting on October 29, 2019, (which substantial evidence was sadly ignored), the proposed Project will cause impacts to our clients’ long-range views on both the first and second floors because: 1) the proposed expansion will go beyond the existing nook; and 2) the expansive deck will block Bay, Bay Bridge, and San Francisco views. While the full extent of the impacts cannot be determined because the application lacks specific dimensions for either component, and there are no story poles, it is clear that any expansion beyond the nook will impact long-range, million dollar views (see Picture #1, Exhibit B) and that the expansive deck (15’ 2 ½”) will impact our clients’ view of the Bay, downtown San Francisco, and the Bay Bridge (see Picture #2, Exhibit C). Our clients only desire is to have their views of the Bay, downtown San Francisco, and the Bay Bridge and privacy preserved. That is what the KCD and the variance standards require. We note that for other projects in the KCD, the County has taken a very hard look to preserve these kinds of views on other properties and always required a variance. It is unclear why the County is working so hard in this instance against our clients and recommending approval of such significant impacts in violation of its own regulations. 4. Property Values Will Be Affected The Staff Report erroneously suggests that our clients’ property values will not be impacted. Significant impacts to the kitchen window and master bath views will unquestionably impact our clients’ property values. Our clients currently have significant and long range views facing south, contrary to what the Staff Report suggests. Rather than address this issue and ask the applicants to reduce the size of their project to avoid these significant impacts, County staff glosses over the issue by laughably suggesting that “since the addition will be increasing the enjoyment and value of the [applicant’s] property, it will in turn increase the value of the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Petroziello property values will not decrease from the addition to the subject property. (p.7). This analysis is not only wrong, but it’s insulting. We have included a letter from the prominent real estate agent who sold our clients’ property who confirms that the property’s privacy and views from the kitchen window and master bath, which 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 5 views will be significantly impacted by the proposed project, are major selling points to this particular home. (See Exhibit D.) We provided this letter to County staff and to the KMAC, and they both chose to ignore this substantial evidence on the record regarding specific impacts to our clients’ views and property values. It is disingenuous for staff to suggest our clients’ property values will not be impacted because the neighboring property will increase in value. Ironically, the applicant’s property values would be increased by stealing our clients’ views. This is exactly the type of project the KCD Ordinance was created to prohibit. Even if the County was not required to issue a variance – which it clearly is – the project will violate KCD standards and should not be approved as currently designed. We have repeatedly explained to staff that a smaller addition could be constructed that would avoid these significant impacts simply by limiting the upper level addition to the size of the existing nook, removing the proposed window facing our clients’ master bath, and reducing the deck to the previous footprint size or very close thereto. While we appreciate County staff’s addition of Condition #3 regarding the upper level window, the vague language in this condition should be revised to clarify that this window needs to be removed to preserve our clients’ privacy, not simply frosted. 5.Notice and Due Process As indicated in previous correspondence to the County, the County’s review of this project, including the KMAC review, has been fraught with due process violations now exacerbated by the Staff Report. Rather than go into painstaking detail of each violation, we have included the relevant correspondence outlining the various due process violations that have occurred from the beginning, starting with a verbal commitment from a County planner to approve a variance before even reviewing the application, followed by countless failures by the KMAC to follow its own regulations to provide adequate notice, followed by coaching from an interested KMAC representative to avoid a variance, (See Exhibit E, letter to the County March 8, 2019), followed by active advocating on behalf of the project by a KMAC representative (See Exhibit F, Update to County re: KMAC Hearing, dated November 4, 2019), followed by a failure by County staff to ever meet with our clients, update our clients, or visit our clients’ property to adequately assess the situation. Perhaps most egregious was the latest KMAC meeting on October 29, 2019, which led to staff’s most recent approval. When presented with evidence that one of the KMAC members actively advocated on behalf of the project and failed to provide required notice to the two project opponents, the biased KMAC member not only refused to recuse herself to preserve fair and impartial decision-making, but then proceeded to vigorously advocate in favor of the project. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the County to disregard the KMAC recommendation in making its determination regarding the Project. Any agency action that reflects an abuse of discretion must be disregarded to avoid further tainting the land use process. In addition, the County has repeatedly failed to provide timely and adequate Public Records Act (“PRA”) responses to our clients to help us understand the proposed project and the very real ways in which their property will be significantly impacted. The County has forced our clients to hire land use counsel simply to understand the proposed development next door. Sadly, County staff has made it very difficult for our clients to protect their property rights, rights that are specifically protected by the KCD and land use law. We are hopeful that with this additional information, you can help rectify the situation and directly address our clients’ very real legal and property concerns. 6.Conclusion As indicated above and in the attached, this process has been fraught with due process issues and violations of planning and zoning law. The County has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com 6 regulations to avoid significant impacts to our clients’ long range views, privacy, and property values. We are confident that a reviewing court would find serious land use violations and abuse of discretion by the County throughout this process, and possibly even violations of CEQA. However, there is a way forward that would start to address the County’s past failures, address our clients’ very real concerns, and potentially avoid a protracted legal battle. We have stated repeatedly that if the applicants are willing to remove the north facing window, eliminate or significantly reduce the deck to its original footprint (to make it an actual replacement deck), and avoid an upper level expansion beyond the existing nook, it would significantly improve the project. These changes may even make the project eligible to meet the strict variance standards. While we appreciate the changes that the applicant has made to move the addition to the south side of the structure, additional changes are absolutely necessary to avoid significantly impacting our clients’ long range views, privacy, and property values. At the absolute minimum, we request that you require the applicants install story poles before approving the project to help clarify the actual view and privacy impacts this project will cause. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to discussing this further during Monday’s hearing. Sincerely, Jillian Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP Cc (by electronic mail): Supervisor District 1, John M. Gioia Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel John Kopchik, DCD Director Margaret Mitchell, DCD Ms. Nicole Ashar and Mr. Joseph Petroziello Exhibits Enclosed architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510)705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312)533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com sheet title 07/25/2019 A-3 sheet number project title consultant Floor Plans (Proposed) revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road First Floor Plan Garage D W P.R. Kitchen Dining Room Entry Living Room UP Breakfast Deck16'-5"21'-1"5'-2"A-A A4 B-B A5 16'-2" Closet 2'-10" 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNewProperty line Property line Overhang above DN 14'-0" Driveway C-C A5.1 Approx. 56 ft to rear prop. line3'-0"5'-2 1/2"Second Floor Plan Open to Below DN Bath Hall W.I.C.ExistingNew7'-11"11'-10"13'-8"7'-0"A-A A5 B-B A5 10 1/2" Relocated window Bedroom 1 C-C A5.1 Master Bath 3'-0"Master Bedroom Bedroom 3 / Office 7'-2 1/2"Bedroom 2 1 2 3 321 A BB A 1 2 3 321 A BB A Attachment A architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510)705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312)533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com sheet title 07/25/2019 A-5.1 sheet number project title consultant Cross Section C-C revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road 1 2 3 321 A BB A Section C-C Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Attic Entry Dining Room Master Bath Crawl Space Hall Existing New Construction Shower Attachment B - 1 - EXISTING VIEW Attachment B - 2 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS Attachment C-1 - EXISTING VIEW - LOWER LEVEL Attachment C-2 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS LOWER LEVEL Attachment D 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E-1 EXHIBIT E-2 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT F 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT G 2 r ITINNS AVE ol j (, E< %- Y", ! I o '} I ,.9 i-w z ( i =o (}ztr 9. : s 4 -r:o szo A I c-2 E tr - E E - I I I E E E I 7 05t,ftl ? I /,\ SitaPlan ! i !l a FI B ri IL ,] - i: ; ,1I I zt ,r EXHIBIT G-1 A B "T'llNST I I I I I \ I J x ...J � \ i.___::,4-dr fl=�=r=--=-"'"''ITT ..I t., z 0 ::, lL 118 SI. Albans Rd. 11 I I , I l 1 1 ! �, J, I w I' �:I u.J er· �I " ·10 112· 0 SitePlan Scafe. 1,1,4· • r-<r , / I I I I \ \ \ \ (/) a. "' 1-- I I I I @------�-; II I I I , I I I _,_.., ... □ ("") ... I ii, 122 St. Albans Rd. � z -;: E...,.v.,. __ (!l c:. r a z G> .,, m C � g -= � !,, :& ,; � !? "' � z0 0 5 10 15 FT 1SSLJ1 ■DWW"dtMtJl'-YAIA. -1e,u,-,iTAffAvlN..( ,ttU,a.WlA""'/Ot. �IC)�IWI - 120 St Al!,;w,s Road Kens-nit-on CA Site Pbn IH•J� C-2 c-­,.._,� IXl!il�,_ r ... W"f',.. .. ,. A B EXHIBIT G-2 Margaret Mitchell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Howard, Margaret Mitchell Tuesday, December 31, 2019 2:50 PM Howard McNenny Mary Hanley; David Herberich RE: 120 St. Albans I will get a copy of your attachment to Aruna for Monday. Happy New Year! Margaret From: Howard McNenny <h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 11:31 AM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Mary Hanley <mc4hanley@gmail.com>; David Herberich <dherberich@gmail.com> Subject: 120 St. Albans Dear Margaret: I hope you are back from jury duty by now, and will be available for the January 6 continuation of our hear ing. At the initial hearing, there were some issue raised that I am sure you would be well able to answer. One concerned setbacks­ something I did not expect to be in contention at all. Our proposal shows the addition on the south side to be set back 3 ' - 0" from the property line, which is allowed as long as the setback on the other side is at least 5'-0". In our case, the setback on the north sides is IO' -0", or twice what is required. This dimension was left out of the floor plan, so I have added it, and attach below. Please verify that we are in compliance on this issue. Thank you and best wishes for the new year. Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-1671 Cell: (510) 207-7019 h.mcnenny@comcast.net EXHIBIT G-3 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT H Second Floor PIan z Balh 0 10 15 20 25 Fr i i i I I I i i t i j I i i I i I i i I l I i I i i i i I i i i I I i i i I I I I i I i I I i I I i i I i I i I i i i I i I i i i I i I i I i I i I I i i I I l f il /1\\ \\j,/ ) Bath EXHIBIT H 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT I 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT J EXHIBIT J 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT K EXHIBIT K-1 EXHIBIT K-2 EXHIBIT K-3 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT L EXHIBIT L 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT M EXHIBIT M 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT N 1/28/2020 Rudder Law Group Mail - 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=ed70044ed9&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar4059090584344338161&simpl=msg-a%3Ar4059090584344338161 1/2 Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com>Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:25 PM To: aruna.bhat@dcd.cccounty.us Cc: Nicole Ashar <nicoleashar@ymail.com> Bcc: Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> Ms. Bhat: Thank you for reconsidering DP # 19-3019 regarding the proposed development at 120 St. Albans Road. As a follow up to Monday's hearing, and before you make your determination, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a few items. First, you mentioned receiving written testimony from KMAC representatives. As this testimony most likely addresses the claims we have raised on the record, I would appreciate the chance to respond to this testimony, or at the very least, to review it. It is highly unusual for an 'impartial decision-maker' to file testimony in support of a project and does not in anyway support KMAC representative claims that they have been impartial. I would appreciate it if you would forward the KMAC testimony at your earliest convenience, which will save my clients from having to file a 9th Public Records Act request with the County to receive information relevant to their property rights. At Monday's hearing, the architect for the applicant suggested that the proposed expansion was a two-story addition on a two-story structure. That is simply not correct. Both the Staff Report and the Application make clear that the existing structure is three stories, which is prohibited by CCC §84-4.802. The applicant’s architect made this clear when he stated correctly in the February KMAC meeting that “a variance is required due to the fact that the house as it already exists is considered a 3-story structure.” (Oral Testimony of Howard McNenny, applicant’s architect, KMAC meeting February 2019.) This fact remains true whether the addition is on the north or south side of the structure. As described in extensive correspondence to the County, a proposed expansion of the top two floors of a three-story building requires a variance - pure and simple. For purposes of determining the number of stories, a basement counts as a story if the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than six feet above grade at any point (CCC Code §82-4.266), which is absolutely the case here. A basement is further defined in the Kensington Combining District (“KCD”) as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower.” Again, this is the case with the house on 120 St. Albans Road. The analysis does not hinge in anyway on the definition of a 'crawl space' as suggested by County staff and repeated by the applicant's architect in Monday's hearing. Moreover, it is unclear why the County would rely on a novel - and unsupported - legal interpretation to avoid a variance in violation of its own Code, particularly in this situation, in which a neighbor has very real, legitimate concerns about significant impacts to long-range views, privacy, and property values. Approving the current design without a variance would not be legally supportable and would lead to a protracted legal battle to force the County to comply with its own laws. The primary goals here are to avoid significant impacts to long-range views, privacy, and property values, and of course, to comply with planning and zoning laws. Some suggestion was made yesterday that the County is allowed to authorize some impacts to views and privacy. We would remind you of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance, which requires the County to: a) minimize impacts to surrounding neighbors; b) protect the value and enjoyment of the neighbor's property; and c) maintain property values. Authorizing obstructions to my client's only long range views of the Bay Bridge on the upper floor would not serve to minimize impacts or protect my client's value and enjoyment of their property. We have provided substantial evidence to suggest that there will be significant impacts to long range views from the upper level and out of the kitchen sink window on the lower level, which will also significantly impact my clients' privacy and property values. If the County believes the project will not cause such significant impacts, it is critical that they require the applicant to install story poles to establish this fact before allowing applicants to construct a permanent expansion. Without story poles to prove otherwise, the County will be making a finding contradictory to the substantial evidence on the record. We also remind you that the variance standards require that the County (indeed the applicant) make a showing that there is no grant of special privilege here. Allowing one neighbor to essentially steal the view of another would clearly be a grant of special privilege without a proper showing of special need. We also note that the County continues to reference the new deck as a replacement. As described at length at the first hearing on December 16, 2019, the new deck is proposed to start approximately 5 1/2 feet out from the existing structure, EXHIBIT N 1/28/2020 Rudder Law Group Mail - 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=ed70044ed9&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar4059090584344338161&simpl=msg-a%3Ar4059090584344338161 2/2 which would lead to an additional 6-7 feet from the existing house, significantly impacting my clients' long range views, privacy, and property values. The Staff Report incorrectly states a critical dimension of the deck, claiming that it will only stick out 1.5 feet. Given the proposed house addition plus the new 10.5 foot deck, the new deck will be mostly outside of the existing deck footprint (which is only 9 feet from the existing structure). These critical miscalculations could cost my clients the loss of an astounding long-range view and privacy from their kitchen sink window, key selling points of their home. These inaccuracies also could be avoided by installing story poles to show the actual impacts associated with the proposed design. There are simple solutions that the County must employ to avoid a protracted legal battle. Require the applicants to install story poles to establish the actual impacts from the project. If the project does not permanently damage my client's long range views, privacy, and property values, then perhaps a variance and DP can be approved. Another, more direct, solution, if the applicants are unwilling to install story poles, would be to have the applicants redesign the project to actually minimize impacts on my clients' views by: 1) reducing the size of the enormous deck footprint to 3.5 feet, (to stay within the existing footprint and be a true replacement deck); and 2) reducing the extent of the upper level to sit behind the existing structure (or 'nook') to preserve my client's long range views on the upper level. If the County fails to follow its own Code, acknowledge the substantial evidence on the record, and approves the project as designed without sufficient minimization measures, my clients will be left with no option but to appeal the decision. Finally, any proposal to revise the design to address the setback issue, remove the window, or reduce the size of the deck/upper level should include resubmittal of project designs to ensure proper review and vetting before approval. This approval process has been fraught with due process violations and inattention to detail that has cost my clients (and the applicants) dearly. In addition to the extensive PRA requests we've been forced to file to simply understand the project, the County has failed to provide adequate notice or adequate meeting minutes of administrative decisions. Indeed, one cannot even hear the audio from Monday's hearing on this matter on the County's website. We strongly recommend that the County carefully work to address these laps in procedure and rectify our due process concerns by following the solutions suggested above. Sincerely, Jillian -- Jillian B. Blanchard Rudder Law Group, LLP 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201 Alameda, CA 94501 Direct: 415.867.6769 www.RudderLawGroup.com CONFIDENTIAL MESSAGE This message contains information, which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.  Thank you. 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT O 1/29/2020 Rudder Law Group Mail - 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=ed70044ed9&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar7048370335097681956&simpl=msg-a%3Ar7048370335097681956 1/2 Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com>Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:55 PM To: Lawrence Huang <Lawrence.Huang@dcd.cccounty.us>, Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: Nicole Ashar <nicoleashar@ymail.com> Bcc: Jillian Blanchard <jblanchard@rudderlawgroup.com> Lawrence and Margaret: Unfortunately, the County has chosen yet again to stonewall my clients -instead of considering their very reasonable requests and concerns- by failing to respond to a simple request for a copy of the KMAC written testimony regarding DP#19-3019, which testimony directly addresses my clients' arguments - See below. This continued effort to stonewall my clients and prohibit a transparent look into the County's land use processes only further evidences the County's bias against my clients and the various due process violations associated with this particular land use approval. A simple request for relevant written testimony that will directly affect my clients' property should not be withheld and should not require a formal Public Records Act ("PRA") request to obtain. And yet, here we are again, forced to submit the 12th PRA Request for this project, simply to understand the arguments being raised against my clients. Please consider this a supplemental PRA request to receive Any and All "Records" or "Writings" (as defined below) relating to any plans, submittals, applications, or Communications from or to the County relating to the Property (120 St. Albans Road), including any reference to land use application DP#19-3019, #KR19- 0011 and/or any other applications for development ("collectively, Land Use Applications") that have been submitted regarding the Property between October 9, 2019- today (January 16, 2020), including any communications between the County and the applicants regarding any Land Use Applications. Specifically, please provide us with a copy of any and all written submittals from KMAC members to the County's Zoning Administrator regarding the Property and the ongoing Land Use Applications. For purposes of this request and the avoidance of doubt, we provide the following clarifying definitions for the following terms: “All” and “any” each mean “any and all.” “Communications” mean all verbal and written communications of every kind between and among the parties specified, including but not limited to telephone calls, conferences, conversations, meetings, notes, correspondence, emails, and memoranda. “County” means Contra Costa County, including its officers, staff, managers, appointees, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, attorneys, and consultants, including in particular, employees of the Department of Conservation and Development. “KMAC” means the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee, including its officers, staff, managers, employees, contractors, agents, representatives, attorneys, and consultants. “Property” mean that certain real property commonly referred to as 120 St. Albans Road in Kensington, California. “Records” include, without limitation, all writings and documents of every type in your possession, control, or custody, including but not limited to the following items, whether printed or reproduced by any process, including documents sent and received by electronic mail, or written or produced by hand: computer data files, information stored in electronic media, including on computer tapes, disks, or diskettes, tapes, inputs, outputs, and printouts; notes; letters; correspondence; communications; telegrams; memoranda; summaries and records of telephonic and telegraphic communications; summaries and records of personal conversations; diaries; appointment books; reports (including any and all draft, preliminary, intermediate, and final reports); surveys; studies; comparisons; tabulations; budgets; workpapers; charts; plans; maps; drawings; engineering and other diagrams; photographs; film; microfilm; microfiche; tape and other mechanical and electrical audio and video recordings; data compilations; log sheets; ledgers; vouchers; accounting statements; books; pamphlets; bulletins; minutes and records of meetings; transcripts; stenographic records; testimony and exhibits, including workpapers; copies, reports, and summaries of interviews and speeches; reports and summaries of investigations; opinions and reports of consultants; reports and summaries of negotiations; press releases; newspaper clippings; drafts and revisions of draft of documents; and any and all other records, written, electrical, mechanical, and otherwise. EXHIBIT O 1/29/2020 Rudder Law Group Mail - 120 St. Albans Road - DP# 19-3019 - ZA Review https://mail.google.com/mail/u/2?ik=ed70044ed9&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar7048370335097681956&simpl=msg-a%3Ar7048370335097681956 2/2 “Relating To” means concerning, pertaining to, referring to, describing, mentioning, containing, evidencing, constituting, dealing with, discussing, considering, analyzing, studying, reporting on, commenting on, setting forth, supporting, recommending or otherwise concerning in any manner whatsoever the subject matter of the request. “Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by email or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored. We believe that no express provisions of law exist that exempt the Records from disclosure. As you determine whether this request seeks copies of disclosable public records, be mindful that Article I, Section 3 (b)(2) of the California Constitution requires the County to broadly construe a statute, court rule, or other authority if it furthers the right of access to the information we have requested and to narrowly construe a statute, court rule, or other authority if it limits the public’s right of access. To the extent that there are any responsive Records, or portions thereof, which the County determines to be exempt from disclosure and seeks to withhold, please provide us with prompt notification of the County’s intent to withhold such Records, together with an index and general description of such Records, the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial of our request, and the reason(s) for the denial. If a portion of the information we have requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code Section 6253(a) additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be released. We agree to appropriately reimburse you for your copying, scanning, and reproduction costs. Where feasible, we strongly prefer electronic copies of all responsive Records. It is our understanding that, by submitting this single request to your office, you will notify all appropriate divisions and departments within the County to produce any and all responsive Records. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6253(b), we ask that you make the Records “promptly available,” to avoid impeding my clients' rights to a fair appeal of any County decisions regarding this Project. Sincerely, Jillian [Quoted text hidden] 1101 Marina Village Pkwy, Suite 201, Alameda, CA 94501 www.RudderLawGroup.Com EXHIBIT P Margaret Mitchell Flom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Howard McNenny < h.mcnenny@comcast.net> Tuesday, January 07, 2O2O 12:73 PM Margaret Mitchell Mary Hanley 120 St, Albans Dear Margaret: As you probably know, after the hearing yesterday, the Zoning Administrator decided to take all under consideration and render the verdict in two weeks. I don't know if she will be conferring with you or with Ruben in the mean time, but if so, there is somethinB I might suggest you clarify. This would be on the subject of Ms. Blanchard's position that we should be required to go through the variance process. She made the claim that she could find on precedent for an addition being approved to an existing non-conforming house without going through this process. I am sorry I was not quick enough to mention it, but there is in fact a very obvious example of exactly that: the neighbor's own house at 118 5t. Albans. I remember asking you if the addition to that house ever got a variance and you said no...only a Development Plan. clearly, this is a 3-story house. Just as an aside, I also would ask that the photos used as evidence in Ms. Blanchard's brief be viewed with some skepticism. I have heard that someone at the neighboring house may have been leaning out a window to get the most extreme perspective possible. Nothing I saw myself, but I do think the KMAC photos should carry the most weight. Thanks for the assistance. Howard McNenny, AIA 1039 Santa Fe Ave, Albany CA Tel: (510) 705-L671 Cell: (510) 207 -7079 h. m cne n ny@co m ca st. net 1 EXHIBIT P 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.000 1:282 General Plan: SH General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.000 1:282 Zoning: R-6, -TOV -K Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -SD-1 (Single Family Residential - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) R-6 -TOV -K (Single Family Residential - Tree Obstruction of View Ordinance and Kensington Combining District) R-6, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Two Family Residential - Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Planned Unit - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Multiple Family Residential - Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.010 1:564 Aerial Photograph Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510) 705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312) 533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet title 07/25/2019 C-2 sheet number project title consultant Site Plan revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road 1 2 3 321 A BB A EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING867R=489.74'ABCEDFGHIDRIVEWAY AREA=4,681± SQ. FT.WALKWAYCHIMNEYOHWDECKSTEPS LANDINGEXISTING BUILDING120 SAINT ALBANS ROADSSCO 119.24'119.24'L=35 .00'?=04°05'41" CONC WALLSTEPSST E P S STE P S NAIL & TAG L.S.90223.00'3.00'3' WIRE FENCE5' CHAINLINK FENCEBUSH18"T5"T11"TBRICK WALLCONC WALLBRICK WALLBRICK WALLCONC CONC WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALLWOOD WALL PIL L A R FF 1ST EL=499.43'FF 2ND EL=508.46'PK HT EL=524.42'CHIMNEY248.65' TO WESTMINSTER AVE. NAIL & TAG L.S.9022 5005 0 1 500 499499 499 499499 498 497 496 495 494 493 492 49 1 490489489 CONC501.62CONC501.02 CONC 500.96BRK500.45BRK499.47 BRK499.98BRK500.03BRK498.50TOC499.76TOC500.78TOC500.47CONC500.23CONC498.43CONC498.12CONC497.93TOC/GB497.95TOC/GB500.14TOC500.75TOC501.59GR501.05GR499.70TOC499.28GR498.39GR500.01 GR 498.78BRK499.02BRK498.94BRK498.85BRK498.66DI498.42 GR 498.75 GR 498.97GR500.47GR500.07GR499.98GR500.52GR500.93GR499.42GR500.13GR500.78GR498.93GR498.90CONC501.52F500.52GP491.16F492.28TOC494.10TOC496.59TOC498.00TOC487.60489.58CONC489.62CONC489.06CONC488.94 CONC 489.08CONC490.89 CONC 491.23 CONC 499.08DECK498.91DECK498.80DECK498.94DECK498.99DECK484.54487.95 GR 487.95 GR487.89 GR 489.00 GR488.91GR489.28GR489.25GR490.91GR490.76 GR490.48GR489.88GR485.41GRF489.02 CONC490.32CONC490.37CONCSite Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"125'-0"Deck Below Driveway 3'-0" SIDE SETBACK LINEApproximate drip line Approximate drip line 0 5 10 15 FT 118 St. Albans Rd. Rima Moussa and Nicole Moussa 122 St. Albans Rd. Eileen Van Heusen DS DS DS 20'-3"Approx. 56 ft. to property line(E) Wood retaining wall, approx. 1'-6" high (E) Camelia bushes to remain 3'-0" SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) Retaining wall, approx. 3'-0" high Note: All retaining walls area existing; no new retaining walls are proposed. 3'-0" Deck2'-10 1/2"Property LineProperty Line4'-10" 10'-0"10'-6" architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510) 705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312) 533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com sheet title 07/25/2019 A-3 sheet number project title consultant Floor Plans (Proposed) revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road First Floor Plan Garage D W P.R. Kitchen Dining Room Entry Living Room UP Breakfast Deck16'-5"21'-1"5'-2"A-A A4 B-B A5 16'-2" Closet 2'-10" 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNewProperty line Property line Overhang above DN 14'-0" Driveway C-C A5.1 Approx. 56 ft to rear prop. line3'-0"5'-2 1/2"10'-0" 4'-10"10'-8"4'-5"Second Floor Plan Open to Below DN Bath Hall W.I.C.ExistingNewA-A A5 B-B A5 Relocated window Bedroom 1 C-C A5.1 Master Bath Master Bedroom Bedroom 3 / Office 7'-2 1/2"Bedroom 2 10'-11"22'-7"7 1/2" 1 2 3 321 A BB A 1 2 3 321 A BB A Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, August 12, 2020 – 6:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot Addition and Deck Replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Appellant: Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e). Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Development Plan for a Kensington Design Review for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the existing single-family residence. II.RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 11 Zoning Administrator’s decision for #DP19-3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. III. BACKGROUND This hearing is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s January 22, 2020 decision to approve a Kensington design review for a 326-square-foot addition to a residence located at 120 St. Albans Road in the Kensington area. The Kensington design review request is for the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing single-family residence. The project was first submitted as County File #VR18-1032, requesting approval of a three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) located towards the northern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is three stories due to a small basement/storage space. The project was then redesigned to a two-story addition relocated towards the southern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is two stories above a crawl space, thus eliminating the variance. A Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011) was submitted on July 26, 2019. Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period for the Kensington design review. A development plan application (County File #DP19-3019) for the two-story addition was then submitted on September 18, 2019. The project was scheduled at the December 16, 2019 Zoning Administrator hearing. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item, public comments were heard, and the item was continued to and open public hearing on January 6, 2020. At the January 6, 2020 meeting, additional public comments were heard. The Zoning Administrator closed and continued the item to the January 22, 2020 meeting. At the January 22, 2020 meeting, the Zoning Administrator re-opened the public hearing for this item, and more testimony was heard. The Zoning Administrator approved the item with changes to finding #3 and finding #7, and changes to Condition of Approval (COA) #3 and the addition of COA #4 and COA #5. Staff received one letter on February 3, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject property is located within the Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH) General Plan Land Use designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6) zoning district, Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) combining district. C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is exempt under CEQA CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 3 of 11 Guidelines Section 15301(e), which includes additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure, whichever is less. D. Lot Creation: The subject property is Lot 7 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace, Block 5. The existing single-family residence was constructed in 1938. E. Previous Applications: a. VR18-1032: A variance application for a 371-square-foot three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) at the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on October 31, 2018. The project was redesigned and submitted under County File #KR19-0011. b. KR19-0011: A Kensington design review application for a 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on July 26, 2019. A hearing was requested and County File #DP19-3019 was filed. V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the area of Kensington. The subject property is surrounded by residential lots ranging in size from 3,696 square feet to 8,400 square feet in area, all of which have been developed with residential dwellings and related accessory structures. Interstate 80 is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the property, the El Cerrito city limit is approximately 0.6 miles west and 0.6 miles north of the property, and the Richmond city limit is approximately 0.3 miles east of the property. Properties within the surrounding neighborhood are rectangular in shape, are approximately 35 to 50 feet in average width, and are approximately 90 to 120 feet deep. As such, many of the surrounding parcels are substandard in size with respect to the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size and 60-foot average width required for the R-6 Zoning District. Like the surrounding properties, the subject property is a rectangular shaped 4,641 square feet in size parcel, is 39 feet in average width, and is approximately 119 feet deep. There is one 2,006-square-foot single-family residence located towards the front (east side) of the property, there are no associated accessory structures, and there are two trees located in the front of the property. The subject property is gently sloped at the very front of the property, and then continues at a steeper slope downhill from the front of the existing residence to the rear of the property. The existing two bedroom, one and a half bathroom, three-story residence was built on the subject property in 1938. The main floor of the residence contains a small entry way, a living room (with access to a deck), a dining room, a kitchen with a breakfast nook, a half bathroom, and a one-car garage. The deck extends approximately 9 CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 4 of 11 feet from the rear of the residence. The upper floor contains a master bedroom, a smaller bedroom that is accessed through the office space (which has access to a small balcony at the rear of the residence), and a bathroom. The lower level contains a 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the residence, with the rest of the lower level containing unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Kensington design review development plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper floor, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west, with a second access to the deck from the dining room. The existing deck will be replaced by a new deck that extends approximately 10.5 feet west from the addition. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The remodel of the existing interior space, plus the small addition, will allow for a master bedroom with an ensuite master bathroom and walk-in closet, three smaller bedrooms, and an additional bathroom. The addition to the lower level of the residence will add five square feet of space to the existing storage room (above which will only be one floor at this new addition), and the rest will contain unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VII. KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (KMAC) The project was heard at the Tuesday, October 29, 2019 KMAC meeting. KMAC voted unanimously to approve the project. VIII. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION On February 3, 2020, Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello (neighbors at 118 St. Albans Road, Kensington) filed an appeal with the Department of Conservation and Development against the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the proposed project. The appeal points have been summarized and addressed below. A. Summary of Appeal Point #1: The ground floor of the existing residence is considered a story, and therefore the entire house is three stories. The addition would extend all three stories (where only two and a half stories is allowed), and therefore a variance is required. Staff Response: The Kensington Combining District ordinance defines crawl spaces as “an area at, just above, or just below grade and enclosed within the building or structure, which CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 5 of 11 is unconditioned and not habitable as a result of insufficient ceiling height to meet applicable building code standards (Section 84-74.404(d))” and defines basements as “any area in a building or structure where the finished floor directly above the area is less than four feet above preconstruction grade or finished grade, whichever is lower (Section 84- 74.404(b)).” As defined, basements and crawl spaces are not included in gross floor area calculations and are not considered living areas. Per Section 82-4.266, a basement or cellar is considered a story when the “finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar is more than six feet above grade at any point.” The existing residence contains a 140-square-foot storage room in the rear or northwest corner of the lower level of the residence that has a ceiling height of approximately seven feet with two stories located above and is therefore three stories in this location of the residence only. Aside from the northwest corner of the residence, the remainder of the existing residence is two stories above an area that is inaccessible, uninhabitable, unfinished, and unconditioned, and is therefore considered a crawl space. The new addition extends an area that is two stories above a crawl space, and the addition itself is also two stories above a crawl space, and therefore, the new construction does not require a variance for the number of stories. B. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The project does not comply with setback requirements and requires a variance. Staff Response: Since the lot was created prior to the adoption of zoning for the area and the width of the front of the property is 35 feet, sliding scale applies and side yards of 3 feet and with an aggregate side yard of 8 feet is allowed for any new construction (Section 82-14.004). The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. The new addition and deck meet the minimum 3-foot side yard setback required, and when combined with the existing 5-foot side yard setback to the existing nook at the rear of the residence depicted on the plans submitted with the application, met the minimum 8-foot aggregate side yard setback required. The applicant later submitted a site plan at the Zoning Administrator hearing showing that the actual existing side yard setback to the existing nook at the rear of the residence is 4-feet 10- inches; therefore, the aggregate side yard setback is 7-feet 10-inches. The Zoning Administrator added condition of approval (COA) #5, which states that the deck and addition must be set back by 3-feet 2-inches in order to comply with the 8-foot aggregate setback. Plans are reviewed by the Community Development Division (CDD) prior to issuance of a building permit, and CDD will confirm that the required setback is met. The Building Inspection Division conducts inspections during construction to ensure that projects are built to the approved specifications. CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 6 of 11 C. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The project may cause significant impacts to long-range views of the Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco by extending at least 3.5 feet into the appellants’ current views. The deck is not a replacement deck; it is an unnecessarily large deck that will extend an additional 5.5 feet into the best part of the appellants’ Bay Bridge view from their kitchen sink window. County staff repeatedly avoided the appellants’ requests for meetings and site visits to see the impacts to the views. Staff Response: The appellant’s residence is located adjacent to the subject property to the north. The views of the San Francisco Bay from the subject property and the appellants’ property are to the west (including southwest and northwest). Although the upper floor of the addition will extend approximately seven feet from the existing residence, the addition will only extend approximately 2.5-feet beyond the existing nook of the subject property which is located on the opposite end of the rear of the residence, which is what will be visible to the appellants. The new deck extends approximately an additional 8.5 feet beyond the new upper floor. As seen on the attached aerial imagery, the appellants’ residence extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject residence, providing many views of the bay that will remain beyond the addition. As also seen on aerial imagery, many of the residences in the surrounding neighborhood have rear decks of a similar size or larger, including the appellants’ residence, which has two rear decks of a similar size, one of which was extended under County File #DP08-3016. To address the concerns regarding the new deck, the Zoning Administrator added COA #4, which states that the deck railing shall be cable or glass material to minimize the impacts to the neighboring property. Staff contacted the appellants several times to set up a site visit prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, but the appellants were repeatedly unavailable and asked if photos were sufficient. Therefore, Staff’s analysis of the views are based on the analysis of the plans, and photos provided by the appellants, the applicant, and the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC). Photos of the south facing views from the master bathroom and the kitchen submitted by the appellants to illustrate the impacts to their bay views, differ from those taken by KMAC and the applicant at a site visit conducted by KMAC. Despite the differences, all of the photos show that a small portion of the views to the southwest will be impacted by the addition, but none of the western facing bay views will be impacted by this project. Therefore, the impact to the views will not be significant. D. Summary of Appeal Point #4: The large size of the new deck will impact the appellants’ privacy from the master bathroom upstairs, and “every time the applicants have people out on their deck, the Neighbors will be forced to look at them from their kitchen sink window instead of their previous Bay Bridge and Bay views” (Appeal letter, page 7). CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 7 of 11 Staff Response: The plans submitted by the applicant identify a window in the master bathroom portion of the addition that faces northwest, which may have impacted the privacy of the appellants’ residence. In order to reduce privacy impacts, the Zoning Administrator revised COA #3, stating that the applicant shall remove this window from the addition. The intent of the proposed deck is to be used and enjoyed by the owners of the subject property. Residences are allowed to have decks, and much like other residences within the neighborhood, the appellants’ residence even has more than one deck. The deck does not increase impacts to privacy more than what is existing. The proposed deck is on the lower level of the residence and the appellants’ master bathroom is on the top level of the residence, so the privacy of the master bathroom is not compromised. As stated previously, the Zoning Administrator added COA #4 to reduce impacts to the neighboring views. E. Summary of Appeal Point #5: As stated by the real estate agent that sold the property to the appellants, the impacts to the appellants’ views and privacy will in turn impact the value of the property. Staff Response: The view is to the west and the addition will not block the existing western views. Typically, additions add value to the subject property and the neighborhood. Given the scale of this modest addition of 326 square feet and extension of the existing deck, the project is consistent with the other neighbors that have added to their residences. The Kensington Combining district standards recognize the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property. In general, adding square footage to a residence, creating a better floor plan that is consistent with the existing residence, and increasing views adds enjoyment and value to a property. F. Summary of Appeal Point #6: The Kensington Combining District Ordinance adds another layer of review required by the County to protect neighboring views, privacy, and property values. As currently designed, the project violates these standards and the Zoning Administrator based their decision on the applicant’s interests. As previously suggested, the project should be reduced so that the upper floor of the addition does not extend further than the existing house on the north side, and so the deck does not extend further than the existing deck. Story poles should be installed to determine the projects’ true impacts to the views. Staff Response: The purpose of the Kensington Combining District is to ensure that “future development recognizes the rights of property owners to improve the value and CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 8 of 11 enjoyment of their property while minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors and not substantially impairing the value and enjoyment of their neighbors' property [and to] promote the community's values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale (Section 84-74.204).” As previously stated, COA #3 has been modified to reduce the privacy impacts caused by the northern facing window in the master bathroom portion of the addition, and COA #4 has been added to ensure the railing of the deck does not impact the appellants’ views to the southwest. As shown in photos provided by the appellant, the applicant, and KMAC, the views to the southwest will be minimally impacted by the modest addition, and none of the views to the west will be impacted. As seen in aerial photographs, the appellants’ residence extends much farther to the west than the subject residence, and therefore has full views to the west that will not be impacted by this project. Therefore, the project has been designed and modifications have been made to ensure that the project meets the Kensington Combining District requirements. G. Summary of Appeal Point #7: It is possible that this project has aesthetic impacts that have not been properly reviewed under CEQA, and could potentially have significant environmental impacts, making a categorical exemption inappropriate. Staff Response: Additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure are exempt from review. Single-family residences are also exempt. The addition of 326 square feet to an existing single-family residence and potential impacts to views from private property does not constitute a significant impact to the environment. H. Summary of Appeal Point #8: Through the entire process, the County stonewalled the appellants’ attempts to learn about the proposed project by denying them access to the file on multiple visits to the County. The appellants were forced to hire land use counsel, who have filed 12 Public Records Act (PRA) requests to learn about the project. County staff did not respond to the neighbors until they hired a land use firm. Staff Response: County staff returned concerned phone calls and emails from the appellants, even prior to the hiring of a land use firm, and has met with them in person on multiple occasions. The project file has been available to the appellants, and County staff is unaware of the appellants being denied access to the file. County staff followed proper procedures for reviewing the project and informed the appellants of the process. I. Summary of Appeal Point #9: The County has failed to provide mandatory notice of the various land use proposals at the subject property, even after the appellants requested to be noticed. County staff failed to respond to meeting requests. County staff refused to CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 9 of 11 visit the appellants’ property to better understand the issues. After meeting with County staff, who did not take the appellants’ concerns seriously, County staff verbally guaranteed approval to the applicants. Staff Response: The County properly noticed neighbors within 300-feet of the subject property, which includes the appellants (property owners of 118 St. Albans Road), for County File #KR19-0011. In accordance with the County Code, no other public notifications have been sent for the project other than the original notification for the Kensington design review, and the noticing for the Zoning Administrator hearings. An affidavit has been prepared for these County notifications to neighbors. When County staff was asked about a site visit to the appellants’ property, it was regarding a site visit conducted by KMAC as part of their review process. As previously stated, when County staff requested a site visit prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, the appellants were repeatedly unavailable and offered photos instead. County staff met with the appellants when they arrived at the County office without an appointment multiple times when staff was available. J. Summary of Appeal Point #10: The staff report includes various falsehoods and inaccuracies, including the dimension of the proposed deck, the dimensions of the upper level, the elevation of the property, and stating that there are no views to the south. The applicant has repeatedly misrepresented the project, and even admitted that the project requires a variance. Staff Response: To clarify previous explanations and descriptions, dimensions of the project have been further explained in this staff report. The views to the south are of the subject property’s single-family residence. The views to the west, including those to the southwest, are minimally impacted by this very modest addition to the existing residence. The misunderstanding of a crawl space versus a story has led to the belief that a variance is required. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing single-family residence is located within the R-6 Zoning District, and the addition continues the existing residential use of the property. The existing residence already consists of a third story due to the 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the lower level of the residence. The addition is on the southern portion of the west side of the residence where there are two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The existing residence is 31 feet 5 inches in height with a pitched roof. The addition is CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 10 of 11 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence and has a flat roof. The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. Based on the year the lot was established, reduced side yard setbacks are allowed for new construction. The addition and deck meet the minimum three-foot side yard setback required, and with the addition of COA #5, the deck and addition will also meet the required aggregate side yard setback of 8 feet. Overall, the project meets the required setbacks and the maximum height allowed in the R-6 zoning district. The Kensington Combining District (-K) includes seven criteria for approval of residential projects. As detailed in the attached Kensington Combining District Findings, staff finds that the project satisfies all seven criteria. The existing views of the bay are to the west. The addition extends five feet to the west beyond the existing residence, and the new deck extends approximately 10.5 feet to the west beyond the addition. The additions are minimal and therefore, will not substantially impact views to the west. As the patterns of the sun are generally in an east to west direction, the small addition would not impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties. Although the new deck extends further west than the existing deck, the neighbors’ privacy will be minimally impacted, since there is an existing deck and the same view of the neighboring homes can be seen from the back yard. There are new windows in the addition that face northwest and southwest, but they are angled such that the subject property owners will be able to enjoy the bay views without looking directly into the neighbors’ homes. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The proposed interior remodeling will not change the footprint or exterior design of the residence. As such, no part of this project will significantly affect the architectural appearance of the residence, or the neighborhood in general as seen from the public roadway. Based on the parcel size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area allowed is 2,400 square feet. Although the proposed project would increase the gross floor area of the residence from 2,006 square feet to 2,332 square feet, it is still below the allowed threshold. Therefore, the project is compatible with the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (–TOV) regulations do not apply to the proposed project, because no new trees, nor removal, nor alteration of existing trees are proposed which would alter views in the neighborhood. X. CONCLUSION Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family Residential High-Density (SH) General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and CPC – August 12, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 11 of 11 purpose of the Single-Family Residential District (R-6), Kensington Combining District (-K), and Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (-TOV). Two conditions of approval have been added to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; one that requires the deck and addition to be setback 3-feet 2-inches in order to comply with the 8-foot aggregate side yard setback, and one that requires the deck railing to be cable or glass. The Zoning Administrator also modified COA #3 to address concerns brought up by the appellant regarding privacy. No compelling evidence has been provided by the appellant to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal and approve County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Attachments: •Findings and Conditions of Approval •Maps: Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph •Photos: Aerial Views, Site Photos, Photos from Appellant, Applicant, and KMAC •Site Plan with Additional Setback Measurements •Project Plans •Appeal Letter •Public Comments: 2 Letters of Opposition •ZA Staff Reports •PowerPoint Presentation 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019; HOWARD MCNENNY (APPLICANT) AND MARY HANLEY (OWNER) FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1.Traffic: Policy 4-c under the Growth Management Program (GMP) requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. The addition to the existing residence will generate minimal traffic trips to and from the project site during construction and no additional traffic trips post construction. Therefore, a traffic impact analysis is not required. 2. Water: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD has reviewed the project, and the project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for water service in the area. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires that new development demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives sanitary sewer service from the Stege Sanitary District. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for sanitary sewer service in the area. 4.Fire Protection: The fire protection standards under the GMP require that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district areas, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The project site is within the El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department jurisdiction and will be required to comply with current fire codes and regulations. The addition to the existing residence would not increase demand for fire services. The Fire Department will review the project for a building permit. 5.Public Protection: Public protection standards under the GMP require that a Sheriff Facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. The addition to the existing residence and will not increase the demand for police service facilities as the project will not increase the population. 6.Parks & Recreation: Parks and recreation standards under the GMP require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. The project will not 2 increase the demand for parks or recreation facilities, as the project will not increase the housing stock in the County. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: No portion of the subject property is located within a 100-year flood area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, the project does not involve the removal, construction, or alteration of any dams or levees within the County. Therefore, further analysis in relation to increased flood risks as a result of the project is not required. B. Kensington Combining District Findings The Kensington Combining District (-K) requires that any permit for development or expansion of the envelope of a building or structure satisfy seven criteria before a project is approved: 1. Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property; Staff Finding: The project includes an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The addition creates more living space and the interior remodel of the upstairs allows for additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom. The development enhances the livability of the residence, and thereby improves the value and enjoyment of the residence. 2. Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design; Staff Finding: The subject property is not vacant, so this criterion does not apply. 3. Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors; Staff Finding: The development has been designed to minimally impact surrounding neighbors. Partly in response to comments from the neighbor to the north, the addition is located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west and the deck will extend another 10.5 feet. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The addition and deck meet the required minimum side yard setback, and have been designed so as to minimally impact the neighbors 3 while still allowing the enjoyment of the views. The applicant has agreed to eliminate the northwestern facing master bathroom window, which in turn minimizes impacts to the neighboring residence on the north side. The project has minimal impact upon surrounding neighbors. 4. Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property; Staff Finding: As previously mentioned, the overall project will have minimal impacts on the surrounding neighbors. The addition has been designed so as to extend the existing residence as little as possible, while still allowing for a remodel of the interior to increase the usability and enjoyment of the existing living space. Although the addition extends to the west and will be visible to the neighbors when looking north and south, the views of the San Francisco Bay are to the west, and will not be blocked by the addition. The existing house is located downhill of the neighbors to the east, and the addition will be lower than the existing residence, so the addition will not impact views of the San Francisco Bay visible from properties at a higher elevation. Therefore, the project preserves the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. 5. Maintaining the community's property values; Staff Finding: The project has minimal impacts on views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. The addition will increase the property value of the subject property by adding more living space to the existing residence, including more bedrooms and an additional bathroom, and will therefore increase the property value of the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, existing community’s property values are preserved. 6. Maximizing the use of existing interior space; Staff Finding: The addition will add approximately 326-square-feet of living space to the existing residence, which allows for an interior remodel of the upper floor, including the addition of bedrooms and another bathroom. The overall scope of the project maximizes the use of existing interior space, and minimally increases the existing footprint of the residence. 7. Promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety; Staff Finding: The project does not change the land use of the subject property and, as described earlier, has minimal impact on surrounding properties. The new development improves the value of the property. Also, the project will not use or 4 emit hazardous substances beyond what is normal for a residential property. The project will be required to comply with applicable building and fire codes. Based on the foregoing reasons, the project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety of the Kensington community. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019 Project Approval 1. Development is approved as generally described in the application materials received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on September 18, 2019, and is subject to the conditions listed below. General Provisions 2. Any development or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application may require the review and approval of CDD and may require the filing of an application for modification to a Development Plan and a public hearing, if deemed necessary. 3. The applicant shall eliminate the northwestern facing master bathroom window and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by CDD prior to obtaining a building permit. 4. The deck railing shall be cable railing as shown on sheet A5 elevation dated September 18, 2019, OR shall be glass in compliance with the Building Code requirement to minimize impacts to neighboring property. 5. The deck and the addition on the southern side shall be setback by 3’ 2” in order to comply with the 8’ 0” aggregate setback. Payment of Fees 6. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $1000.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 7. The applicant shall comply with the following restrictions and requirements: 5 A. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (state and federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) Washington’s Birthday (federal) Lincoln’s Birthday (state) President’s Day (state and federal) Cesar Chavez Day (state) Memorial Day (state and federal) Independence Day (state and federal) Labor Day (state and federal) Columbus Day (state and federal) Veterans Day (state and federal) Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) Day after Thanksgiving (state) Christmas Day (state and federal) For information on the calendar dates that these holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol California Holidays: http://www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm B. Transportation of large trucks and heavy equipment is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. C. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition and stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors shall be located as far away from existing residences as possible. E. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored onsite. 6 F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be disposed of as necessary. G. Any debris found outside the site shall immediately be collected and deposited in appropriate receptacles. ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed project: • Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division • Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division • East Bay Municipal Utility District • Stege Sanitary District • El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department Maps Parcel Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Aerial Photograph 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.000 1:282 General Plan: SH General Plan SV (Single Family Residential - Very Low) SL (Single Family Residential - Low) SM (Single Family Residential - Medium) SH (Single Family Residential - High) ML (Multiple Family Residential - Low) MM (Multiple Family Residential - Medium) MH (Multiple Family Residential - High) MV (Multiple Family Residential - Very High) MS (Multiple Family Residential - Very High Special) CC (Congregate Care/Senior Housing) MO (Mobile Home) M-1 (Parker Avenue Mixed Use) M-2 (Downtown/Waterfront Rodeo Mixed Use) M-3 (Pleasant Hill BART Mixed Use) M-4 (Willow Pass Road Mixed Use) M-5 (Willow Pass Road Commercial Mixed Use) M-6 (Bay Point Residential Mixed Use) M-7 (Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Mixed Use) M-8 (Dougherty Valley Village Center Mixed Use) M-9 (Montalvin Manor Mixed Use) M-10 (Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use) M-11 (Appian Way Mixed Use) M-12 (Triangle Area Mixed Use) M-13 (San Pablo Dam Road Mixed Use) M-14 (Heritage Mixed Use) CO (Commercial) OF (Office) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industry) HI (Heavy Industry) 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.000 1:282 Zoning: R-6, -TOV -K Zoning R-6 (Single Family Residential) R-6, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -SD-1 (Single Family Residential - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) R-6 -TOV -K (Single Family Residential - Tree Obstruction of View Ordinance and Kensington Combining District) R-6, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-6 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-7 (Single Family Residential) R-7 -X (Single Family Residential - Railroad Corridor Combining District) R-10 (Single Family Residential) R-10, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-12 (Single Family Residential) R-15 (Single Family Residential) R-20 (Single Family Residential) R-20, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40 (Single Family Residential) R-40, -FH -UE (Single Family Residential - Flood Hazard and Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-40, -UE (Single Family Residential - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) R-65 (Single Family Residential) R-100 (Single Family Residential) D-1 (Two Family Residential) D-1 -T (Two Family Residential - Transitional Combining District) D-1, -UE (Planned Unit - Urban Farm Animal Exclusion Combining District) M-12 (Multiple Family Residential) M-12 -FH (Multiple Family Residential - Flood Hazard Combining District) M-17 (Multiple Family Residential) M-29 (Multiple Family Residential) 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.010 1:564 Aerial Photograph Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations Photographs Aerial Images Site Visit Photographs Photographs from the Appellant, the Applicant, and KMAC 90 ft N➤➤N © 2018 Google © 2018 Google © 2018 Google 40 ft N➤➤N © 2018 Google © 2018 Google © 2018 Google Photographs from Appellant Exterior Perspective--Previous Design Exhibits from Applicant Exterior Perspective- 7/25/19 Design First Floor Plan Garage D W P.R. Kitchen Dining Room Entry Living Room UP Breakfast Deck16'-5"21'-1"5'-2"16'-2" Closet 2'-10" 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNewProperty line Property line Overhang above DN 14'-0" Driveway Approx. 56 ft to rear prop. line3'-0"5'-2 1/2"4'-10 1/8" 10'-0"10'-8"4'-6"26'-5" Open to Below DN Bath Hall W.I.C.ExistingNewRelocated window Bedroom 1 Master Bath Master Bedroom Bedroom 3 / Office 7'-2 1/2"Bedroom 2 10'-11"22'-7"7 1/2" Second Floor Plan 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNew Master Bedroom Office M. Ba Sightline Analysis from 118 St. Albans 7/17/19 7'-2 1/2"0 5 10 15 20 25 FT Photo from118 St. Albans (KMAC Photo with story poles from previous proposal) Rendered View from118 St. Albans (Proposed) Photos from KMAC Site Plan with Additional Setback Measurements architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510) 705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312) 533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com 1/4" = 1'-0" sheet title 07/25/2019 C-2 sheet number project title consultant Site Plan revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road 1 2 3 321 A BB A EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING867R=489.74'ABCEDFGHIDRIVEWAY AREA=4,681± SQ. FT.WALKWAYCHIMNEYOHWDECKSTEPS LANDINGEXISTING BUILDING120 SAINT ALBANS ROADSSCO 119.24'119.24'L=35 .00'?=04°05'41" CONC WALLSTEPSST E P S STE P S NAIL & TAG L.S.90223.00'3.00'3' WIRE FENCE5' CHAINLINK FENCEBUSH18"T5"T11"TBRICK WALLCONC WALLBRICK WALLBRICK WALLCONC CONC WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALL WOOD WALLWOOD WALL PIL L A R FF 1ST EL=499.43'FF 2ND EL=508.46'PK HT EL=524.42'CHIMNEY248.65' TO WESTMINSTER AVE. NAIL & TAG L.S.9022 5005 0 1 500 499499 499 499499 498 497 496 495 494 493 492 49 1 490489489 CONC501.62CONC501.02 CONC 500.96BRK500.45BRK499.47 BRK499.98BRK500.03BRK498.50TOC499.76TOC500.78TOC500.47CONC500.23CONC498.43CONC498.12CONC497.93TOC/GB497.95TOC/GB500.14TOC500.75TOC501.59GR501.05GR499.70TOC499.28GR498.39GR500.01 GR 498.78BRK499.02BRK498.94BRK498.85BRK498.66DI498.42 GR 498.75 GR 498.97GR500.47GR500.07GR499.98GR500.52GR500.93GR499.42GR500.13GR500.78GR498.93GR498.90CONC501.52F500.52GP491.16F492.28TOC494.10TOC496.59TOC498.00TOC487.60489.58CONC489.62CONC489.06CONC488.94 CONC 489.08CONC490.89 CONC 491.23 CONC 499.08DECK498.91DECK498.80DECK498.94DECK498.99DECK484.54487.95 GR 487.95 GR487.89 GR 489.00 GR488.91GR489.28GR489.25GR490.91GR490.76 GR490.48GR489.88GR485.41GRF489.02 CONC490.32CONC490.37CONCSite Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"125'-0"Deck Below Driveway 3'-0" SIDE SETBACK LINEApproximate drip line Approximate drip line 0 5 10 15 FT 118 St. Albans Rd. Rima Moussa and Nicole Moussa 122 St. Albans Rd. Eileen Van Heusen DS DS DS 20'-3"Approx. 56 ft. to property line(E) Wood retaining wall, approx. 1'-6" high (E) Camelia bushes to remain 3'-0" SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) Retaining wall, approx. 3'-0" high Note: All retaining walls area existing; no new retaining walls are proposed. 3'-0" Deck2'-10 1/2"Property LineProperty Line4'-10" 10'-0"10'-6" architect H oward F. McNenny, AIA stamp client issue date scale address 1039 SANTA FE AVENUE ALBANY, CA 94706 phone (510) 705-1671 email h.mcnenny@comcast.net All information on this drawing constitutes the orginal and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. contact(s)David Herberich Mary Hanley address Kensington, CA phone (312) 533-0346 email mc4hanley@gmail.com sheet title 07/25/2019 A-3 sheet number project title consultant Floor Plans (Proposed) revisions 120 St. Albans Road Kensington CA 120 St. Albans Road First Floor Plan Garage D W P.R. Kitchen Dining Room Entry Living Room UP Breakfast Deck16'-5"21'-1"5'-2"A-A A4 B-B A5 16'-2" Closet 2'-10" 0 5 10 15 20 25 FTExistingNewProperty line Property line Overhang above DN 14'-0" Driveway C-C A5.1 Approx. 56 ft to rear prop. line3'-0"5'-2 1/2"10'-0" 4'-10"10'-8"4'-5"Second Floor Plan Open to Below DN Bath Hall W.I.C.ExistingNewA-A A5 B-B A5 Relocated window Bedroom 1 C-C A5.1 Master Bath Master Bedroom Bedroom 3 / Office 7'-2 1/2"Bedroom 2 10'-11"22'-7"7 1/2" 1 2 3 321 A BB A 1 2 3 321 A BB A Project Plans Appeal Letter Public Comments Zoning Administrator Staff Reports Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, December 16, 2019 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a Kensington Design Review Development Plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 12 II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. III. BACKGROUND The Kensington design review request is for the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing three-story single- family residence. The project was first submitted as County File #VR18-1032, requesting approval of a three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) located towards the northern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is three stories due to a small basement/storage space. Th e project was then redesigned to a two-story addition relocated towards the southern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is two stories above a crawl space, thus eliminating the variance. A Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011) was then submitted on July 26, 2019. Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period for the Kensington design review. A development plan application (County File #DP19-3019) was then submitted on September 18, 2019. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject property is located within the Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH) General Plan Land Use designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) zoning district. C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which includes additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure, whichever is less. D. Lot Creation: The subject property is Lot 7 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace, Block 5. The existing single-family residence was constructed in 1938. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 3 of 12 E. Previous Applications: a. VR18-1032: A variance application for a 371-square-foot three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) at the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on October 31, 2018. The project was redesigned and submitted under County File #KR19-0011. b. KR19-0011: A Kensington design review application for a 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on July 26, 2019. A hearing was requested and County File #DP19-3019 was filed. V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the area of Kensington. The subject property is surrounded by residential lots ranging in size from 3,696 square feet to 8,400 square feet in area, all of which have been developed with residential dwellings and related accessory structures. Interstate 80 is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the property, the El Cerrito city limit is approximately 0.6 miles west and 0.6 miles north of the property, and the Richmond city limit is approximately 0.3 miles east of the property. Properties within the surrounding neighborhood are rectangular in shape, are approximately 35 to 50 feet in average width, and are approximately 90 to 120 feet deep. As such, many of the surrounding parcels are substandard in size with respect to the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size and 60-foot average width required for the R-6 Zoning District. Like the surrounding properties, the subject property is a rectangular shaped 4,641 square feet in size parcel, is 39 feet in average width, and is approximately 119 feet deep. There is one 2,006-square-foot single-family residence located towards the front (east side) of the property, there are no associated accessory structures, and there are two trees located in the front of the property. The subject property is gently sloped at the very front of the property, and then continues at a steeper slope downhill from the front of the existing residence to the rear of the pr operty. The existing two bedroom, one and a half bathroom, three-story residence was built on the subject property in 1938. The main floor of the residence contains a small entry way, a living room (with access to a deck), a dining room, a kitchen with a breakfast nook, a half bathroom, and a one-car garage. The deck extends ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 4 of 12 approximately 9 feet from the rear of the residence. The upper floor contains a master bedroom, a smaller bedroom that is accessed through the office space (which has access to a small balcony at the rear of the residence), and a bathroom. The lower level contains a 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the residence, with the rest of the lower level containing unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Kensington design review development plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper floor, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west, with a second access to the deck from the dining room. The existing deck will be replaced by a new deck that extends approximately 10.5 feet west from the addition. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two- foot overhang over the new deck. The remodel of the existing interior space, plus the small addition, will allow for a master bedroom with an ensuite master bathroom and walk-in closet, three smaller bedrooms, and an additional bathroom. The addition to the lower level of the residence will add five square feet of space to the existing storage room (above which will only be one floor at this new addition), and the rest will contain unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division : In a returned agency comment request form dated October 8, 2019, Building Inspection staff commented that compliance with current building codes is required and that a one-hour fire rated wall is required at new perimeter walls located five feet or less from the property line. B. Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH): In a letter dated October 28, 2019, CCEH stated that a permit will be required for any well or soil boring, and that abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under a permit from the CCEH. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 5 of 12 C. El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Protection District: No comments have been received to date. D. Stege Sanitary District: In a returned agency comment request form dated October 3, 2019, the Sanitary District approved the project “as-is”. E. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD): In a letter dated October 1, 2019, EBMUD indicated that if additional water service is needed, a request for a water services estimate to determine the costs and conditions of providing additional water service to the development will need to be submitted. F. City of El Cerrito: No comments have been received to date. G. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC): At the KMAC meeting held on Tuesday, October 29, 2019, KMAC recommended approval of the project with no conditions. H. Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District: In a returned agency comment request dated September 25, 2019, the District staff stated that they had no comments. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT Staff received two letters in opposition to the Kensington Design Review application during the 34-day public comment period. An updated hearing request letter was also received, but after the 34-day public comment period. The following contains staff’s response to each public comment. A. Donna Breger Stanton – 134 Windsor Ave., Kensington Comment: The drawings are unclear as to what is existing versus what is new, and the deck is too close to the property line. Staff Response: A full set of plans are available and can be viewed at the Department of Conservation and Development. The new deck is three feet from the property line, which meets the required three-foot minimum side yard setback and will have to meet fire safety standards required by building code. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 6 of 12 B. Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello – 118 St. Albans Rd., Kensington Comment: A land use permit is required for the expansion of a nonconforming use. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to expand the existing residential building, as allowed under the R-6 Zoning District. Contra Costa County (CCC) Section 82-8.006 requires a land use permit for expansion of non-conforming uses. The use in this case is residential, permitted by right in the R -6 Zoning District, and therefore, does not require a land use permit. Comment: A variance is required due to the number of stories, height, setbacks, and exceedance of the Kensington Combining District’s threshold standards. Staff Response: The existing residence is three stories (where two and a half stories is allowed) due to a 140-square-foot storage room in the lower level of the northwest corner of the residence. The addition is expanding the southern portion of the west side of the residence, where the existing residence is two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above a an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above, and therefore, a variance is not required for the number of stories. The existing residence is 31 feet 5 inches in height (where 35 feet maximum is allowed) and has a pitched roof. The proposed addition is 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence, and has a flat roof. Overall, a variance is not required for the height of the project. Since the lot was created prior to the establishment of the R-6 Zoning District standards and the front property line is 35 feet wide, a reduced side yard minimum of 3 feet and a reduced aggregate side yard of 8 feet is allowed for any new construction (CCC Section 82-14.004). The addition and deck meet the minimum 3-foot side yard setback required. Therefore, a variance is not required for the setbacks. Based on the subject property’s size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area (GFA) allowed is 2,400 square feet. The existing residence is 2,006 ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 7 of 12 square feet and the addition is 326 square feet, so the GFA will be 2,332 square feet. This GFA remains below the threshold. Comment: The addition does not meet the intent and purpose of the Kensington Combining District, as the addition blocks their views, includes a window that would look directly into their house, and decreases their property values. Staff Response: The 118 St. Albans Road property is north of the subject property. The views of the San Francisco Bay from the subject property and the 118 St. Albans Road property are to the west. The upper floor of the addition to the rear (west side) of the subject residence extends approximately two and a half feet beyond the existing residence, and the deck at the lower level extends an additional approximately 8.5 feet beyond the upper floor. The residence at 118 St. Albans Road extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject residence, and will therefore remain approximately 17.5 feet further to the west than the subject residence. Photos of the south facing views from the master bathroom of the 118 St. Albans Road residence were submitted to planning staff to illustrate the impacts to their bay views. Based on these photos, a small portion of the views to the south will be slightly impacted, but none of the western facing bay views will be impacted by the addition at the subject property. Therefore, there will not be a significant impact to views. The addition at the subject property includes a window in the master bathroom that faces northwest, which may impact the privacy of the Petroziello residence. In order to reduce privacy impacts, revisions to this window will be required for the review and approval of the Conservation and Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits (see Condition of Approval #3). The Kensington combining district standards recognize the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property. In general, adding square-footage to a residence, creating a better floor plan, and increasing views adds enjoyment and value to a property. Since the addition will be increasing the enjoyment and value of the subject property, it will in turn increase the value of the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Petroziello property values will not decrease from the addition to the subject property. Comment: The County failed to provide adequate notice regarding planning ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 8 of 12 applications pertaining to the subject property. Staff Response: The County properly noticed neighbors within 300-feet of the subject property, which includes the property owners of 118 St. Albans Road for County File #KR19-0011. In accordance with the County Code, no other public notifications have been sent for the project other than the original notification for the Kensingtion design review, and the noticing for this hearing. Comment: The project would be significantly improved if the applicant would remove the north facing window, eliminate or significantly reduce the deck, and avoid expansion beyond the existing nook. Staff Response: Condition of Approval #3 has been added to address the privacy impacts due to the northern facing window in the addition to the subject residence. The existing deck of the subject residence extends 9 feet to the west. The new deck is to replace the existing deck and extends 10.5 feet to the west from the new addition, which is only one and a half feet more than the existing deck. Therefore, staff is recommending that the deck may remain as proposed. The addition extends approximately two and a half feet beyond the existing nook. As previously stated, the Petroziello residence will extend approximately 17.5 feet further than the proposed addition which means that the proposed addition will have a minimal impacts to south facing views and no impacts to views of the bay to the west. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. General Plan: The subject property is located in an area of the County with a Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) Land Use designation. The primary uses permitted in this land use designation include detached single-family homes and accessory structures. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper level, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The proposed addition and modifications to the existing single-family residence will not change the existing residential use, which is consistent with the primary uses permitted in this land use designation. The County General Plan has adopted policies for specific geographic areas of the County in addition to the countywide policies. Pursuant to the General ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 9 of 12 Plan’s Map of Unincorporated Communities with Adopted Area Policies, the subject property is located within the Kensington specific geographical area. The policies for the Kensington area provide reasonable protection for existing residences, preservation of views of scenic natural features and the developed environment, design compatibility with nearby development, and provisions for adequate parking. The proposed development on the subject property will not increase the total height of the residence and is located at the rear of the residence which is downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence. The views of the bay enjoyed by the neighboring properties are mainly to the west, so although the addition will be visible when looking north or south towards the neighboring properties, the bay views will not be impacted. The addition is located at the rear of the property and will not be visible from the street. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The addition will not increase the need for more parking or eliminate any of the existing parking. The addition is small enough that it will minimally impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties, especially the property to the north which extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject property. Therefore, this project will not disturb the protections of existing residences with regard to views, design compatibility, parking, privacy and access to sunlight and thus will not conflict with the adopted policies of the Kensington specific geographic area. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6) Zoning District, a Kensington Combining District (-K) and a Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (-TOV). Generally speaking, the intent of the R-6 Zoning District is provide for orderly development of single-family residential uses, accessory structures and the uses normally auxiliary to them. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square- foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The existing single-family residence is located within the R-6 Zoning District, and the addition continues the existing residential use of the property. The existing residence already consists of a third story due to the 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the lower level of the residence. The addition is on the southern portion of the west side of the residence where ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 10 of 12 there are two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The existing residence is 31 feet 5 inches in height with a pitched roof. The addition is 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence, and has a flat roof. The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. Based on the year the lot was established, reduced side yard setbacks are allowed for new construction. The addition and deck meet the minimum three-foot side yard setback required. Overall, the project meets the required setbacks and the maximum height allowed in the R- 6 zoning district. In part, the intent of the Kensington (-K) Combining District is to provide specific regulations to fairly and efficiently implement the Contra Costa County General Plan policies for the Kensington Area. The regulations of the combining district are also intended to promote the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The existing views of the bay are to the west. The addition extends five feet to the west beyond the existing residence, and the new deck extends approximately 10.5 feet to the west beyond the addition. The additions are minimal and therefore, will not substantially impact views to the west. As the patterns of the sun are generally in an east to west direction, the small addition would not impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties. Although the new deck extends further west than the existing deck, the neighbors’ privacy will be minimally impacted, since there is an existing deck and the same view of the neighboring homes can be seen from the back yard. There are new windows in the addition that face northwest and southwest, but they are angled such that the subject property owners will be able to enjoy the bay views without looking directly into the neighbors’ homes. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The proposed interior remodeling will not change the footprint or exterior design of the residence. As such, no part of this project will significantly affect the architectural appearance of the residence, or the neighborhood in general as seen from the public roadway. Based on the ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 11 of 12 parcel size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area allowed is 2,400 square feet. Although the proposed project would increase the gross floor area of the residence from 2,006 square feet to 2,332 square feet, it is still below the allowed threshold. Therefore, the project is compatible with the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The –TOV Combining District furthers the Kensington Combining District’s goals, as its intent is to provide a method for property owners to gain restoration of views and sunlight lost due to tree growth by another property owner. The proposed development does not include any alteration, addition or removal of any trees; therefore the –TOV ordinance does not apply to the proposed project. C. Appropriateness of Use: The project site is within an established single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The proposed development is residential in nature and is an addition to an existing single-family residence. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the established use of the property. X. CONCLUSION The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, to include an interior remodel of the upstairs and replacement of an existing deck, at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-6), Kensington (-K) Combining, and the Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV) Combining Districts. Therefore, staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached conditions of approval. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 12 of 12 Attachments:  Findings and Conditions of Approval  Maps – Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, and Aerial Photograph  Public Comments  Agency Comments  Project Plans  Photographs File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_12_16_19.doc 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019; HOWARD MCNENNY (APPLICANT) AND MARY HANLEY (OWNER). I. FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: Policy 4-c under the Growth Management Program (GMP) requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. The addition to the existing residence will generate minimal traffic trips to and from the project site during construction and no additional traffic trips post construction. Therefore, a traffic impact analysis is not required. 2. Water: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD has reviewed the project, and the project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for water service in the area. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires that new development demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives sanitary sewer service from the Stege Sanitary District. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for sanitary sewer service in the area. 4. Fire Protection: The fire protection standards under the GMP require that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district areas, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The project site is within the El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department jurisdiction and will be required to comply with current fire codes and regulations. The addition to the existing residence would not increase demand for fire services. The Fire Department will review the project for a building permit. 5. Public Protection: Public protection standards under the GMP require that a Sheriff Facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. The addition to the existing residence and will not increase the demand for police service facilities as the project will not increase the population. 6. Parks & Recreation: Parks and recreation standards under the GMP require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. The project will not 2 increase the demand for parks or recreation facilities, as the project will not increase the housing stock in the County. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: No portion of the subject property is located within a 100-year flood area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, the project does not involve the removal, construction, or alteration of any dams or levees within the County. Therefore, further analysis in relation to increased flood risks as a result of the project is not required. B. Kensington Combining District Findings The Kensington Combining District (-K) requires that any permit for development or expansion of the envelope of a building or structure satisfy seven criteria before a project is approved: 1. Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property; Staff Finding: The project includes an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The addition creates more living space and the interior remodel of the upstairs allows for additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom. The development enhances the livability of the residence, and thereby improves the value and enjoyment of the residence. 2. Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design; Staff Finding: The subject property is not vacant, so this criterion does not apply. 3. Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors; Staff Finding: The development has been designed to minimally impact surrounding neighbors. Partly in response to comments from the neighbor to the north, the addition is located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west and the deck will extend another 10.5 feet. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The addition and deck meet the required minimum side yard setback, and have been designed so as to minimally impact the neighbors 3 while still allowing the enjoyment of the views. Therefore, the project has minimal influence on the surrounding neighbors. 4. Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property; Staff Finding: As previously mentioned, the overall project will have minimal impacts on the surrounding neighbors. The addition has been designed so as to extend the existing residence as little as possible, while still allowing for a remodel of the interior to increase the usability and enjoyment of the existing living space . Although the addition extends to the west and will be visible to the neighbors when looking north and south, the views of the San Francisco Bay are to the west, and will not be blocked by the addition. The existing house is located downhill of the neighbors to the east, and the addition will be lower than the existing residence, so the addition will not impact views of the San Francisco Bay visible from properties at a higher elevation. Therefore, the project preserves the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. 5. Maintaining the community's property values; Staff Finding: The project has minimal impacts on views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. The addition will increase the property value of the subject property by adding more living space to the existing residence, including more bedrooms and an additional bathroom, and will therefore increase the property value of the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, existing community’s property values are preserved. 6. Maximizing the use of existing interior space; Staff Finding: The addition will add approximately 326-square-feet of living space to the existing residence, which allows for an interior remodel of the upper floor, including the addition of bedrooms and another bathroom. The overall scope of the project maximizes the use of existing interior space, and minimally increases the existing footprint of the residence. 7. Promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety; Staff Finding: The project does not change the land use of the subject property and, as described earlier, has minimal impact on surrounding properties. The new development improves the value of the neighboring properties. Also, the project will not use or emit hazardous substances beyond what is normal for a residential property. The project will be required to comply with applicable building and fire 4 codes. Based on the foregoing reasons, the project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety of the Kensington community. I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019: Project Approval 1. Development is approved as generally described in the application materials received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on September 18, 2019, and is subject to the conditions listed below. General Provisions 2. Any development or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application may require the review and approval of CDD and may require the filing of an application for modification to a Development Plan and a public hearing, if deemed necessary. 3. The applicant shall provide revisions to the northwestern facing master bathroom window (such as removing the window, frosting the window, orienting the window horizontally, etc.), to be reviewed and approved by CDD prior to obtaining a building permit. Payment of Fees 4. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $1000.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 5. The applicant shall comply with the following restrictions and requirements: A. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (state and federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) Washington’s Birthday (federal) 5 Lincoln’s Birthday (state) President’s Day (state and federal) Cesar Chavez Day (state) Memorial Day (state and federal) Independence Day (state and federal) Labor Day (state and federal) Columbus Day (state and federal) Veterans Day (state and federal) Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) Day after Thanksgiving (state) Christmas Day (state and federal) For information on the calendar dates that these holidays occur, please visit t he following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol California Holidays: http://www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm B. Transportation of large trucks and heavy equipment is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. C. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition and stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors shall be located as far away from existing residences as possible. E. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored onsite. F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be disposed of as necessary. G. Any debris found outside the site shall immediately be collected and deposited in appropriate receptacles. 6 ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed project:  Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division  Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division  East Bay Municipal Utility District  Stege Sanitary District  El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, January 6, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued Open Public Hearing Item This is a continued public hearing for a Kensington Design Review Development Plan application. The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square- foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. ZA – January 6, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 2 II. BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2019 meeting, the Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item. Public comments were heard, and the item was left open and continued to the January 6, 2020 hearing. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator APPROVE County File #DP19- 3019. File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_1_6_20.doc Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Wednesday, January 22, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ CONTINUED CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a continued public hearing for a Kensington Design Review Development Plan application. The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square- ZA – January 22, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 2 foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. II. BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2019 meeting, the Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item. Public comments were heard, and the item was left open and continued to the January 6, 2020 meeting. At the January 6, 2020 meeting, additional public comments were heard. The Zoning Administrator closed and continued the item to the January 22, 2020 meeting. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator APPROVE County File #DP19- 3019. File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_1_22_20.doc PowerPoint Presentation DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington Contra Costa County Planning Commission Wednesday, August 12, 2020 6:30 P.M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Development Plan for a Kensington Design Review for an approximately 326- square-foot two-story addition and construction of a new deck at the rear of the existing single-family residence located at 120 St.Albans Road in the Kensington area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. 2 3 4 5 BACKGROUND ■A Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011)was submitted on July 26,2019. ■Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period. ■A development plan application (County File #DP19-3019)was then submitted on September 18,2019. ■The project was scheduled at the December 16 ,2019 Zoning Administrator hearing.The project was continued twice until the Zoning Administrator approved the item at the January 22,2020 meeting with changes to finding #3 and finding #7,and changes to Condition of Approval (COA)#3 and the addition of COA #4 and COA #5. ■Staff received one letter on February 3,2020,appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission. 6 SITE PLAN 7ExistingProposed ELEVATIONS 8 Existing Proposed FLOOR PLAN 9 Existing Proposed PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS 10 SUMMARY OF APPEAL POINTS ■Variances for three stories and the setbacks should be required for the addition. ■The project will impact views. ■The project will impact privacy for the master bathroom and kitchen. ■The project will impact the property value. ■The project violates the standards of the Kensington Combining District Ordinance. ■Concerns regarding aesthetic impacts under CEQA. ■The appeal also discusses concerns with County processes related to noticing and access to files. 11 AERIAL PHOTO 12 VIEW FROM APPELLANT’S WINDOWS 13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #DP19-3019. 14 QUESTIONS? Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, December 16, 2019 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a Kensington Design Review Development Plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 12 II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. III. BACKGROUND The Kensington design review request is for the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing three-story single- family residence. The project was first submitted as County File #VR18-1032, requesting approval of a three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) located towards the northern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is three stories due to a small basement/storage space. Th e project was then redesigned to a two-story addition relocated towards the southern side of the rear of the residence where the existing residence is two stories above a crawl space, thus eliminating the variance. A Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011) was then submitted on July 26, 2019. Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period for the Kensington design review. A development plan application (County File #DP19-3019) was then submitted on September 18, 2019. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject property is located within the Single-Family Residential- High Density (SH) General Plan Land Use designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) zoning district. C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which includes additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure, whichever is less. D. Lot Creation: The subject property is Lot 7 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace, Block 5. The existing single-family residence was constructed in 1938. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 3 of 12 E. Previous Applications: a. VR18-1032: A variance application for a 371-square-foot three-story addition (where two and a half stories is allowed) at the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on October 31, 2018. The project was redesigned and submitted under County File #KR19-0011. b. KR19-0011: A Kensington design review application for a 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of an existing three-story residence was submitted on July 26, 2019. A hearing was requested and County File #DP19-3019 was filed. V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the area of Kensington. The subject property is surrounded by residential lots ranging in size from 3,696 square feet to 8,400 square feet in area, all of which have been developed with residential dwellings and related accessory structures. Interstate 80 is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the property, the El Cerrito city limit is approximately 0.6 miles west and 0.6 miles north of the property, and the Richmond city limit is approximately 0.3 miles east of the property. Properties within the surrounding neighborhood are rectangular in shape, are approximately 35 to 50 feet in average width, and are approximately 90 to 120 feet deep. As such, many of the surrounding parcels are substandard in size with respect to the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size and 60-foot average width required for the R-6 Zoning District. Like the surrounding properties, the subject property is a rectangular shaped 4,641 square feet in size parcel, is 39 feet in average width, and is approximately 119 feet deep. There is one 2,006-square-foot single-family residence located towards the front (east side) of the property, there are no associated accessory structures, and there are two trees located in the front of the property. The subject property is gently sloped at the very front of the property, and then continues at a steeper slope downhill from the front of the existing residence to the rear of the pr operty. The existing two bedroom, one and a half bathroom, three-story residence was built on the subject property in 1938. The main floor of the residence contains a small entry way, a living room (with access to a deck), a dining room, a kitchen with a breakfast nook, a half bathroom, and a one-car garage. The deck extends ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 4 of 12 approximately 9 feet from the rear of the residence. The upper floor contains a master bedroom, a smaller bedroom that is accessed through the office space (which has access to a small balcony at the rear of the residence), and a bathroom. The lower level contains a 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the residence, with the rest of the lower level containing unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Kensington design review development plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper floor, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west, with a second access to the deck from the dining room. The existing deck will be replaced by a new deck that extends approximately 10.5 feet west from the addition. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two- foot overhang over the new deck. The remodel of the existing interior space, plus the small addition, will allow for a master bedroom with an ensuite master bathroom and walk-in closet, three smaller bedrooms, and an additional bathroom. The addition to the lower level of the residence will add five square feet of space to the existing storage room (above which will only be one floor at this new addition), and the rest will contain unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division : In a returned agency comment request form dated October 8, 2019, Building Inspection staff commented that compliance with current building codes is required and that a one-hour fire rated wall is required at new perimeter walls located five feet or less from the property line. B. Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH): In a letter dated October 28, 2019, CCEH stated that a permit will be required for any well or soil boring, and that abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under a permit from the CCEH. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 5 of 12 C. El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Protection District: No comments have been received to date. D. Stege Sanitary District: In a returned agency comment request form dated October 3, 2019, the Sanitary District approved the project “as-is”. E. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD): In a letter dated October 1, 2019, EBMUD indicated that if additional water service is needed, a request for a water services estimate to determine the costs and conditions of providing additional water service to the development will need to be submitted. F. City of El Cerrito: No comments have been received to date. G. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC): At the KMAC meeting held on Tuesday, October 29, 2019, KMAC recommended approval of the project with no conditions. H. Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District: In a returned agency comment request dated September 25, 2019, the District staff stated that they had no comments. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT Staff received two letters in opposition to the Kensington Design Review application during the 34-day public comment period. An updated hearing request letter was also received, but after the 34-day public comment period. The following contains staff’s response to each public comment. A. Donna Breger Stanton – 134 Windsor Ave., Kensington Comment: The drawings are unclear as to what is existing versus what is new, and the deck is too close to the property line. Staff Response: A full set of plans are available and can be viewed at the Department of Conservation and Development. The new deck is three feet from the property line, which meets the required three-foot minimum side yard setback and will have to meet fire safety standards required by building code. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 6 of 12 B. Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar and Joseph Petroziello – 118 St. Albans Rd., Kensington Comment: A land use permit is required for the expansion of a nonconforming use. Staff Response: The applicant proposes to expand the existing residential building, as allowed under the R-6 Zoning District. Contra Costa County (CCC) Section 82-8.006 requires a land use permit for expansion of non-conforming uses. The use in this case is residential, permitted by right in the R -6 Zoning District, and therefore, does not require a land use permit. Comment: A variance is required due to the number of stories, height, setbacks, and exceedance of the Kensington Combining District’s threshold standards. Staff Response: The existing residence is three stories (where two and a half stories is allowed) due to a 140-square-foot storage room in the lower level of the northwest corner of the residence. The addition is expanding the southern portion of the west side of the residence, where the existing residence is two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above a an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above, and therefore, a variance is not required for the number of stories. The existing residence is 31 feet 5 inches in height (where 35 feet maximum is allowed) and has a pitched roof. The proposed addition is 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence, and has a flat roof. Overall, a variance is not required for the height of the project. Since the lot was created prior to the establishment of the R-6 Zoning District standards and the front property line is 35 feet wide, a reduced side yard minimum of 3 feet and a reduced aggregate side yard of 8 feet is allowed for any new construction (CCC Section 82-14.004). The addition and deck meet the minimum 3-foot side yard setback required. Therefore, a variance is not required for the setbacks. Based on the subject property’s size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area (GFA) allowed is 2,400 square feet. The existing residence is 2,006 ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 7 of 12 square feet and the addition is 326 square feet, so the GFA will be 2,332 square feet. This GFA remains below the threshold. Comment: The addition does not meet the intent and purpose of the Kensington Combining District, as the addition blocks their views, includes a window that would look directly into their house, and decreases their property values. Staff Response: The 118 St. Albans Road property is north of the subject property. The views of the San Francisco Bay from the subject property and the 118 St. Albans Road property are to the west. The upper floor of the addition to the rear (west side) of the subject residence extends approximately two and a half feet beyond the existing residence, and the deck at the lower level extends an additional approximately 8.5 feet beyond the upper floor. The residence at 118 St. Albans Road extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject residence, and will therefore remain approximately 17.5 feet further to the west than the subject residence. Photos of the south facing views from the master bathroom of the 118 St. Albans Road residence were submitted to planning staff to illustrate the impacts to their bay views. Based on these photos, a small portion of the views to the south will be slightly impacted, but none of the western facing bay views will be impacted by the addition at the subject property. Therefore, there will not be a significant impact to views. The addition at the subject property includes a window in the master bathroom that faces northwest, which may impact the privacy of the Petroziello residence. In order to reduce privacy impacts, revisions to this window will be required for the review and approval of the Conservation and Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits (see Condition of Approval #3). The Kensington combining district standards recognize the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property. In general, adding square-footage to a residence, creating a better floor plan, and increasing views adds enjoyment and value to a property. Since the addition will be increasing the enjoyment and value of the subject property, it will in turn increase the value of the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Petroziello property values will not decrease from the addition to the subject property. Comment: The County failed to provide adequate notice regarding planning ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 8 of 12 applications pertaining to the subject property. Staff Response: The County properly noticed neighbors within 300-feet of the subject property, which includes the property owners of 118 St. Albans Road for County File #KR19-0011. In accordance with the County Code, no other public notifications have been sent for the project other than the original notification for the Kensingtion design review, and the noticing for this hearing. Comment: The project would be significantly improved if the applicant would remove the north facing window, eliminate or significantly reduce the deck, and avoid expansion beyond the existing nook. Staff Response: Condition of Approval #3 has been added to address the privacy impacts due to the northern facing window in the addition to the subject residence. The existing deck of the subject residence extends 9 feet to the west. The new deck is to replace the existing deck and extends 10.5 feet to the west from the new addition, which is only one and a half feet more than the existing deck. Therefore, staff is recommending that the deck may remain as proposed. The addition extends approximately two and a half feet beyond the existing nook. As previously stated, the Petroziello residence will extend approximately 17.5 feet further than the proposed addition which means that the proposed addition will have a minimal impacts to south facing views and no impacts to views of the bay to the west. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. General Plan: The subject property is located in an area of the County with a Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) Land Use designation. The primary uses permitted in this land use designation include detached single-family homes and accessory structures. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upper level, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The proposed addition and modifications to the existing single-family residence will not change the existing residential use, which is consistent with the primary uses permitted in this land use designation. The County General Plan has adopted policies for specific geographic areas of the County in addition to the countywide policies. Pursuant to the General ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 9 of 12 Plan’s Map of Unincorporated Communities with Adopted Area Policies, the subject property is located within the Kensington specific geographical area. The policies for the Kensington area provide reasonable protection for existing residences, preservation of views of scenic natural features and the developed environment, design compatibility with nearby development, and provisions for adequate parking. The proposed development on the subject property will not increase the total height of the residence and is located at the rear of the residence which is downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence. The views of the bay enjoyed by the neighboring properties are mainly to the west, so although the addition will be visible when looking north or south towards the neighboring properties, the bay views will not be impacted. The addition is located at the rear of the property and will not be visible from the street. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The addition will not increase the need for more parking or eliminate any of the existing parking. The addition is small enough that it will minimally impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties, especially the property to the north which extends approximately 20 feet further to the west than the subject property. Therefore, this project will not disturb the protections of existing residences with regard to views, design compatibility, parking, privacy and access to sunlight and thus will not conflict with the adopted policies of the Kensington specific geographic area. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6) Zoning District, a Kensington Combining District (-K) and a Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (-TOV). Generally speaking, the intent of the R-6 Zoning District is provide for orderly development of single-family residential uses, accessory structures and the uses normally auxiliary to them. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square- foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The existing single-family residence is located within the R-6 Zoning District, and the addition continues the existing residential use of the property. The existing residence already consists of a third story due to the 140-square-foot storage room in the northwest corner of the lower level of the residence. The addition is on the southern portion of the west side of the residence where ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 10 of 12 there are two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The addition is also two stories above an unfinished and unconditioned crawl space that is less than seven feet in height to the floor above. The existing residence is 31 feet 5 inches in height with a pitched roof. The addition is 26 feet in height, is located downhill from the tallest portion of the existing residence, and has a flat roof. The existing residence has a 1.5-foot side yard setback with a 3.5-foot aggregate side yard setback. Based on the year the lot was established, reduced side yard setbacks are allowed for new construction. The addition and deck meet the minimum three-foot side yard setback required. Overall, the project meets the required setbacks and the maximum height allowed in the R- 6 zoning district. In part, the intent of the Kensington (-K) Combining District is to provide specific regulations to fairly and efficiently implement the Contra Costa County General Plan policies for the Kensington Area. The regulations of the combining district are also intended to promote the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The existing views of the bay are to the west. The addition extends five feet to the west beyond the existing residence, and the new deck extends approximately 10.5 feet to the west beyond the addition. The additions are minimal and therefore, will not substantially impact views to the west. As the patterns of the sun are generally in an east to west direction, the small addition would not impact light or solar access to the adjacent properties. Although the new deck extends further west than the existing deck, the neighbors’ privacy will be minimally impacted, since there is an existing deck and the same view of the neighboring homes can be seen from the back yard. There are new windows in the addition that face northwest and southwest, but they are angled such that the subject property owners will be able to enjoy the bay views without looking directly into the neighbors’ homes. The proposed project does not substantially alter the existing residence that has been located on the subject property since 1938 and will maintain the existing design of the residence, which includes painted wood siding that matches the existing residence. The proposed interior remodeling will not change the footprint or exterior design of the residence. As such, no part of this project will significantly affect the architectural appearance of the residence, or the neighborhood in general as seen from the public roadway. Based on the ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 11 of 12 parcel size of 4,641 square feet, the maximum gross floor area allowed is 2,400 square feet. Although the proposed project would increase the gross floor area of the residence from 2,006 square feet to 2,332 square feet, it is still below the allowed threshold. Therefore, the project is compatible with the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels and compatibility with the neighborhood with regard to bulk and scale. The –TOV Combining District furthers the Kensington Combining District’s goals, as its intent is to provide a method for property owners to gain restoration of views and sunlight lost due to tree growth by another property owner. The proposed development does not include any alteration, addition or removal of any trees; therefore the –TOV ordinance does not apply to the proposed project. C. Appropriateness of Use: The project site is within an established single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the residence. The proposed development is residential in nature and is an addition to an existing single-family residence. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the established use of the property. X. CONCLUSION The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, to include an interior remodel of the upstairs and replacement of an existing deck, at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The proposed development is consistent with the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-6), Kensington (-K) Combining, and the Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV) Combining Districts. Therefore, staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP19-3019, based on the attached conditions of approval. ZA – December 16, 2019 County File #DP19-3019 Page 12 of 12 Attachments:  Findings and Conditions of Approval  Maps – Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, and Aerial Photograph  Public Comments  Agency Comments  Project Plans  Photographs File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_12_16_19.doc 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019; HOWARD MCNENNY (APPLICANT) AND MARY HANLEY (OWNER). I. FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: Policy 4-c under the Growth Management Program (GMP) requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. The addition to the existing residence will generate minimal traffic trips to and from the project site during construction and no additional traffic trips post construction. Therefore, a traffic impact analysis is not required. 2. Water: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD has reviewed the project, and the project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for water service in the area. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires that new development demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property currently receives sanitary sewer service from the Stege Sanitary District. The project is not anticipated to significantly increase the demand for sanitary sewer service in the area. 4. Fire Protection: The fire protection standards under the GMP require that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district areas, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The project site is within the El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department jurisdiction and will be required to comply with current fire codes and regulations. The addition to the existing residence would not increase demand for fire services. The Fire Department will review the project for a building permit. 5. Public Protection: Public protection standards under the GMP require that a Sheriff Facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 in population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. The addition to the existing residence and will not increase the demand for police service facilities as the project will not increase the population. 6. Parks & Recreation: Parks and recreation standards under the GMP require three acres of neighborhood park area per 1,000 in population. The project will not 2 increase the demand for parks or recreation facilities, as the project will not increase the housing stock in the County. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: No portion of the subject property is located within a 100-year flood area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, the project does not involve the removal, construction, or alteration of any dams or levees within the County. Therefore, further analysis in relation to increased flood risks as a result of the project is not required. B. Kensington Combining District Findings The Kensington Combining District (-K) requires that any permit for development or expansion of the envelope of a building or structure satisfy seven criteria before a project is approved: 1. Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property; Staff Finding: The project includes an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the existing three-story single-family residence. The addition creates more living space and the interior remodel of the upstairs allows for additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom. The development enhances the livability of the residence, and thereby improves the value and enjoyment of the residence. 2. Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale and design; Staff Finding: The subject property is not vacant, so this criterion does not apply. 3. Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors; Staff Finding: The development has been designed to minimally impact surrounding neighbors. Partly in response to comments from the neighbor to the north, the addition is located on the southern portion of the west side of the residence. The addition to the main floor will extend the living room and dining room by five feet to the west and the deck will extend another 10.5 feet. The addition to the upper floor will extend the master bedroom and bathroom approximately seven feet to the west, creating an approximately two-foot overhang over the new deck. The addition and deck meet the required minimum side yard setback, and have been designed so as to minimally impact the neighbors 3 while still allowing the enjoyment of the views. Therefore, the project has minimal influence on the surrounding neighbors. 4. Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors' property; Staff Finding: As previously mentioned, the overall project will have minimal impacts on the surrounding neighbors. The addition has been designed so as to extend the existing residence as little as possible, while still allowing for a remodel of the interior to increase the usability and enjoyment of the existing living space . Although the addition extends to the west and will be visible to the neighbors when looking north and south, the views of the San Francisco Bay are to the west, and will not be blocked by the addition. The existing house is located downhill of the neighbors to the east, and the addition will be lower than the existing residence, so the addition will not impact views of the San Francisco Bay visible from properties at a higher elevation. Therefore, the project preserves the value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. 5. Maintaining the community's property values; Staff Finding: The project has minimal impacts on views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, and residential noise levels. The addition will increase the property value of the subject property by adding more living space to the existing residence, including more bedrooms and an additional bathroom, and will therefore increase the property value of the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, existing community’s property values are preserved. 6. Maximizing the use of existing interior space; Staff Finding: The addition will add approximately 326-square-feet of living space to the existing residence, which allows for an interior remodel of the upper floor, including the addition of bedrooms and another bathroom. The overall scope of the project maximizes the use of existing interior space, and minimally increases the existing footprint of the residence. 7. Promoting the general welfare, public health, and safety; Staff Finding: The project does not change the land use of the subject property and, as described earlier, has minimal impact on surrounding properties. The new development improves the value of the neighboring properties. Also, the project will not use or emit hazardous substances beyond what is normal for a residential property. The project will be required to comply with applicable building and fire 4 codes. Based on the foregoing reasons, the project promotes the general welfare, public health and safety of the Kensington community. I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP19-3019: Project Approval 1. Development is approved as generally described in the application materials received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on September 18, 2019, and is subject to the conditions listed below. General Provisions 2. Any development or expansion beyond the limits of this permit approved under this application may require the review and approval of CDD and may require the filing of an application for modification to a Development Plan and a public hearing, if deemed necessary. 3. The applicant shall provide revisions to the northwestern facing master bathroom window (such as removing the window, frosting the window, orienting the window horizontally, etc.), to be reviewed and approved by CDD prior to obtaining a building permit. Payment of Fees 4. This application is subject to an initial application deposit of $1000.00, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 5. The applicant shall comply with the following restrictions and requirements: A. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and are prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: New Year’s Day (state and federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (state and federal) Washington’s Birthday (federal) 5 Lincoln’s Birthday (state) President’s Day (state and federal) Cesar Chavez Day (state) Memorial Day (state and federal) Independence Day (state and federal) Labor Day (state and federal) Columbus Day (state and federal) Veterans Day (state and federal) Thanksgiving Day (state and federal) Day after Thanksgiving (state) Christmas Day (state and federal) For information on the calendar dates that these holidays occur, please visit t he following websites: Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol California Holidays: http://www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm B. Transportation of large trucks and heavy equipment is subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM. C. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition and stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors shall be located as far away from existing residences as possible. E. Construction equipment and materials shall be stored onsite. F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be disposed of as necessary. G. Any debris found outside the site shall immediately be collected and deposited in appropriate receptacles. 6 ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE NOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; THEY ARE PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES, STATUTES, AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT. A. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, ASSESSMENTS, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations or exactions required as part of this project approval. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and must be delivered to the Community Development Division within a 90-day period that begins on the date that this project is approved. If the 90th day falls on a day that the Community Development Division is closed, then the protest must be submitted by the end of the next business day. B. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the following agencies to determine if additional requirements and/or additional permits are required as part of the proposed project:  Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division  Contra Costa County Environmental Health Division  East Bay Municipal Utility District  Stege Sanitary District  El Cerrito/Kensington Fire Department Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, January 6, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued Open Public Hearing Item This is a continued public hearing for a Kensington Design Review Development Plan application. The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square- foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. ZA – January 6, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 2 II. BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2019 meeting, the Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item. Public comments were heard, and the item was left open and continued to the January 6, 2020 hearing. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator APPROVE County File #DP19- 3019. File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_1_6_20.doc Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Wednesday, January 22, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ CONTINUED CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM Project Title: Kensington Design Review for a 326-square-foot addition and deck replacement County File(s): #DP19-3019 Applicant: Owner: Howard McNenny Mary Hanley Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-6), Tree Obstruction of Views (-TOV), and Kensington (-K) Combining Districts / Single- Family Residential-High Density (SH) Site Address/Location: 120 St. Albans Road, Kensington / APN: 572-124-006 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: The proposed project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e), which identifies additions to existing structures that are less than 2,500 square feet or do not exceed 50 percent of the existing structure as being exempt from review. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a continued public hearing for a Kensington Design Review Development Plan application. The applicant requests approval of an approximately 326-square- ZA – January 22, 2020 County File #DP19-3019 Page 2 of 2 foot two-story addition, an interior remodel of the upstairs, and replacement of an existing deck at the rear of the an existing single-family residence. II. BACKGROUND At the December 16, 2019 meeting, the Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item. Public comments were heard, and the item was left open and continued to the January 6, 2020 meeting. At the January 6, 2020 meeting, additional public comments were heard. The Zoning Administrator closed and continued the item to the January 22, 2020 meeting. III. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator APPROVE County File #DP19- 3019. File Path: G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Development Plans (DP)\DP19-3019\DP19-3019_SR_1_22_20.doc DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEALCOUNTY FILE #DP19-3019120 St. Albans Road, KensingtonContra Costa County Board of SupervisorsTuesday, November 3, 20209:30 a.m. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a hearing of an appeal of the County PlanningCommission’s decision to approve a Kensington designreview development plan for an approximately 326-square-foot two-story addition, an interior remodel oftheupperlevelandanewdeckattherearoftheexisting single-family residence at 120 St. Albans inKensington.2 3 4 5 6Existing residence at 120 St. Albans Rd.View of existing residence at 118 St. Albans Rd. BACKGROUND■A Kensington design review application (County File #KR19-0011) was submitted on July 26,2019.■Two hearing requests were received during the required 34-day public comment period.■A development plan application (County File #DP19-3019) was then submitted on September18, 2019.■The project was scheduled at the December 16, 2019 Zoning Administrator hearing. The projectwas continued twice until the Zoning Administrator approved the item at the January 22, 2020meeting with changes to finding #3 and finding #7, and changes to Condition of Approval (COA)#3 and the addition of COA #4 and COA #5.■Staff received one letter on February 3, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision tothe County Planning Commission.■Staff received one letter on February 3, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision totheCountyPlanningCommission. AttheAugust 12, 2020 County Planning CommissionMeeting, the Commission upheld the County Zoning Administrator’s decision and denied theappeal. The motion was passed by the Commission with a 5-2 vote.■One appeal has been filed on the matter by Jillian Blanchard, representing Nicole Ashar andJoseph Petroziello.7 PROPOSED SITE PLAN8 ELEVATIONS9Existing Proposed FLOOR PLAN10Existing Proposed PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS11 SUMMARY OF APPEAL POINTS■Variances for three stories and the setbacks should be required forthe addition.■The project does not comply with the Kensington Combining District withregard to views, privacy, property values, and use and enjoyment of thehome.■The decision to approve the project was not based on substantialevidence in the record, and the staff reports include misstatements.■There were procedural and substantive due process violations, includingfailure to provide adequate notice, violations of the Brown Act, failure torequire story poles, “impartial” decision‐makers testifying on the behalfof the applicant, and relying on biased testimony when rendering adecision.12 AERIAL PHOTO13 VIEW FROM APPELLANT’S MASTER BATHROOM WINDOW14 VIEW FROM APPELLANT’S MASTER BATHROOM WINDOW15These images are different angles through the same window and show detail from the prior slide. VIEW FROM APPELLANT’S KITCHEN WINDOW16 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONStaff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Single‐Family Residential High‐Density (SH) General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the Single‐Family Residential District (R 6), Kensington Combining District (‐K), and Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District (‐TOV). Two conditions of approval have been added to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; one that requires the deck and addition to be setback 3‐feet 2‐inches in order to comply with the 8‐foot aggregate side yard setback, and one that requires the deck railing to be cable or glass. The Zoning Administrator also modified COA #3 to address concerns brought up by the appellant regarding privacy. No compelling evidence has been provided by the appellant to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and sustain the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #DP19‐3019, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.17 QUESTIONS? RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the hearing on the proposed formation of Zone 1204 within County Service Area P-6; CONSIDER all oral and written comments; and CLOSE the hearing. 2. DETERMINE whether a majority protest of the voters residing within the boundaries of proposed Zone 1204 exists pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1(b)(1). In the event that the Board determines a majority protest exists, TERMINATE the proceedings. 3. If the Board determines a majority protest does not exist, ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/278, attached hereto, establishing Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 subject to voter approval of a special tax to fund police protection services within the zone. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the Police Service District and the election is paid for by the developer of the subdivision. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D.4 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FORMATION OF ZONE 1204 IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA OF P-6 IN THE CONCORD AREA OF THE COUNTY (DISTRICT IV) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. #9495 (County File #SD18-9495), prior to recording the final map for the subdivision, the subdivider is required to establish a special police services tax district for the subdivision in order to provide additional funding to augment police services in the area of the subdivision. The property to be placed within the special tax district consists of a 3.6-acre site located at 5175 Laurel Drive in the unincorporated Concord area of the County. On September 22, 2020, the Board granted conceptual approval for a January 5, 2021, ballot measure seeking approval of a special tax to fund an increase in the level of police protection services that is provided in the unincorporated Concord area of the County. On September 22, 2020, the Board approved Resolution No. 2020/252, as required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming a new zone within County Service Area (CSA) P-6. The proposed zone would serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the proposed zone if a special tax measure is approved by voters on January 5, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (a), at the public hearing, the Board is required to hear and consider any protests to the formation of the zone. Pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b)(1), in the case of inhabited territory, if at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board determines that more than 50 percent of the total number of voters residing within the proposed zone have filed written objections to the formation, then the Board shall determine that a majority protest exists and terminate the proceedings. If there is no majority protest, the Board may continue the proceedings to form the zone by adopting Resolution No. 2020/278, which would establish Zone 1204 subject to voter approval of the special tax. A separate hearing is also scheduled for November 3, 2020, to consider the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the levy of the tax. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Zone 1204 would not be formed and the subdivider would be unable to comply with the conditions of approval of the project. The subdivider would be unable to record the final map for the subdivision. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/278 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Resolution No. 2020/252 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/278 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/278 IN THE MATTER OF CREATING ZONE 1204 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE UNINCORPORATED CONCORD AREA OF THE COUNTY WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the need for increased police protection services in the above subject zone and the difficulty of funding the current or an increased level of services. WHEREAS, establishing the subject zone is a necessary step for the Board of Supervisors to seek voter approval of a special tax for increased police protection services in the zone area. Government Code Sections 25217 and 25217.1 establish procedures for the formation of a zone within a county service area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD RESOLVED THAT: 1. It is in the public interest to provide an increased level of police protection services in the area of proposed Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6. 2. A majority protest against the proposed formation of Zone 1204 does not exist, pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b). 3. Subject to voter approval of Ordinance No. 2020-24 on January 5, 2021, authorizing the levy of a special tax within proposed Zone 1204, that portion of Contra Costa County Service Area P-6 described in Exhibit A attached hereto and shown in Exhibit B attached hereto is established as Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6, effective upon this Board’s adoption of a resolution declaring the results of the January 5, 2021, election (“Effective Date”). 4. No affected properties located in Zone 1204 will be taxed for any existing bonded indebtedness or contractual obligations as a result of the formation of said zone. 5. On or after the Effective Date, the Clerk of this Board shall cause the filing of a statement of the creation of said zone to be made with the County Assessor and the State Board of Equalization (in Sacramento) pursuant to Government Code Sections 54900-54902. The filing shall include a map or plat indicating the boundaries of said zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/22/2020 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/252 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 1204 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE UNINCORPORATED CONCORD AREA The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County proposes the formation of new zone in the unincorporated Concord area of County Service Area (CSA) P-6, pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 2.3 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the California Government Code. 2. The boundaries of the territory to be included in the zone area are described in 'Exhibit A' and shown in 'Exhibit B', both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The formation of Zone 1204 is proposed to provide the County of Contra Costa with a method of financing an increased level of police protection services to the area within the zone. 4. The proposed zone would provide a level of police protection services that exceeds the level of service outside the zone, and if approved by the voters, the proposed zone would generate additional revenue in the form of special taxes to fund the increase in this level of service. 5. The increase in the level of service would be financed through the levy of a voter-approved special tax on all taxable parcels within the zone. 6. The name proposed for the zone is "Zone 1204" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on November 3, 2020, in the Chamber of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 94553, this Board will conduct a public hearing upon the proposed formation of Zone 1204 of CSA P-6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to give notice of the public hearing by (1) publishing a notice that complies with Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (d)(1), pursuant to Government Code Section 6061; (2) mailing the notice to all owners of property within the proposed zone; (3) mailing the notice to each city and special district that contains, or whose sphere of influence contains the proposed zone; and (4) verifying that the notice is posted in at least three public places within the territory of the proposed zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 22, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2020-24, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 1204 of County Service area P-6 in the unincorporated Concord area of the County; CONSIDER oral and written comments received; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2020-24, attached hereto. 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/279, attached hereto, authorizing an election in Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2020-24. 4. DIRECT the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the election required by Government Code Sections 23027 and 53978. This election shall be held on January 5, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of establishing the Police Service District and election is paid for by the developer of the subdivision. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D.5 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SPECIAL TAX ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE ELECTION TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL (DISTRICT IV) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. 9495 (County File #SD18-9495), prior to recording the final map for the subdivision, the subdivider is required to establish a special Police Services tax district for the purposes of providing additional funding to augment police services in the area of the subdivision. The property to be subdivided and placed within the proposed special tax district consists of a 3.6-acre site located at 5175 Laurel Drive in the unincorporated Concord area of the County. On September 22, 2020, the Board approved Resolution No. 2020/252, as required by Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (b), as the first step in forming a new zone within County Service Area (CSA) P-6 in the unincorporated Concord area of the County. The proposed zone would serve as the vehicle to collect special taxes within the boundaries of the zone if a special tax measure is approved by registered voters within the zone area at the January 5, 2021, election. The Board is scheduled to conduct a separate hearing on November 3, 2020, on the formation of the proposed zone. If the Board determines there is no majority protest to the formation of this new zone, and if the Board adopts Resolution No. 2020/278, establishing CSA P-6, Zone 1204 subject to voter approval of the special tax, the next step in the process is the hearing on the adoption of a special tax ordinance, the adoption of that ordinance and adoption of a resolution submitting the tax measure to the voters. In this action, the Board is asked to conduct the hearing on, and adopt, the special tax ordinance (Ordinance No. 2020-24), which would authorize the levy of a special tax for police protection services on all taxable parcels in the area of Zone 1204 if a special tax ballot measure is approved by a two-thirds majority of the registered voters in the zone area. Resolution No. 2020/279, the adoption of which is also recommended, sets forth appropriate ballot language, directs the County Clerk, Elections Division, to conduct the aforementioned election as part of the January 5, 2021, election, and supplies appropriate ballot language. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The project developer would be unable to comply with the conditions of approval for the project. The developer would be unable to record the final map for the subdivision. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/279 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Ordinance No. 2020-24 Resolution No. 2020/252 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/279 Signed Ordinance No. 2020-24 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/279 IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TAX IN PROPOSED ZONE 1204 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 WHEREAS, this Board recognizes the need for increased police protection services in the above subject zone and the difficulty of funding the current or an increased level of services. Government Code Sections 50077 and 53978 establish procedures for voter authorization of a special tax in order to provide additional funding for police protection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. Ordinance No. 2020-24, adopted on this date, is to be presented for approval of the voters of proposed Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 at the election to be held on January 5, 2021, according to the following ballot proposition: “Shall Ordinance No. 2020-24, to provide additional funding for police protection services, be approved to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 in the unincorporated Concord area of the County, at an initial annual amount of $200 per parcel for single-family, residential parcels, with higher and lower amounts for properties in other use categories identified in the ordinance, commencing with the tax year beginning July 1, 2021?" 2. The Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters is designated as the Election Official for this election, and the County Clerk, Elections Division, is hereby authorized and directed to provide all notices and take all other actions necessary to hold the election described in this resolution including, but not limited to, providing notices of times within which arguments for and against are to be submitted. 3. The County Administrator, or his designee, shall serve as the Eligible Filer for purposes of filing necessary documents with the Elections Official to facilitate listing of the above ballot proposition. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena Ordinance No. 2020-24 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-24 (Uncodified) (An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County) Authorizing a Special Tax for Police Protection Services in Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ORDAINS as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND INTENT. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to authorize the levy of a tax on parcels of real property on the secured property tax roll of Contra Costa County that are within Zone 1204 of Contra Costa County Service Area No. P-6 in order to augment funding for police protection services. This tax is a special tax within the meaning of Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. Because the burden of this tax falls upon property, this tax also is a property tax, but this tax is not determined according to nor in any manner based upon the value of property; this tax is levied on a parcel and use of property basis. Insofar as not inconsistent with this Ordinance or with legislation authorizing special taxes and insofar as applicable to a property tax that is not based on value, such provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and of Article XIII of the California Constitution as relate to ad valorem property taxes are intended to apply to the collection and administration of this tax (Article IV of this Ordinance), as authorized by law. The 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. ARTICLE II. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply throughout the Ordinance: 1. “Parcel” means the land and any improvements thereon, designated by an assessor’s parcel map and parcel number and carried on the secured property tax roll of Contra Costa County. For the purposes of the Ordinance, “parcel” does not include any land or improvements outside the boundaries of Zone 1204 of County Service Area P-6 nor any land or improvements owned by any governmental entity. 2. “Fiscal year” means the period of July 1 through the following June 30. 3. Contra Costa County Service Area P-6 Zone 1204 (hereinafter called “Zone”) means that portion of unincorporated area of Contra Costa County located within the Zone’s boundaries described and shown in Exhibits A and B attached hereto. 4. “Use Code” means the code number assigned by the Assessor of Contra Costa County in order to classify parcels according to use for ad valorem property tax purposes. A copy Ordinance No. 2020-24 2 of the Assessor’s use code classifications chart is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein. 5. “Consumer Price Index” means the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Area (1982-84=100) as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the Consumer Price Index is discontinued or revised, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Consumer Price Index had not been discontinued of revised. 6. “Constant first year dollars” shall mean an actual dollar amount which, in years subsequent to the first fiscal year the tax is levied, shall have the same purchasing power as the base amount in first fiscal year dollars as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The base amount shall be the amount of tax per parcel as specified in Article III 1A herein. The adjustment from actual to constant dollars shall be made by use of the Consumer Price Index, as specified in Section III 1B herein. ARTICLE III. AMOUNT AND LEVEL OF TAXES 1. The tax per year on each parcel in the Zone shall not exceed the amount applicable to the parcel as specified below. A. For First Fiscal Year: The tax per year for the first fiscal year (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) shall be the Amount of Tax per Parcel for the Property Use Code Category as set forth in Exhibit D incorporated herein. B. For Subsequent Fiscal Years: In order to keep the tax on each parcel in constant first year dollars for each fiscal year subsequent to the first fiscal year, the tax per year shall by adjusted as set forth below to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index beyond the first fiscal year a tax is levied. In July, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County shall determine the amount of taxes to be levied upon the parcels in the Zone for the then current fiscal year as set forth below. For each Property Use Category on Exhibit C, the tax per year on each parcel for each fiscal year subsequent to the first fiscal year shall be an amount determined as follows: Tax Per Parcel Tax Per Parcel (Consumer Price Index For Then Current = For Previous X for April of Immediately Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Preceding Fiscal Year) (Consumer Price Index For the first Fiscal Year Of Levy) Ordinance No. 2020-24 3 In no event shall the tax per parcel for any fiscal year be less than the amount established for the first fiscal year. 2. The taxes levied on each parcel pursuant to this Article shall be a charge upon the parcel and shall be due and collectible as set forth in Article IV, below. A complete listing of the amount of taxes on each Zone shall be maintained by the Sheriff-Coroner of the County of Contra Costa at Martinez, California, and be available for public inspection during the remainder of the fiscal year for which such taxes are levied. ARTICLE IV. COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION. 1. Taxes as Liens Against the Property. The amount of taxes for each parcel each year shall constitute a lien on such property, in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code section 2187, and shall have the same effect as an ad valorem real property tax lien until fully paid. 2. Collection. The taxes on each parcel shall be billed on the secured roll tax bills for ad valorem property taxes and shall be due the County of Contra Costa. Insofar as feasible and insofar as not inconsistent with this Ordinance, the taxes are to be collected in the same manner in which the County collects secured roll ad valorem property taxes. Insofar as feasible and insofar as not inconsistent with the Ordinance, the times and procedure regarding exemptions, due dates, installment payments, corrections, cancellations, refunds, late payments, penalties, liens, and collection for secured roll ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to the collection of this tax. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, as to this tax: 1) the secured roll tax bills shall be the only notices required for this tax, and 2) the homeowner and veterans exemptions shall not be applicable because such exemptions are determined by dollar amount value. 3. Costs of Administration by the County. The reasonable costs incurred by the County officers collecting and administering this tax shall be deducted from the collected taxes. ARTICLE V. ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES. 1. Account. Upon the levy and collection of the tax authorized by this ordinance, an account shall be created into which the proceeds of the tax will be deposited. The proceeds of the tax authorized by this Ordinance shall be applied only to the specific purposes identified in this Ordinance. Ordinance No. 2020-24 4 2. Annual Report. An annual report that complies with the requirements of Government Code section 50075.3 shall be filed with the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County no later than January 1 of each fiscal year in which the tax is levied. ARTICLE V. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE If any article, section, subsection, sentence, phrase of clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The voters of the Zone hereby declare that they would have adopted the remainder of the Ordinance, including each article, section, subsection, sentence phrase or clause, irrespective of the invalidity of any other article, section, subsection, sentence, phrase or clause. ARTICLE VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its confirmation by two-thirds of the voters voting within Zone 1204 in an election to be held on January 5, 2021, so that taxes shall first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 2021. Within 15 days of passage, this Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it, in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper of general circulation published in this County. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti ng of the Board of Supervisors, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on November 3, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: DAVID J. TWA, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: __________________________ _____________________________________ Deputy Chair of the Board of Supervisors [SEAL] ORDINANCE NO. 2020-24 ZONE 1204 FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2021, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 EXHIBIT D PROPERTY USE ANNUAL TAX CODE CATEGORY EXPLANATION PER PARCEL 11 Single Family Residence – 1 residence, 1 site $200 12 Single Family Residence- 1 residence, 2 or more sites $200 13 Single Family Residence- 2 residences on 1 or more sites $200 14 Single Family Residence – other than single family land $200 15 Misc. Improvements – 1 site $200 16 Misc. Improvements – 2 or more sites $200 17 Vacant – 1 site $100 18 Vacant – 2 or more sites $100 19 Single Family Residence - Det. w/common area $200 20 Vacant – Multiple $100 21 Duplex $200 22 Triplex $200 23 Fourplex $200 24 Combination $200 25 Apartments (5-12 units) $400 26 Apartments (13-24 units) $400 27 Apartments (25-59 units) $600 28 Apartments (60+ units) $800 29 Attached PUDs: Cluster Homes, Condos, Etc. $200 30 Vacant – Commercial $100 31 Commercial Stores – Not Supermarkets $600 32 Small Grocery Stores (7-11, etc.) $600 33 Office Buildings $400 34 Medical, Dental $400 35 Service Stations, Car Wash $400 36 Garages $400 37 Community Facilities (recreational, etc.) $800 38 Golf Courses $400 39 Bowling Alleys $400 40 Boat Harbors $400 41 Supermarkets (not shopping centers) $600 42 Shopping Centers $800 43 Financial Buildings (Ins., Title, Banks, S&L) $400 44 Motels, Hotels & Mobile Home Parks $600 45 Theaters $600 46 Drive-In Theaters $400 47 Restaurants (not drive-in) $400 48 Multiple & Commercial $400 49 New Car Agencies $400 50 Vacant Land (not part of Ind. Park or P. & D.) $100 51 Industrial Park $800 52 Research & Development $400 53 Light Industrial $400 54 Heavy Industrial $400 55 Mini Warehouses (public storage) $600 56 Misc. Improvements $400 61 Rural, Res. Improvement 1A-10A $200 62 Rural, W/or w/o Structure 1A-10A $200 70 Convalescent Hospitals/Rest Homes $400 73 Hospitals $400 74 Cemeteries/Mortuaries $400 75 Fraternal & Service Organizations $400 76 Retirement Housing Complex $600 78 Parks & Playgrounds $800 85 Public & Private Parking $400 87 Common Area $400 88 Mobile Homes $200 89 Other (split parcels in different tax code areas) $200 99 Awaiting Assignment $200 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 09/22/2020 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/252 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 1204 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE UNINCORPORATED CONCORD AREA The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES: 1. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County proposes the formation of new zone in the unincorporated Concord area of County Service Area (CSA) P-6, pursuant to Article 8 of Chapter 2.3 of Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the California Government Code. 2. The boundaries of the territory to be included in the zone area are described in 'Exhibit A' and shown in 'Exhibit B', both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The formation of Zone 1204 is proposed to provide the County of Contra Costa with a method of financing an increased level of police protection services to the area within the zone. 4. The proposed zone would provide a level of police protection services that exceeds the level of service outside the zone, and if approved by the voters, the proposed zone would generate additional revenue in the form of special taxes to fund the increase in this level of service. 5. The increase in the level of service would be financed through the levy of a voter-approved special tax on all taxable parcels within the zone. 6. The name proposed for the zone is "Zone 1204" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on November 3, 2020, in the Chamber of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 94553, this Board will conduct a public hearing upon the proposed formation of Zone 1204 of CSA P-6. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to give notice of the public hearing by (1) publishing a notice that complies with Government Code Section 25217, subdivision (d)(1), pursuant to Government Code Section 6061; (2) mailing the notice to all owners of property within the proposed zone; (3) mailing the notice to each city and special district that contains, or whose sphere of influence contains the proposed zone; and (4) verifying that the notice is posted in at least three public places within the territory of the proposed zone. Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 22, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): REFER to the County Administrator and Internal Operations Committee, for report back to the Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) challenge to Contra Costa County employers to “Cut the Commute”, to identify issues and determine the feasibility of accepting the Challenge; 1. REQUEST, via the Contra Costa County Mayors’ Conference, the 19 Contra Costa cities to consider accepting this Challenge; and 2. REFER to the Sustainability Committee how best to engage and encourage other Contra Costa employers to consider accepting this Challenge. 3. FISCAL IMPACT: Potential costs or savings for employers are yet to be identified and determined. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Chow (925) 521-7100 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: IOC Staff, Sustainability Committee Staff, DCD Director D.6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Supervisor Karen Mitchoff & Supervisor John Gioia Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Challenge to “Cut the Commute” BACKGROUND: Attached is the “Cut the Commute” Challenge posed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Employers that accept the BAAQMD Challenge must commit to actively study and determine what strategies will work best for their particular workforce to facilitate remote work opportunities. A toolbox is available on the BAAQMD website to assist employers that endeavor to meet this Challenge, both now and in the future. At this time of COVID-19, it is presumed that a high number of employers, public and private, are managing to operate under the COVID work restrictions by having some employees work from home. The Air District, in making this Challenge, recognized that there are issues of equity in any potential program that may be instituted by an employer and its particular employees, and that not all jobs lend themselves to telecommuting. The County largely provides public-facing services from locations accessible to the general public. The Challenge is intended to be a flexible program applicable only to employees whose work requirements allow them to work from home. Employers can strive to meet the Challenge by having a portion of its workforce “cut the commute” or having eligible employees work a portion of their workday at home; or a combination or variation of those strategies. It is also recognized that many employees already carpool or use non-automotive transportation methods to reach their job sites, and options such as rideshare, public transit, bike-to-work, and technology discounts could also be leveraged to reduce employee commuting. The ability for employees to work remotely is important to the community, employees, and businesses in Contra Costa County. The County has developed and proposed to our labor partners a draft Remote Work Policy. Because this Policy may affect every County employee and labor group, a Countywide policy is necessary and we will need to reach agreement with all parties. Contra Costa County recognizes the benefits of remote work, including: Promoting options for employees to effectively balance work-life commitments; Boosting employee morale, productivity and job satisfaction while reducing absenteeism; Providing an additional employee recruitment and retention tool and increasing the County’s competitive advantages by positioning the County as “an employer of choice;” Improving service delivery by allowing for work hours beyond the traditional 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday schedule in appropriate situations; Allowing for more efficient use of County buildings, office space and parking facilities; Improving the County’s ability to provide essential services during/following an emergency; Improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and Reducing traffic, transit and parking congestion. In order to make our bargaining process practical and efficient, the County is pursuing a “coalition” model of bargaining with our labor partners. The first meeting to discuss a draft Remote Work Policy is scheduled for November 13, 2020. In acknowledgement that acceptance of the BAAQMD Challenge must be predicated on adoption of a Remote Work Policy and will affect the provision of public-facing services, this matter is recommended for referral to the County Administrator and the Board's Internal Operations Committee for study and recommendation back to the Board. ATTACHMENTS BAAQMD Cut the Commute Pledge Cut the Commute Pledge The Cut the Commute Pledge offers an opportunity for representatives of Bay Area companies and organizations to pledge to provide remote work options for their employees. The shelter-in -place orders issued to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19 necessitated a major shift in how Bay Area employers operate, and many employees quickly made the adjustment to remote work. As shelter-in -place orders are eased or lifted, let’s rethink how we conduct business and consider the substantial benefits remote work can bring to us all:  Cleaner air and reduced climate impacts  Reduced traffic congestion  Saves money and time spent in traffic  Improved employee recruitment, retention, and productivity  Money saved on commercial real estate and parking facilities  Enhanced employee work-life balance  Resiliency - provides a blueprint to continue business during a crisis The benefits of remote work are numerous. All that is needed now is leadership, vision, and commitment. Are you ready to step forward and adopt an innovative remote work policy after the shelter-in- place? By signing this pledge, your company or organization commits to extending remote work options by at least 25 percent (or 1-2 days a week) for employees whose work requirements allow for that flexibility, though you can pledge more! For those employees that don’t have that flexibility, your company or organization will encourage alternatives to driving alone. Help improve air quality and quality of life for all Bay Area residents! View the Air District's Remote Work Policy Clearinghouse web page for a complete remote work toolkit, featuring resources and guidance, model tele working agreements, and information on equity considerations and ergonomics. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a Consulting Services Agreement (contract) amendment with Quincy Engineering, Incorporated (Quincy), effective November 3, 2020, to increase the payment limit by $275,000 to a new payment limit of $650,000 for civil design services for the Danville Boulevard-Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements Project, and to extend the term from March 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022, Alamo area. County Project No.: 0662-6R4128, Federal Project No.: HSIPL-5928 (140) (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: This project, including this contract, will be funded by 66% Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant, 33% Measure J Regional Funds, and 1% Local Road Funds. BACKGROUND: This project will construct a roundabout at the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court intersection in Alamo. The roundabout will include curb extensions, curb ramps, and entry medians at the roundabout to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks will be reconstructed through the corridor along with curb extensions and curb ramps in order to meet ADA APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Emigh, 925.313.2233 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement with Quincy Engineering, Incorporated, Alamo area. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) requirements and accommodate existing mature trees in the sidewalk. The project includes a slurry seal, restriping of the roadway, and lane reconfiguration, as well as storm drain modifications, landscaping, stormwater treatment areas, signage, utility adjustments, and relocation of existing roadside features. Quincy was selected to provide civil design services for the project after completing a request for proposal solicitation and technical proposal process. Public Works has successfully negotiated with Quincy to provide the civil design services. Complications in the process of acquiring the necessary right-of-way for the project have increased the amount of design required, as well as the amount of time needed to complete the necessary design services. Therefore, an increase to the contract pay limit and contract term are required to complete the project. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board of Supervisors' approval, this contract amendment will not be in effect. A delay in the design and subsequent construction of the Danville Boulevard-Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements Project will occur, ultimately delaying the completion of the project. Project delay may also result in substantial additional project costs and jeopardize the funding. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/282 approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD17-09466, for a project being developed by AYM, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department has reviewed the conditions of approval for subdivision SD17-09466 and has determined that all conditions of approval for Final Map approval have been satisfied. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Final Map and the Subdivision Agreement will not be approved and recorded. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Joshua Laranang- Engineering Services, Gary Kupp - DCD Planning, Renee Hutchins - Records, Karen Piona- Record, Sherri Reed, Michael Mann- Finance, Chris Hallford -Mapping , AYM, LLC, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, T-09/03/2021 C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD17-09466, Martinez area. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/282 Final Map Subdivision Agreement & Security Bond Tax Letter MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2020/282 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/282 IN THE MATTER OF approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for subdivision SD17-09466, for a project being developed by AYM, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Martinez area. (District V) WHERE AS, the following documents were presented for board approval this date: I. Map The Final Map of subdivision SD17-09466, property located in the Martinez area, Supervisorial District V, said map having been certified by the proper officials. II. Subdivision Agreement A subdivision agreement with AYM, LLC, principal, whereby said principal agrees to complete all improvements as required in said subdivision agreement within 2 year(s) from the date of said agreement. Accompanying said subdivision agreement is security guaranteeing completion of said improvements as follows: A. Cash Bond Performance amount: $2,560.00 Auditor’s Deposit Permit No. 811807 Date: July 23, 2020 Submitted by: AYM, LLC B. Surety Bond Bond Company: The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company Bond Number: 14L000094 Date: October 14, 2020 Performance Amount: $199,440.00 Labor & Materials Amount: $101,000.00 Principal: AYM, LLC III. Tax Letter Letter from the County Tax Collector stating that there are no unpaid County taxes heretofore levied on the property included in said map and that the 2019-2020 tax lien has been paid in full and the 2020-2021 tax lien, which became a lien on the first day of January 2020, is estimated to be $6,550.00, with security guaranteeing payment of said tax lien as follows: Tax Surety Auditor's Deposit Permit Number: 816536 Date: October 13, 2020 Amount: $6,550.00 Submitted by: AYM, LLC NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That said subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is DETERMINED to be consistent with the County's general and specific plans. 1. That said Final map is APPROVED and this Board does hereby accept subject to installation and acceptance of improvements on behalf of the public any of the streets, paths, or easements shown thereon as dedicated to public use. 2. That said subdivision agreement is also APPROVED.3. Contact: Randolf Sanders (925) 313-2111 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Joshua Laranang- Engineering Services, Gary Kupp - DCD Planning, Renee Hutchins - Records, Karen Piona- Record, Sherri Reed, Michael Mann- Finance, Chris Hallford -Mapping , AYM, LLC, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, T-09/03/2021 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Director of Airports, or designee, to execute a contract with Kimley Horn and Associates effective November 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022, in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide design and engineering services for security equipment and system upgrades at Buchanan Field. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Grant Funding BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2020, the Board authorized the Director of Airports to submit grant applications to the Federal Aviation Administration and State of California Division of Aeronautics for grants totaling approximately $3,200,000 to complete security upgrades to the Buchanan Field Airport. This contract with Kimley Horn and Associates (Kimley Horn) is part of that project and will enable Kimley Horn to complete the initial design and engineering of the security upgrades. The project will likely include upgrades to fencing, access control gates, access control system, lighting and video monitoring. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Beth Lee 925-681-4200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 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:Keith Freitas, Airports Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Design and Engineering Contract for Security Upgrades at Buchanan Field CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Not approving the proposed contract will result in the loss of consultant services needed to design and engineer the security upgrades for Buchanan Field. Failure to design and ultimately receive bids for the construction of the project would lead to a loss of the expected $3,200,000 in federal and state grant funding. The Airport Enterprise Fund would not be able to fund this project without federal and state grant funding support; therefore, the security upgrades would not be completed. RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of Fermin Rubio and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $100,000, less permanent disability advances. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $100,000, less permanent disability advances. BACKGROUND: Attorney Leslie A. Leyton, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of Fermin Rubio vs. Contra Costa County. The Board's October 13, 2020, closed session vote was: Supervisors Gioia, Andersen, Burgis, Mitchoff and Glover - Yes. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier October 13, 2020, closed session vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Karen Caoile 925-335-1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Karen Caoile, Director of Risk Management Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Settlement of Claim, Fermin Rubio v. Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE this report concerning the final settlement of Ervin Roquemore and AUTHORIZE payment from the Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund in an amount not to exceed $1,325,000, less permanent disability advances. FISCAL IMPACT: Workers' Compensation Internal Service Fund payment of $1,325,000, less permanent disability advances. BACKGROUND: Attorney Mark A. Cartier, defense counsel for the County, has advised the County Administrator that within authorization an agreement has been reached settling the workers' compensation claim of Ervin Roquemore vs. Contra Costa County. The Board's October 13, 2020, closed session vote was: Supervisors Gioia, Andersen, Burgis, Mitchoff and Glover - Yes. This action is taken so that the terms of this final settlement and the earlier October 13, 2020, closed session vote of this Board authorizing its negotiated settlement are known publicly. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Case will not be settled. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Karen Caoile 925-335-1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 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:Karen Caoile, Director of Risk Management Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Final Settlement of Claim, Ervin Roquemore v. Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County and the Contra Costa County Water Agency, a joint defense and fee allocation agreement, a contract for legal services with The Freeman Firm, and a contract for legal services with the Law Office of Roger B. Moore, all effective August 6, 2020, in connection with California Department of Water Resources v. All Persons Interested in the Matter, etc., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00283112. FISCAL IMPACT: The County and Water Agency will be jointly responsible for one-sixth of the attorneys' fees and costs charged by the two law firms to represent the above co-defendants in the litigation. BACKGROUND: The County and the Water Agency are defendants in California Department of Water Resources v. All Persons Interested in the Matter, etc., Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2020-00283112, filed August APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: David Twa, County Administrator, Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel, Ryan Hernandez, Director, Contra Costa County Water Agency C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:DWR's Delta Conveyance Project Bond Validation Action - Joint Defense Agreement and Legal Services Contract BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 6, 2020. This board order authorizes the County Counsel, or designee, to execute three agreements in connection with that lawsuit. The joint defense and fee allocation agreement will be executed by the cooperating co-defendants in the case - Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Water Agency, San Joaquin County, Solano County, Yolo County, Butte County, and Plumas County and the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The above agencies will be represented by two law firms - The Freeman Firm and the Law Office of Roger B. Moore. Under these contracts, the County and Water Agency, together, and each of the other clients, will be responsible for paying one-sixth of all attorneys' fees and costs charged by the two law firms. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County and Water Agency would not be represented by these firms, and there would be no agreement regarding the sharing of privileged documents and communications among the co-defendants in this lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District (2), Nickolas S. Castro, Victoria Souja & William Souja, and USAA Casualty Insurance Company. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District: Claim for indemnification in the amount of $1,900,000. Nickolas S. Castro: Property claim for lost personal property in the amount of $869.99 Victoria Souja & William Souja: Personal injury claim for damages arising out of motor vehicle accident in an amount to be determined. USAA Casualty Insurance Company: Property claim for damage to property arising out of motor vehicle accident in the amount of $3,444.52. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott Selby 925.335.1400 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 9259578860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Joellen Bergamini, Deputy cc: C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution Congratulating Priscilla Couden on her Retirement as Executive Director of the Contra Costa County Historical Society CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speaker Melissa Jacobsen, President of Architectural Foundation of Contra Costa. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/277 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2020/277 recognizing Priscilla Couden upon her retirement as Executive Director of the Contra Costa County Historical Society. Whereas, Priscilla Couden has served as Executive Director of the Contra Costa County Historical Society from January 1, 2010 to October 31, 2020; and Whereas, the Contra Costa County Historical Society is the County’s officially designed archive for historical information; and Whereas, during Priscilla’s eleven years as Executive Director, the Historical Society has grown tremendously in its archive collections, its services to researchers and the County, its volunteer work force, its technology, and its reputation and recognition both locally and internationally online; and Whereas, Priscilla has been instrumental in receiving many notable grants and investments in the Historical Society, including grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Dean & Margaret Lesher Foundation; and Whereas, Priscilla’s leadership and relationships with local institutions has led to the Historical Society receiving local history materials donated from the Contra Costa County Library, numerous local historical societies within the County, and many private donors; and Whereas, Priscilla has helped accomplish the Historical Society’s mission to preserve, protect and provide public access to the records and heritage of Contra Costa County. Now, therefore be it resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes and thanks Priscilla Couden for her outstanding service to the Contra Costa County Historical Society and to the County. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA DIANE BURGIS 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 9259578860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Joellen Bergamini, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:In the Matter of honoring F. Michael Hoffschneider for his 48 years of services to our veterans community on the occasion of his retirement AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/280 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/280 Signed In the matter of:Resolution No. 2020/280 honoring F. Michael Hoffschneider for his 48 years of services to our veterans community on the occasion of his retirement. Whereas, F. Michael Hoffschneider, aka ‘Hoff’, served in the United States Army from November 1966 to November 1969; and Whereas, Hoff attended college with the assistance of the Veterans Administration’s GI Bill and in 1973, he graduated from the University of California in Berkeley with a B. A. in Political Science and an emphasis on public administration; and Whereas, in March 1974, Hoff was hired as a Veterans Claims Examiner by the Veterans Administration (VA) in San Francisco; and Whereas, while working for the Veterans Administration, he graduated with a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from John F. Kennedy University in June 1979; and Whereas, when Hoff retired as the Veterans Service Center Manager from the VA’s Oakland Regional Office in October 2004 with almost 31 years of federal service he took a brief break; and Whereas, on March 4, 2005 he went to work for the Contra Costa County Veterans Service Office on a contract as a part-time Veterans Service Representative (VSR) and later that year he was hired full-time; and Whereas, during his 15 years of service with Contra Costa County, Hoff served as the interim County Veterans Service Officer (CVSO) before the hiring of our current CVSO, Nathan Johnson; and Whereas, in addition to his daily duties of providing assistance to veterans and their family members, he had played a vital role in providing training and mentoring to all newly hired VSRs in Contra Costa County; and Whereas, Hoff retired as a VSR on October 1, 2020 and has continued to volunteer his time in the office; and Whereas, Hoff has been married to his wife of 53 years, Conny and has twin daughters, Nicole and Jessica; and Whereas, F. Michael Hoffschneider has served our country and our nation’s veterans for more than 48 years and assisted thousands of veterans and family members with his acquired knowledge of veterans’ benefits. that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors recognizes F. Michael Hoffschneider for years of service and continued dedication to our veteran’s community. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA DIANE BURGIS 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 9259578860 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Joellen Bergamini, Deputy cc: C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:In the matter of: Recognizing the Veterans in Contra Costa County AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/281 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/281 signed In the matter of:Resolution No. 2020/281 Recognizing the Veterans in Contra Costa County Whereas, on November 11, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first commemoration of Armistice Day; and Whereas, in 1938 an act was passed to make November 11th a Federal Holiday dedicated to the cause of world peace and would be known as Armistice Day; and Whereas, in 1954 a new act was passed which changed the name from Armistice Day to Veterans Day and it has been celebrated ever since; and Whereas, on Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who in defense of our freedom have bravely worn the uniform of the United States; and Whereas, today, we are reminded of our solemn obligation; to serve our veterans as well as they have served us; and Whereas, our veterans have defended our nation's ideals established by our founding fathers, protected the innocent, and liberated the oppressed from tyranny and terror; and Whereas, the freedom and security enjoyed by Americans is the direct result of the sacrifices of those who have served and who are serving in our Armed Forces; and Whereas, our veterans have served with honor, courage, and commitment in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other military actions protecting our freedoms; and Whereas, our veterans who fought to protect our democracy are strengthening it here back at home. Once leaders in the Armed Forces, they are now pioneers of industry and pillars of their communities. Their character reflects our enduring American spirit, and in their example, we find inspiration and strength; and Whereas, many of our veterans continue to serve one another through the over 20 veteran services organizations throughout Contra Costa County that continue to provide invaluable services to our veterans: assistance with health claims, job training programs, community support, and countless hours of volunteer services throughout our communities; and Whereas, we will never forget the heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice and all those who have not yet returned home. that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County does hereby recognize and honor the men and women of our country, who have served, and who are serving, in our Armed Forces of the United States in observance of Veterans Day 2020. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA DIANE BURGIS 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 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): Proclaim November 4, 2020 as the Contra Costa County Shelter-in-Place Education Day BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County Community Awareness and Emergency Response Group, Inc. has worked with schools and day care facilities for the last eighteen years on sheltering in place when there is a hazardous material release that could impact them. This protective action is the best immediate action that a person can take to protect them against exposure to hazardous materials that could occur from an accidental release or spill. Attached find the proclamation and a flyer announcing November 4, 2020 as Shelter-in-Place Education Day. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Randy Sawyer, 925-335-3210 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Joellen Bergamini, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Cho Nai Cheung C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:CAER 2020 Shelter-in-Place Education Day AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/288 Fact Sheet MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020/288 signed In the matter of:Resolution No. 2020/288 Proclaiming November 4, 2020 as the Contra Costa County Shelter-in-Place Education Day Whereas public and private schools and childcare centers throughout Contra Costa County will be participating in the Shelter-in-Place Drill on November 4th; and, Whereas Contra Costa Community Awareness Emergency Response Group – CAER – is sponsoring the 18th Annual Shelter-in-Place Drill and assisting schools and childcare centers with their emergency preparedness; and, Whereas emergency response agencies including fire, sheriff and health officials all recommend Shelter-in-Place as the immediate action to take in case of a hazardous release; and, Whereas the Shelter-in-Place Drill increases public awareness about Shelter-in-Place as a protective action and gives students and teachers practice in implementing this important procedure; and, Whereas the County Office of Education has endorsed the Shelter-in-Place Drill and encouraged all sites to participate; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: the County of Contra Costa recognizes the importance of preparing for emergencies and encourages participation in the Contra Costa CAER Group’s public education efforts. In support of the parents, teachers, students and staff that will be participating with hundreds of other schools and childcare centers in the Shelter-in-Place Drill, we proclaim November 4, 2020, as “Shelter-in-Place Education Day. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA DIANE BURGIS 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy CCC CAER Group, Inc. www.cococaer.org 2020 Shelter-in-Place Drill FACT SHEET  The Shelter-in-Place drill will begin at 11:00 a.m. on November 4th . This coincides with the testing of the safety sirens in Contra Costa that sound at 11:00 a.m. Or, if necessary, you can change to a time b etter suited to your site.  Each site will determine how complex they want the Shelter -in-Place drill to be at their own facility. The scope can range from a tabletop exercise with staff to a full-scale drill bringing everyone inside to Shelter-in-Place. Drill can be as long as you want it to be.  The drill is being sponsored by Contra Costa County CAER (Community Awareness Emergency Response) Group. CAER is a non-profit organization with members from fire, law enforcement, health services, emergency services, plus community and industry representatives.  All public and private schools and childcare centers are encouraged to participate. This is a chance to be part of a countywide exercise that will promote further awareness about Shelter-in-Place training and procedures.  Participating schools and childcare centers will have their names posted on the CAER web site at www.cococaer.org.  The County Board of Supervisors as well as All City Councils in the County are being asked to proclaim November 6th as “Shelter-in-Place Education Day.”  The Shelter-in-Place Drill is an annual event on the first Wednesday in November. CAER sponsors the drill to promote emergency preparedness in our schools and childcare centers . Please note: If you do not normally hear the sound of the sirens on the first Wednesday of every month YOU WILL NOT HEAR THEM ON NOV. 4th Sirens are only one of the ways a Shelter -in-Place alert is broadcast. In an actual emergency, other tools to alert the public would also be used, such as KCBS 740AM radio, scrolling messages on CCTV, weather radio alerts, and the TENS system (automated telephone calls) as well as cell phone notifications. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kate Rauch, 510-231-8691 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Joellen Bergamini, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Honoring Jane Fischberg on her retirement from Rubicon Programs ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/289 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2020/289 Honoring Jane Fischberg on her retirement from Rubicon Programs and thanking her for her dedicated community service WHEREAS, Jane Fischberg began working at Rubicon Programs in Richmond, California in 1997, holding many leadership positions, eventually becoming President and CEO in 2007; and WHEREAS, Jane Fischberg’s lifetime of commitment to improving the lives of people struggling with poverty, addiction, mental illness and other conditions affecting health, safety and dignity, made Rubicon Programs a perfect match for her skills, wisdom, and passion; and WHEREAS, The mission of Rubicon Programs is “To transform East Bay Communities by equipping people to break the cycle of poverty;” and WHEREAS, Prior to starting at Rubicon Programs, Jane Fischberg’s work experience includes serving as program director of Shelter Plus Care Program for the city and county of San Francisco; administrative director at Lutheran Social Services of Northern California, and administer at Hamilton Family Center/Haight-Ashbury Family Shelter in San Francisco; and WHEREAS, In her commitment to service, Jane Fischberg has also served on the Healthy Richmond Steering Committee, the Contra Costa County Human Services Alliance, the Advisory Board of San Francisco State University MPA Program, and the Richmond Workforce Investment Board – among other civic, professional and community groups; and WHEREAS, Jane Fischberg’s warmth, compassion, humility and collaborative nature made her a deeply effective leader at Rubicon, as measured by the experiences of her clients, staff, and partnering organizations and agencies; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby honor Jane Fischberg on her retirement from Rubicon Programs, thank her for her inspirational community service to the most vulnerable residents of the East Bay, and wish her the very best on future endeavors. ___________________ CANDACE ANDERSEN Chair, District II Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA DIANE BURGIS District I Supervisor District III Supervisor ______________________________________ KAREN MITCHOFF FEDERAL D. GLOVER 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT to the Advisory Council on Aging Local Committee Seats: Rudy Fernandez to the City of Antioch seat; Joanna Kim Selby to the City of El Cerrito seat; Jennifer Doran to the City of Hercules seat; Frances Smith to the City of Richmond seat; and Gail Garrett to the Nutrition Council seat, for a two-year term of September 30, 2020 through September 30, 2022 as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The following members are recommended for reappointment to Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA) Local Committee Seats for the two-year term of September 30, 2020 through September 30, 2022: Rudy Fernandez, City of Antioch seat (District 3) Joanna Kim Selby, City of El Cerrito seat (District 1) Frances Smith, City of Richmond seat (District 1) Jennifer Doran, City of Hercules seat (District APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Reappointments to the Advisory Council on Aging BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 5) Gail Garrett, Nutrition Council (All Districts) The ACOA provides a means for county-wide planning, cooperation. and coordination for individuals and groups invested in providing and developing services and opportunities for older residents of Contra Costa County. The ACOA provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons and serves as a channel of communication and information on aging. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The ACOA may not be able to conduct routine business. RECOMMENDATION(S): DECLARE a vacancy in Seat Member At-Large #18 on the Advisory Council on Aging (ACOA), and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: ACOA Seat Member At Large (MAL) #18 is currently vacant. Requesting the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy. The ACOA provides for countywide planning, cooperation, and coordination for individuals and groups interested in improving and developing services and opportunities for older residents of the County. The ACOA provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons as a channel of communication and information. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The ACOA could not fill the vacancy and carry out routine business. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare Advisory Council on Aging Vacancy AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): REMOVE Ms. Deborah Cowans from an At Large Alternate Seat on the Commission for Women and Girls; DECLARE the At Large Seat vacant, and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the Executive Committee of the Commission for Women and Girls. FISCAL IMPACT: NA BACKGROUND: Upon reviewing Ms. Cowans' attendance record and in accordance with the Commission's current bylaws, the Commission's Executive Committee has made the recommendation to remove Ms. Cowans from her current position At Large Alternate Seat. The Commission Chair and members of the membership committee attempted to contact Ms. Cowans on several occasions and were unsuccessful in receiving a response. This will leave vacant the At Large Alternate Seat which expires on February 28, 2023. The Commission has a total of 16 members including a representative from each of the Board of Supervisors. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Ms. Cowans will remain in the seat and the Commission may have difficulty maintaining quorums. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dennis Bozanich 925-655-2050 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Declare vacancy on the Commission for Women and Girls CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: NA AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice RECOMMENDATION(S): REAPPOINT James Mellander to the District 1 seat on the Merit Board, as recommended by Supervisor Gioia. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Mr. Mellander has been serving successfully and Supervisor Gioia wishes to reappoint him. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Merit Board needs to have all of its vacancies filled. The Merit Board will struggle to have a quorum at our meetings if Mr. Mellander is not appointed. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: James Lyons, 510-231-8692 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:REAPPOINT James Mellander to the District 1 seat on the Merit Board RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or Designee, to execute the first amendment to lease with Helge Theiss-Nyland and Patricia Theiss-Nyland, Trustees of the Helge Theiss-Nyland and Patricia Theiss-Nyland 2006 Trust to extend the term through April 30, 2025, for approximately 620 square feet of office space located at 2101 Vale Road, Suite 302, San Pablo for continued occupancy by Veterans Services. The initial annual rent is $15,624 with annual increases thereafter. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will obligate the County to pay rent of approximately $82,980 over the five-year term. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Veterans Services – San Pablo Outstation provides a wide variety of services for veterans, survivors and dependents including assistance with obtaining VA service-related benefits, disability and needs-based benefits, vets life insurance and educational benefits for vets and dependents, home loan guarantees and burial benefits. This amendment provides for the County’s continued occupancy by Veterans Services at this location. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Stacey Sinclair, 925. 957-2464 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize a lease amendment for Veterans Services at 2101 Vale Road, Suite 302, San Pablo. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve the amendment to lease for the continued operation of Veterans Services at this location would result in having to relocate to another suitable location at increased rent, together with the associated expenses of moving and constructing new tenant improvements. ATTACHMENTS Lease Amendment RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/284 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment to decrease the payment limit by $31,136 to new payment limit of $10,287,769 from the California Department of Education to provide State preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive 100% State funds, totaling $10,287,769: decreased from $10,318,905. State Agreement CSPP 9050, Amend 4 / CCC Agreement 39-908-31 BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education (CDE) notified the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) on September 14, 2020 of the 2019-20 funding allocation of the California State Preschool Program (CSPP) services. The County receives funds from the CDE to provide state preschool services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the EHSD, Community Services Bureau. The Board approved the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Teresita Foster, Nelly Ige, Nasim Eghlima C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2019-2020 California Department of Education Preschool Program Revenue Contract Amendment 4 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) original contract on July 9, 2019 (C.56). The Board approved the first amendment to increase payment limit by $305,652 on November 19, 2019 (C.25). The second amendment modified the minimum days of operation on the contract from 252 to 251 with no changes on payment or term limit and therefore not requiring board approval. The Board approved a third amendment on August 11, 2020 (C.22) to temporary release and transfer funds to General Child Care and Development Contract by $800,000. This amendment is to approve execution amendment to decrease the payment limit by $31,136, to increase maximum rate per child day of enrollment from $49.85 to $50.67 and reduce child days of enrollment from 206,999 to 203,035. In order to fund a higher reimbursement rate, CSB along with other agencies participating in the Local Individualized Subsidized Child Care Plan agreed to reduce its existing CSPP Contract by decreasing their payment limit. The Contra Costa County Local Individualized Subsidy Child Care Plan was approved by board on July 10, 2018 (C.115) and approved by California Department of Education on May 8, 2019. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive maximum rate per child day of enrollment to maximize contract expenditures and meet State contract obligations. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau supports three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; and, 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing" by offering comprehensive services, including high quality, early childhood education, nutrition, and health services to low-income children throughout Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/284 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/284 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/284 In The Matter Of: 2019-2020 California Department of Education Preschool Program Revenue Contract Amendment 4 WHEREAS, the County receives funds from California Department of Education to provide state preschool services, and WHEREAS, the program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD), Community Services Bureau (CSB), and WHEREAS, this board order resolution will approve the amendment to decrease the payment limit by $31,136, to increase maximum rate per child day of enrollment from $49.85 to $50.67 and reduce child days of enrollment from $206,999 to $203,035, and WHEREAS, in order to fund a higher reimbursement rate, CSB along with other agencies participating in the Local Individualized Subsidized Child Care Plan agreed to reduce its existing CSPP Contract by decreasing their payment limit. Now, therefore, Be it Resolved: the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment to decrease the payment limit by $31,136 to new payment limit of $10,287,769 from the California Department of Education to provide State preschool services with no change to term July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Teresita Foster, Nelly Ige, Nasim Eghlima RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director or designee, to accept on behalf of the County Grant Award #28-767-7 (Grantor #20-07-90899-00) from the California Department of Public Health, to pay County for providing health services for the Refugee Health Assessment Program (RHAP), for the period October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Acceptance of this Award will result in a reimbursement to the County of $300 per health assessment and $250 for administrative costs per patient in the RHAP. No County match required. BACKGROUND: The RHAP allows for the provision of health assessment services to refugees, asylees, entrants from Haiti and Cuba, Special Visa immigrants, certified victims of human trafficking and other eligible entrants as required in the California Refugee Health Assessment form (CDPH 8418A). Based on the assessment, communicable diseases are treated on the new arrivals, as well as, other Contra Costans, who are not protected from disease. In addition, this program provides highly trained and culturally appropriate medical interpreters for the County’s Afghan, Russian, Vietnamese, Lao and Mien clinics (13 per week). The RHAP advocates for people with limited-English skills to achieve access and care within the Contra Costa Health Services Department. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Anna Roth, 925-957-2670 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Award #28-767-7 from the California Department of Public Health, Refugee Health Assessment Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Health Services Department recently received a notice of award from the California Department of Public Health, granting Health Services Department funding. Acceptance of the Grant Award #28-767-7 allows the County to provide RHAP services through September 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this grant award is not accepted, people with limited-English skills in the RHAP program will not achieve access and care within the Contra Costa Health Services Department. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE clarification of Board Action from January 14, 2020 (Item C.5) in which the Board authorized the County Librarian to accept a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award in the amount of $75,000 from the City of Walnut Creek for the purpose of providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades to the Ygnacio Valley Library parking lot, to reflect the updated grant amount of $95,000,for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The Community Development Block Grant will cover the necessary ADA upgrades to the Library parking lot. The Library Fund will cover the subsequent paving work in the amount of approximately $375,000. BACKGROUND: The CDBG program is funded by the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The primary objective of this program is to help develop viable urban communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity, principally for low and moderate income persons. The cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County, on behalf of all the other cities and the county unincorporated area (the Urban County), APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Walt Beveridge 925-608-7730 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, Interim County Librarian Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE Clarification of Board Action of January 14, 2020 (C.5) CDBG Grant Amount BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) joined to form the Contra Costa HOME and CDBG Consortium. Together these jurisdictions cover all of Contra Costa County and have a joint, integrated funding application for these funds. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Library will be unable to complete necessary ADA upgrades to the Ygnacio Valley Library Parking Lot. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #29-817-3 with the City of Walnut Creek, including agreeing to indemnify the City, to pay the County an amount not to exceed $88,472 to provide homeless outreach services under the Coordinated Outreach, Referral and Engagement (CORE) Program, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will allow the County to receive an amount not to exceed $88,472 from the City of Walnut Creek. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: The CORE Program services locate and engage homeless clients throughout Contra Costa County. CORE teams serve as an entry point into the County’s coordinated entry system for unsheltered persons and work to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals and families. On September 24, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #29-817-2 to receive funds from the City of Walnut Creek for the provision of the CORE Program, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #29-817-3 with the City of Walnut Creek BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Agreement #29-817-3 will allow County to receive funds for homeless outreach services through June 30, 2021. This agreement includes agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the contractor for claims arising out of County’s performance under this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not receive funding and without such funding, the CORE program may have to operate at a reduced capacity. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, including modified indemnification language, for use of the Sheriff's Range Facility commencing with execution of the contract through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: No net county cost - 100% Participant fees BACKGROUND: Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers are required to complete firearms qualifications on a regular basis. The Office of the Sheriff has a firing range and classroom that can be used by other law enforcement agencies for firearms qualifications when not in use by County staff. The recommended contract provides for use of the Sheriff's Range Facilities, including firearms range and classroom, for firearms qualification of this government agency and their employees. The contract includes mutual indemnification language. The contract agency will pay a per day fee for access to the Sheriff's Range Facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negative action on this request would mean a loss of revenue for the County and a valuable loss of services for outside agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sandra Brown 925-655-0004 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Range Use Contract RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a non-financial Agreement with the Trustees of the California State University on behalf of California State University Long Beach for student internship placement(s) for social work field experience in the County for the period October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement will not affect department expenditures. This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: California State University Long Beach (CSULB) College of Health and Human Services provides nursing, health services, paraprofessional training, and degree programs in the field of Social Work and desires its students to obtain practical experience at agencies to facilitate acquiring professional field experience. Employment and Human Services (EHSD) desires to participate in CSULB’s student internship program in the field of Social Work. EHSD can provide students with practical experience in their chosen APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Gina Chenoweeth 8-4961 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:California State University Long Beach Non-Financial Student Internship Agreement BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) field of Social Work and contribute to the learning experience. This Agreement contains mutual indemnification and insurance language, which has been reviewed and approved by County’s Risk Management Department. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EHSD would not be able to help develop, provide field experience, and promote County employment to future County Social Workers. In addition, EHSD would not be able to provide field experience to EHSD Social Worker Staff to support professional development in obtaining higher education and potential career advancement opportunities within EHSD. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Mount Diablo Unified School District in an amount not to exceed $193,040 to provide Early Head Start Program Enhancement services for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This Agreement is funded 100% by Federal funds through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, CFDA 93.600. There is no County match requirement. BACKGROUND: Contra Costa County receives funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to provide Head Start and Early Head Start program services to program eligible County residents. The Department of Employment and Human Services, in turn, contracts with a number of community-based organizations to provide a wider distribution of services. This interagency agreement supports the continued provision of Early Head Start services through the provision of 28 childcare slots at Crossroads High School. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Gonzales 608-4968 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Lisa Gonzales, Theo Trinh C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-21 MDUSD Contract Renewal CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County's ability to more widely distribute childcare services through partnerships with community-based agencies will be hindered. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau contract 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. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Conservation and Development Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Fehr & Peers to extend the term from December 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, with no change to the payment limit, to continue analyzing the feasibility of multi-use trail concepts for the Marsh Creek Corridor. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County's General Fund. Staff time and proposed County funding is included in existing work plans and budgets. Previously approved or reviewed allocations fund the project: Livable Communities Trust Fund District III portion ($250,000, Board approved 12/20/16), East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Restoration Planning Funds ($25,000, 7/20/16) and Road Fund – Advance Planning (gas tax) ($24,735). BACKGROUND: In November 2018, the Department of Conservation and Development ("DCD") entered into a contract with Fehr & Peers ("Contractor"), in an amount not to exceed $299,735 for the period November 15, 2018 through December 30, 2020, to assist DCD in developing and studying the feasibility of a multi-use trail in APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jamar Stamps, (925) 674-7832 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment with Fehr & Peers for the “Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Study” BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the Marsh Creek Corridor. Due to project delays from COVID-19, it is now necessary to extend this contract to allow the Contractor to continue providing their services. The second round of public outreach will occur in Fall 2020 and a Draft Study will be completed in December 2020. Necessary revisions will be implemented after public review and a Final Study is anticipated in early 2021. There will be no change to the existing payment limit of $299,735. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, Fehr & Peers would not be able to continue to provide their services, which may result in delayed delivery of the Final Study. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Sheriff-Corner, a purchase order with Shimadzu Scientific Instruments in an amount not to exceed $410,000 to purchase a Shimadzu LCMS-8050 Triple Quadrupole Liquid Chromatograph Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) System, consumables and training for the Office of the Sheriff, Forensic Services Division. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Federal Funds. Zero Net County Cost. Funded through FY 20/21 OTS (Office of Traffic Safety) Grant BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County, Office of the Sheriff, Forensic Services Division (FSD) operates an ISO 17025 ANAB Accredited Crime Laboratory able to provide County-wide Forensic Toxicological testing services. The FSD’s Toxicology Unit is responsible for the analysis of blood and urine evidence for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant funds are needed to ensure efficient processing and analysis of DUID-related offenses. The OTS Grant funds will be used to purchase APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: (925)655-0023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Alycia Rubio, Paul Reyes C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order - Shimadzu Scientific Instruments - LC/MS-MS System, training, consumables BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) a Shimadzu LCMS-8050 Triple Quadrupole Liquid Chromatograph Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) System, consumables and training. The LC-MS/MS System will enable the FSD to provide comprehensive information on driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases without the need to send evidence to an outside testing laboratory. The instrument will have the ability to rapidly determine and quantitate difficult to detect impairing substances such as designer benzodiazepines, fentanyl analogs and synthetic cannabinoids. The LC-MS/MS System will allow the FSD to meet current and future DUID guidelines for the drug assays as required by NHTSA and the National Safety Council. The purchase of this System will reduce the turnaround times and backlog in the Toxicology Unit of the FSD. Shimadzu has been selected because the vendor meets the “Buy America Act” guidelines. The LC-MS/MS System is manufactured in the United States, which is a requirement of the Office of Traffic Safety Grant. On January 21, 2020 the CCC Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No 2020/16, authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner to apply for and accept a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to purchase the LC/MS-MS instrument to include consumables and training. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A decision not to purchase the Shimadzu LCMS will increase the Toxicology backlog, increase the turnaround time for DUID cases and contribute to delays in criminal prosecutions. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-445-18 with Aaron K. Hayashi, M.D., Inc., a corporation, effective September 1, 2020, to amend Contract #26-445-16 to increase the payment limit by $49,000, from $1,936,000 to a new payment limit of $1,985,000, with no change in the term of October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by the Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-445-16 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #26-445-17) with Aaron K. Hayashi, M.D., Inc., for the provision of radiology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-445-18 will allow the Contractor to provide additional radiology services through September 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D. 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: A Floyd , M Wilhelm C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #26-445-18 with Aaron K. Hayashi, M.D., Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, Contractor will not be paid for services rendered in good faith. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-681-84(20) with United Family Care, LLC (dba Family Courtyard), a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $315,725, to provide augmented board and care services, for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funding. BACKGROUND: This Contract meets the social needs of the County's population in that it provides augmentation of room and board, and twenty-four hour emergency residential care and supervision to eligible mentally disordered clients, who are specifically referred by the Mental Health Program Staff and who are served by County Mental Health Services. On November 12, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-681-84(18) with United Family Care, LLC (dba Family Courtyard), for the period December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020, for the provision of augmented board and care services for County-referred mentally disordered clients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PHD., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-681-84(20) with United Family Care, LLC (dba Family Courtyard) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #24-681-84(20) will allow the contractor to continue to provide augmented board and care services, through November 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County residents will not receive services provided by this contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-101-2 with Ed Supports, LLC (dba Juvo Autism + Behavioral Health Services), a Limited Liability Company, in an amount not to exceed $1,500,000, to provide applied behavior analysis (ABA) services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #77-101-1 with Ed Supports, LLC (dba Juvo Autism + Behavioral Health Services) for the provision of ABA services for CCHP Members for the period November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #77-101-2 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide ABA services to CCHP members through October 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP Members will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-101-2 with Ed Supports, LLC (dba Juvo Autism + Behavioral Health Services) RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-938-28 with David H. Raphael, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,590,000, to provide general surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On December 18, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-938-24 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreements #26-938-25 through #26-938-27) with David H. Raphael, M.D, to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-938-28 will allow Contractor to continue to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through December 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring general surgery services will not have access to the Contractor’s services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-938-28 with David H. Raphael, M.D. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-419-13 with William E. Berlingieri, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $391,680 to provide outpatient psychiatric care for older adults with mental illness in Central County for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funding. BACKGROUND: On October 22, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-419-12 with William E. Berlingieri, M.D., for the provision of outpatient psychiatric services, including, diagnosis, counseling, evaluation, medication management, and providing medical therapeutic treatment, consultation and training in medical and therapeutic matters for adults in Central Contra Costa County for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #74-419-13 will allow the Contractor to continue providing outpatient psychiatric care through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-419-13 with William E. Berlingieri, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County’s clients will not have access to the Contractor’s psychiatric care services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-255-1 with Suncrest Hospice San Jose, LLC, a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $900,000, to provide hospice services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2019 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #77-255 with Suncrest Hospice San Jose, LLC for the provision of hospice services for CCHP members for the period December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020. Approval of Contract #77-255-1 will allow the Contractor to provide hospice services to CCHP members through November 30, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-255-1 with Suncrest Hospice San Jose, LLC RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-184-1 with A Plus Hospice, Inc, a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to provide hospice services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members, for the period November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by the CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2018 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #77-184 with A Plus Hospice, Inc., for the provision of hospice services for CCHP Members for the period November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #77-184-1 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide hospice services for CCHP members through October 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members will not be provided. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-184-1 with A Plus Hospice, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #76-584-4 with All Health Services, Corporation, effective October 1, 2020, to amend Contract #76-584-3 to increase the payment limit by $300,000, from $1,200,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (Cares) Act. BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-584-3 with All Health Services, Corporation for the provision of temporary medical staffing services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), Contra Costa Health Centers and Detention facilities for the for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #76-584-4 will allow the contractor to provide additional crisis nursing services during the COVID-19 pandemic through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment #76-584-4 with All Health Services, Corporation CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, County will not have access to additional services provided by the contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-624-5 with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Servicemaster Restoration Services), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000, to provide emergency restoration services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021 FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded by 8% Hospital Enterprise Fund I and 92% Federal Corona Virus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act and other applicable federal revenue sources. BACKGROUND: In November 2018, the County Administrator approved and the Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #76-624-1 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #76-624-3 and #76-624-4) with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Servicemaster Restoration Services), for the provision of emergency restoration services to resolve emergency events requiring immediate assistance during COVID-19 pandemic and other events as determined by the Facilities Administration for the period December 1, 2019 through APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-624-5 with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Servicemaster Restoration Services) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) November 30, 2020. Approval of Contract #76-624-5 will allow Contractor to continue providing emergency restoration services through November 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CCRMC and Health Centers will not have access to emergency restoration services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of County Novation Contract #74-491-5 with Tides Center, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $224,602, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $112,301. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act funding. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing improved access to health care, education, mental health and suicide prevention to more than 1,000 residents from diverse households in the Iron Triangle neighborhood of Richmond. Expected program outcomes include increases in social connectedness, communication skills, parenting skills, and knowledge of the human service system in Contra Costa County. On September 24, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-491-4 with Tides Center, to provide MHSA-PEI services for residents in the Iron Triangle neighborhood of Richmond, for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a six-month APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-491-5 with Tides Center BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) automatic extension through December 31, 2020. Approval of Novation Contract #74-491-5 replaces the automatic extension under the prior Contract and allows Contractor to continue providing MHSA-PEI services through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, Residents of Richmond’s Iron Triangle will not receive the MHSA-PEI services to influence factors that bear upon the healthy development and education of children from the community and improve community participation in education and health promotion, health protection, and violence prevention efforts. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This MHSA-PEI program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: #4 Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing and #5 Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Probation Officer, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) Incorporated, in an amount not to exceed $249,948 to continue to provide Juvenile Reentry Services in East and Central Contra Costa County to youth who have been, or soon will be, released from the Youthful Offender Treatment Program (YOTP), the Girls in Motion program (GIM), or the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF) for the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funds. BACKGROUND: In 2000, the California state legislature passed the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act, which authorized funding for county juvenile justice programs and designated the Board of State Community Corrections (BSCC) to distribute the funds. In 2001, the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) was created by passage of California’s Crime Prevention Act of 2000 to provide a stable funding source for local juvenile justice programs aimed at curbing crime and delinquency APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Danielle Fokkema, 925-313-4195 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Esa Ehmen-Krause, County Probation Officer Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Bay Area Community Resources (BACR) Incorporated BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) among at-rick youth. Contra Costa County has historically used, and continues to use, this funding for programs that have been previously shown to have promising positive outcomes. In the May 2018 Consolidated Plan submitted to the BSCC, Probation proposed using JJCPA funding to enhance juvenile reentry services in all regions of the county. Probation released an RFP in June 2018 and BACR was awarded the contract to provide Juvenile Reentry services for East and Central Contra Costa County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Probation Department will be unable to continue to offer Juvenile Reentry services to youth in East and Central Contra Costa County. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Reentry Services for Probation youth support three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 2) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 3) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families." RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/286 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the total Contract amount by $685,486 to an amount not to exceed $6,784,344 to provide California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS, Stage 2) childcare and development programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 85% ($5,760,572) State. 15% ($1,023,772) Federal dollars passed through the State Department of Education [CFDA #93.575] The State funding number C2AP 0008-02; County number 29-213-38. BACKGROUND: The Department received notification on June 2, 2020 from California Department of Education for the 2020-21 funding allocation for alternative payment / CalWORKS Stage 2 childcare services. This State program provides funding to reimburse a portion of the childcare costs incurred by CalWORKS Stage 2 participants through their participation in the CalWORKS program. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Nelly Ige, Angela Winn, Nasim Eghlima C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-21 California Department of Education CalWORKS Stage 2 Childcare Revenue Contract Amendment 2 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) County Board of Supervisors approved agreement on June 23, 2020 (C.30). The first amendment added language to reflect Contra Costa County Pilot Plan with no changes on payment or term limit and therefore not requiring board approval. This board resolution is to accept additional funds from the State. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not have funds to operate CalWORKS Stage 2 childcare program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and Human Services Department's 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. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/286 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution 2020/286 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/286 In The Matter Of: 2020-21 California Department of Education CalWORKS Stage 2 Childcare Revenue Contract Amendment 2 : WHEREAS, the California Department of Education provides funding to reimburse a portion of the childcare costs incurred by CalWORKS Stage 2 participants through their participation in the CalWORKS program, and WHEREAS, Contra Costa County was notified on June 2, 2020 of the funding allocation, and Whereas, this board order resolution will approve the amendment to accept additional funds, number C2AP 0008-02, from the State. Now, therefore, Be It Resolved : the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the total Contract amount by $685,486 to an amount not to exceed $6,784,344 to provide California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS, Stage 2) childcare and development programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Nelly Ige, Angela Winn, Nasim Eghlima RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #25-089 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,785,511, to provide Coordinated Entry, Outreach, Referral and Engagement (CORE) services, to engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals in Contra Costa County, for the period from October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded by 23% Federal, 46% State, and 31% Local grants funding. BACKGROUND: CORE services work to locate, engage, stabilize and house chronically homeless individuals in Contra Costa County. Under Contract #25-089, the contractor will provide CORE services to homeless individuals in Contra Costa County, for the period from October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lavonna Martin, 925-608-6701 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #25-089 with Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County’s homeless clients will experience longer wait times for shelter and respite services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute, on behalf of the Health Services Department, a Purchase Order with Priority Healthcare Distribution, Inc. (dba Curascript Specialty Distribution), in an amount not to exceed $500,000, for specialty drugs Nexplanon and Eylea to be used at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers, Martinez Detention Center and West County Detention Center, for the period from December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% funding is included in the Hospital Enterprise Fund I budget. BACKGROUND: Priority Healthcare Distribution, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that provides Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers, Martinez Detention Center and West County Detention Center with Nexplanon and Eylea. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Purchase Order is not approved, we will not be able to purchase specialty drugs Nexplanon and Eylea for our patients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm, Irene Segovia C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Purchase Order with Priority Healthcare Distribution, Inc. (dba Curascript Specialty Distribution) RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #77-005-7 with David S. Gee, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide consultation and technical assistance to the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) Medical Management team, for the period from December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #77-005-5 (as amended by Amendment Agreement #77-005-6) with David S. Gee, M.D., to provide consultation and technical assistance to the CCHP Medical Management team, for the period from December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020. Approval of contract #77-005-7 will allow the Contractor to continue providing consultation and technical assistance to the CCHP Medical Management team through November 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the CCHP Management Team will not receive the benefits of consultation and technical assistance from the Contractor. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #77-005-7 with David S. Gee, M.D. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-644-25 with Covelo Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services, including clinical laboratory scientist supervisor, medical/clinical analyst and pharmacy inventory specialists, at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-644-23 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #26-644-24) with Covelo Group, Inc., to provide temporary medical staffing and recruitment services for clinical laboratory scientist supervisor, medical/clinical analyst and pharmacy inventory specialists at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, to provide coverage during peak loads, temporary absences and emergencies, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jespreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: K Cyr, M Wilhelm C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-644-25 with Covelo Group, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #26-644-25 will allow the Contractor to continue providing temporary medical staffing and recruitment services, at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to the contractor’s temporary medical staffing services. RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/287 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the total amount by $1,621,933 to an amount not to exceed $5,287,744 to provide alternative payment childcare programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement is funded by the California Department of Education and no County match is required. The State funding number is CAPP 0010-02; the County number is 29-212-38. This contract is 71% Federal dollars passed through the State Department of Education. 29% State. [CFDA #93.596 #93.575] No match. BACKGROUND: The Department was notified by the California Department of Education on June 2, 2020 of the County's 2020-21 allocation APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Nelly Ige, Angela Winn, Nasim Eghlima C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-21 California Department of Education Alternative Payment Childcare Services Revenue Contract Amendment 2 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) for the Alternative Payment childcare services program. The Alternative Payment childcare services program provides funding for program eligible families to receive services. Priority is given to families who interface with Child Protective Services, families with children at-risk of abuse and neglect, low-income families, and families with children who have special needs. The County Board of Supervisors approved agreement on June 23, 2020 (C.29). The first amendment added language to reflect Contra Costa County Pilot Plan with no changes on payment or term limit and therefore not requiring board approval. This board resolution is to accept additional funds from the State. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive funding to operate this childcare program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Employment and 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. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/287 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/287 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/287 In The Matter Of: 2020-21 California Department of Education Alternative Payment Childcare Services Revenue Contract Amendment 2 Whereas, the Alternative Payment childcare services program provides funding for program eligible families to receive services, and WHEREAS, priority is given to families who interface with Child Protective Services, families with children at-risk of abuse and neglect, low-income families, and families with children who have special needs, and WHEREAS, this board resolution is to accept additional funds from the State. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Department Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Education to increase the total amount by $1,621,933 to an amount not to exceed $5,287,744 to provide alternative payment childcare programs for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Contact: CSB (925) 681-6334 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Theodore Trinh, Nelly Ige, Angela Winn, Nasim Eghlima RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-718-6 with The Wright Institute, an educational institution, in an amount not to exceed $1,158,750 to provide training to behavioral health students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by the Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On January 7, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-718-5 with The Wright Institute for the provision of training to behavioral health students at CCRMC and Health Centers. Students will provide consultation to primary care providers, short term interventions, individual and group therapy sessions, and psychopharmacologic consultations, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-718-6 with The Wright Institute BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #26-718-6 will allow the Contractor to continue providing behavioral health services, through August 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County will not have access to the Contractor’s training services at the CCRMC and Health Centers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-593-3 with Mental Health Systems, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $303,673, to provide socialization and vocational rehabilitative services to adults with severe and persistent mental illness for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021, in an amount not to exceed $151,836. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funding. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74-593-2 with Mental Health Systems, Inc. for the provision of socialization and vocational rehabilitative services to adults with severe and persistent mental illness, including specific technical training and hands-on instruction for trades, certifications, or diplomas for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925- 957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-593-3 with Mental Health Systems, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Novation Contract #74-593-3 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services, through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, adults with severe and persistent mental illness will not receive vocational services provided by this contractor. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Novation Contract #74-363-11 with La Clínica de La Raza, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $288,975, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $144,486. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing Latinos residing in Central and East Contra Costa County with screenings for risk factors, such as symptoms of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, reactions to trauma, domestic violence, sleep difficulties, and pain; and by providing education and support to Latino parents and caregivers so that they can support the strong development of their children and youth. Expected program outcomes include an increase in positive social and emotional development as measured by the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, PhD., 925- 957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74-363-11 with La Clínica de La Raza, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On September 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–363-10 with La Clínica de La Raza, Inc., to provide MHSA PEI services to Latino residents of Central and East County, for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. Approval of Novation Contract #74–363–11 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, County will not receive mental health risk factor screening for children and adults, behavioral health intervention, and psycho-educational and parenting groups from this contractor. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This MHSA PEI program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: #4 Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing and #5 Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of County Novation Contract #74–379–11 with People Who Care Children Association, a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $229,795, to provide Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which includes a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $114,898. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of County’s population by providing work experience for 200 multicultural youth residing in the Pittsburg/Bay Point communities, as well as programs aimed at increasing educational success among youth who are either at-risk or high-risk of dropping out of school, or committing a repeat offense.Expected program outcomes include increases in social connectedness, APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D, 925- 957-5169 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Novation Contract #74–379–11 with People Who Care Children Association BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) communication skills, parenting skills, and knowledge of the human service system in Contra Costa County. On September 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Novation Contract #74–379-10 with People Who Care Children Association, to provide MHSA PEI services for the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020, which included a six-month automatic extension through December 31, 2020. Approval of Novation Contract #74–379–11 replaces the automatic extension under the prior contract and allows the contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, at-risk youth from East Contra Costa County will have reduced access to job training and other programs, aimed at increasing educational success. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This MHSA-PEI program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: #4 Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing and #5 Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-699-9 with Semon Bader, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide orthopedic services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Center patients, for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On December 10, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-699-8 with Semon Bader, M.D., to provide orthopedic services, including, but not limited to clinical coverage, consultation, training, on-call and administrative services for CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-699-9 will allow the contractor to continue to provide orthopedic services to CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Center patients through December 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-699-9 with Semon Bader, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring orthopedic services at CCRMC will not have access to the contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-904-31 with Stephen C. Weiss, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $1,590,000, to provide general surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On January 15, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-904-30 with Stephen C. Weiss, M.D, to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-904-31 will allow Contractor to continue to provide general surgery services at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers through December 31, 2023. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-904-31 with Stephen C. Weiss, M.D. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring general surgery services will not have access to Contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #72-159 with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $502,049, to provide COVID-19 contact investigation and contact tracing services for Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS), for the period from November 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and other federal emergency response funding sources. BACKGROUND: This contract will establish a relationship between CCHS and Contractor to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in vulnerable communities with contact investigation and contact tracing. Under Contract #72-159, Contractor will provide COVID-19 contact investigation and contact tracing services for CCHS for the period November 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not have access to Contractor’s COVID-19 contact investigation and contact tracing services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #72-159 with La Clinica De La Raza, Inc. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #24-086-145(18) containing mutual indemnification with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $95,000, to provide emergency residential care placement services to mentally ill adults for the period January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funding. BACKGROUND: In October 22, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #24-086-145(17), with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc., to provide emergency residential care placement services for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Contract #24-086-145(18) will allow the contractor to continue to provide emergency residential care placement services through December 31, 2021. This contract includes mutual indemnification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #24-086-145(18) with Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, there will be fewer emergency residential facilities to provide services to Supplemental Security Income eligible clients in the Continuing Care Program. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Extension Agreement #76-553-3 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, a California Constitutional Corporation, to extend the termination date from November 30, 2020 to November 30, 2022 with no change in the original payment limit of $50,000, for pediatric cardiology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with the requested action as there is no change the contract payment limit of $50,000. This contract is funded 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On December 20, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-553 (as amended by Extension Agreement #76-553-1 and #76-553-2), with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, a California Constitutional Corporation, for the provision of pediatric cardiology services, including, fetal echocardiograms and electrocardiograms for the Pediatrics Unit APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Extension #76-553-3 with The Regents of the University of California, San Francisco BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) through November 30, 2020. Approval of Contract Extension Agreement #76-553-3 will allow Contractor to continue providing pediatric cardiology services through November 30, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this extension is not approved, the contractor will not continue to provide pediatric cardiology services at CCRMC. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County Contract #26-437-14 with Stericycle, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $384,000 for the provision of hazardous waste management services at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Health Centers, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract is funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: On June 6, 2017, the Board of Supervisors approved Contact #26-437-10 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #26-437-11 through #26-437-13) with Stericycle, Inc., to provide bio-hazardous waste management removal services for CCRMC and Health Center locations, for the period from April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020. Approval of Contract #26-437-14 will allow the Contractor to continue providing services through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-437-14 with Stericycle, Inc. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, CCRMC and Health Centers would not be in compliance with Health and Safety Codes with regard to bio-hazardous waste management and removal. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #76-586-5 with SHC Services (dba Supplemental Health Care) a corporation, effective October 1, 2020, to amend Contract #76-586-4 to increase the payment limit by $500,000, from $1,500,000 to a new payment limit of $2,000,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment is funded 100% by Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (Cares) Act funds and other Federal COVID-19-related funding. BACKGROUND: On June 23, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-586-4 with SHC Services (dba Supplemental Health Care) for the provision of temporary medical staffing services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), Contra Costa Health Centers and Detention facilities for the for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #76-586-5 will allow the contractor to provide additional crisis nursing services during the COVID-19 pandemic through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment #76-586-5 with SHC Services (dba Supplemental Health Care) CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not have access to additional crisis nursing services from the Contractor and COVID service delivery could be hindered. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College (LMC) in an amount not to exceed $37,800 to provide foster parent and caregiver Heritage training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The interagency agreement is funded with 75% Federal ($28,350); 17.5% State ($6,615); and 7.5% General Fund ($2,835) funding and is included in the FY2020/21 department budget. (CFDA #93.658) BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing magnitude of problems related to perinatal exposure to alcohol and other drugs, an interagency collaboration was formed that involved the California Departments of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Health Services, and Social Services. This collaboration was previously named Options for Recovery (OFR), now known as the “Heritage” project. The mission is to promote the recovery of pregnant, postpartum, and parenting chemically dependent women and the enhancement of the health of their children by providing comprehensive and coordinated APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. Malone (925) 608-4943 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District - Los Medanos College Campus for Resource Family Heritage Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) alcohol and other drug treatment, case management, and specialized recruitment and training of foster parents and relative caregivers. The Heritage Project in Contra Costa County is a program designed to train caregivers of the needs of babies and children who are born exposed to drugs and/or alcohol, which may also be HIV exposed, are court dependents and are under six (6) years of age. The Heritage Project training for foster caregivers entails thirty-three (33) hours of classroom training in the areas of Childhood HIV and AIDS, Comforting the Drug Exposed Infant and Special Medical Needs and the Effects of Drugs and Alcohol on Infants. This agreement includes special conditions to modify the general conditions insurance paragraph to allow the agency to self-insure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Heritage training is not delivered to foster caregivers, there will be less available specialty trained families who will be able to care for babies and children who are born exposed to drugs and/or alcohol, who may also be HIV exposed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This agreement supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3) Families that are Economically Self Sufficient; 4) Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families, by preparing families to better meet the needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows seamless transition to permanency. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment and extension with CocoKids, Inc., a non-profit public benefit corporation, to extend contract term six (6) months through June 30, 2021 and to increase the payment limit by $243,760 to a new payment limit of $1,642,980 to provide Emergency Child Care Bridge Program services for foster children. FISCAL IMPACT: This will increase department expenditures by $243,759.39 for a total department expenditure of $1,642,979.39 of which $785,274 is for the Fiscal 2020-2021 year. The funds allocated for this contract are 83% State Capped funds and 17% Federal Title IV-E funding. BACKGROUND: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the final fiscal year 2020-2021 State allocation for the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program was delayed, which required an extension of the previous contract through December 31, 2020. With recent receipt of the Emergency Child Care APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Amend Contract with CoCoKids, Inc. for the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Bridge Allocation from the State covering July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, the Contract terms and budget were renegotiated to support continuance of the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program through June 30, 2021. The Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Bridge Program) was established as a result of Senate Bill (SB) 89. The Contractor provides Bridge Program services that include six-month payment (or voucher) for childcare, as well as assistance from childcare navigator(s) for eligible relative caregivers, eligible families or parenting youth in foster care. The contractor also provides trauma-informed care training and coaching to childcare providers who care for children in foster care. The purpose of this program is to increase the number of foster children successfully placed in home-based family care, increase capacity of childcare programs to meet the needs of foster children in their care, and maximize funding to support the childcare needs of eligible families, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Approval of the Contract Extension Agreement will allow the Contractor to continue to provide critical emergency childcare services to foster youth and their eligible families through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Availability of ideal placement of foster children with eligible families may be limited and State/Federal funding will be lost. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by providing safe housing and support to assist youth in foster care. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College (DVC) in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide Resource Family Approval training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This interagency agreement will increase department expenditures by $30,000 to be funded 25% State 2011 Realignment funds, and 75% Federal funding. The expenditures are included in the FY 2020-2021 department budget. CFDA No. 93.658 BACKGROUND: The Resource Family Approval program was enacted by legislation in 2007 and expanded through Senate Bill 1013 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2012). The statute requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with county child welfare agencies, including Juvenile Probation, foster parent associations and other interested community parties, to implement a unified, family friendly and child-centered resource family approval process. The Resource Family Approval program has a single APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. Malone (925) 608-4943 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College for Resource Family Approval Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) approval standard that replaces the pre-existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, approving relatives and non-relative extended family members (“NREFMs”) as foster care providers, and approving families for legal guardianship or adoption. In compliance with State mandates, under the interagency renewal agreement, DVC will provide caregivers of foster children a minimum of three and a maximum of six 18 hour training series, locate and hire independent training consultants, and provide appropriate instructional materials to each training participant. This interagency agreement includes special conditions to modify the general conditions insurance clause to allow the agency to self-insure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires that all currently licensed foster family homes, approved relative caregivers, or non-relative extended family members must convert to the Resource Family Approval program no later than December 31, 2020. If the caregiver does not obtain resource family approval by December 31, 2020, all licenses and prior approvals shall forfeit on that date. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by preparing families to better meet the needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows seamless transition to permanency. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Contra Costa College (CCC) in an amount not to exceed $24,000 to provide Resource Family Approval training for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: The interagency agreement is funded with 75% Federal ($18,000) and 25% State ($6,000) funding and are included in the FY 2020/2021 department budget. (CFDA No. 93.658) BACKGROUND: The Resource Family Approval program was enacted by legislation in 2007 and expanded through Senate Bill 1013 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2012). The statute requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with county child welfare agencies, including Juvenile Probation, foster parent associations and other interested community parties, to implement a unified, family friendly and child-centered resource family approval process. The Resource Family Approval program has a single APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. Malone (925) 608-4943 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Contra Costa Community College District – Contra Costa College for Resource Family Approval Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) approval standard that replaces the pre-existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, approving relatives and non-relative extended family members (“NREFMs”) as foster care providers, and approving families for legal guardianship or adoption. In compliance with State mandates, CCC will provide caregivers of foster children a minimum of three and a maximum of six 18 hour training series, locate and hire independent training consultants, and provide appropriate instructional materials to each training participant. The agreement includes special conditions to modify the general conditions insurance paragraph to allow the agency to self-insure. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires that all currently licensed foster family homes, approved relative caregivers, or non-relative extended family members must convert to the Resource Family Approval program no later than December 31, 2020. If the caregiver does not obtain resource family approval by December 31, 2020, all licenses and prior approvals shall forfeit on that date. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This contract supports all five of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; 2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; 3) "Families that are Economically Self Sufficient"; 4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 5) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by preparing families to better meet the needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows seamless transition to permanency. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with University of California, San Francisco, in an amount not to exceed $157,647 for local evaluation services for the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative Lethality Assessment Program, for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will increase department expenditures by $157,647 and is funded 81% by County and 19% by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women Grant revenues. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Alliance to End Abuse (Alliance) applied for and received funds from the US Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women (OVW), Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative (Project) in 2013. The Project was implemented in two phases. The first phase of assessment was completed in September 2014 and Alliance was one of four sites selected by OVW to participate in the second APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: C. Youngblood, (925) 608-4964 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement with University of California San Francisco for Evaluation of Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) phase of implementation to implement the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP). The primary purpose of the Project is to implement and measure the effectiveness of the LAP, with the objective of reducing domestic violence homicides and near homicides. The Project will build the capacity of the County to improve identification of and services for high-risk victims, while better monitoring high-risk offenders to reduce domestic violence-related homicide. This Project will document and disseminate solutions for replication across the country. The County is engaging the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) to assist in carrying out activities consistent with the requirements of this OVW-funded Project, including required evaluations and participation in OVW-sponsored technical, research, data collection, and reporting. The 2019-2020 agreement was approved by the board on March 10, 2020 (c.59) for the term October 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. This agreement has a start date of October 1, 2019 because UCSF completed additional work during that time frame that was not included in the original agreement. Thus, this new agreement covers the additional work completed between October 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020 as well as the work for the 2020-2021 term. This Agreement includes a mutual indemnification provision and modified copyright language granting UCSF rights over materials it produces. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Contra Costa County will not meet the grant requirements of the Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this Interagency Agreement support four of five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” by identifying improvements to County-wide services for victims at risk of domestic violence-related homicide. RECOMMENDATION(S): RESCIND Board action of September 8, 2020, (C.38), which pertained to a contract with Contra Costa County Office of Education; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute Interagency Agreement #28-903-1 with Contra Costa County Office of Education, an educational institution, in an amount not exceed $38,000 to provide year-round schools to participants enrolled in dual diagnosis treatment at the Center for Recovery and Empowerment (CORE), for the period August 15, 2020 through August 14, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in an amount of up to $38,000 payable to the Contra Costa County Office of Education, which will be funded 100% by the Mental Health Services Act. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: On September 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Interagency Agreement #28-903-1 with Contra Costa County Office of Education, to provide year-round school to participants enrolled in dual diagnosis treatment at CORE for the period from August 15, 2020 through August 14, 2021. The Board Order stated the Contra Costa County Office of Education would pay the County for providing services to the participants. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Suzanne Tavano, Ph.D., 925-957-5212 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Correct Board Order item #C.38 with Contra Costa County Office of Education BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The purpose of this Board Order is correct and clarify the prior action should have read the County will pay the Contractor for the provision of the services, instead of the Contractor paying the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these actions are not approved, the prior incorrect Board action will stand and the department will not have Board authorization for the Contractor to provide the aforementioned services nor pay the Contra Costa County Office of Education for services rendered. RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to advertise for the 2021 On-Call Painting Services Contract(s) for interior and exterior painting services in support of building maintenance, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department is requesting to conduct a formal solicitation for on-call painting services. A Notice to Bidders would be placed in the Contra Costa Times and several building exchanges in accordance with Cost Accounting Policies and Procedures Manual of the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission. On-call painting contracts are on an as-needed basis and utilized when the demand for painting services exceeds staffing levels. Both of the existing on-call painting contracts are due to expire April 30, 2021. The APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kevin Lachapelle, 925-313-7082 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:ADVERTISE for the 2020 On-Call Painting Services Contract(s) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Public Works Department intends to award at least one (1) but not more than two (2) contracts, total of contracts not to exceed $3,000,000 to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder(s). Each contract will have a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions, and will be used as needed with no minimum amount that has to be spent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the request to advertise is not approved, the Public Works Department will not be able to advertise for painting services. RECOMMENDATION(S): Appoint Board Chair, Candace Andersen, and County Administrator, David Twa, as designated representatives for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits and other terms related to the appointment of a new County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: This appointment of negotiators has no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: With the the upcoming retirement of County Administrator, David Twa, the Board of Supervisors is pursuing the recruitment of a new County Administrator. As part of that process, it is appropriate that the Board designate individuals who may negotiate with candidates regarding salary, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, as provided in Government Code section 54957.6 . CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Negotiators will not be designated. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sharon Anderson, County Counsel C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Appointment of Negotiators Under Government Code section 54957.6 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District ("District"), including the list of designated positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The District has amended its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The changes include additions and deletions of positions on the list of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements. These changes will ensure that the Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure in use by the District. A strike-out version of the Conflict of Interest Code is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, Dave Winnacker, Fire Chief C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Moraga-Orinda FPD COI Code Exhibit B - Moraga-Orinda FPD COI Code STRIKEOUT RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Kensington Fire Protection District ("District"), including list of designated positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The District has amended its Conflict of Interest Code, including the list of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements, and submitted the revised Code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The changes include the addition of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements. These changes will ensure that the Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure in use by the District. A red-lined version of the list of designated positions is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, Michael Pigoni, Fire Chief, Kensington Fire Protection District C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the Kensington Fire Protection District ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Kensington FPD COI Code Exhibit B - Kensington FPD COI Code - REDLINED RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to process payments for tuition and training expenses and to execute contracts with local employers to partially reimburse expenses for on-the-job training and hiring, for eligible Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act enrolled participants, not to exceed $625,000, for the period July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (100% Federal) FISCAL IMPACT: This Board action will authorize expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021, for an amount not to exceed $625,000 per annum. Funding is 100% Federal WIOA funds (CFDA Nos.17.258, 17.259, 17.278). BACKGROUND: The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity (WIOA) Act Public Law 113-128, training services to Adult and Dislocated Workers mandates the provision of training services. An Individual Training Account (ITA) for job training is a training service for participants enrolled in the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs as well as for participants in other special extraneous grants. Training services are provided through the APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Elaine Burres 608-4960 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Individual Training Accounts BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) America's Job Centers of California (AJCC), historically known as the One-Stop Career Centers, and are available to eligible job seeker participants who are determined to be in need of training and are unable to obtain assistance from other sources. Eligible participants are enrolled into WIOA and/or special extraneous grants, accessed for training needs, and placed in occupational trainings with approved schools and vendors. The vendors offering trainings must register and have their training evaluated by the California Employment & Development Department (CA EDD) to be placed on the Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL). Through ITA's, participants receive occupational skills that lead to industry recognized certificates, credentials, licenses or degrees. On-the-Job Training (OJT) is an allowable and fundable activity under the federal WIOA. Program participants are eligible for and enrolled in the WIOA program and are hired as regular full-time employees by local employers and trained for the positions in which they are placed. Employers are responsible for payroll, associated taxes and worker's compensation for each OJT program participant as outlined in a Master Worksite Agreement. Through the Master Worksite Agreement/OJT contract, occupational training is provided for participants in exchange for reimbursement ranging from up to 50% to 75% percent of the wage rate to offset the employer's training costs for a specific period of time. In addition to a training plan of the skills to be learned, the OJT contract sets forth the duration of the contract (based on the participant's training needs) and the reimbursement rate (based on participant's characteristics or barriers to employment.) Positive Features/Intent of OJT Program are: The OJT program helps employers recruit, pre-screen, hire and train new employees in the specific skills that are needed to help the business thrive and The participant starts as a permanent employee, receives training in a work setting while gaining knowledge of the job and acquiring and applying occupational skills. Reimbursement invoices/demands are submitted for each client employed through the OJT Program. Invoices are reviewed by Workforce Development Board staff for accuracy and submitted to the Employment and Human Services Fiscal Unit for payment. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval, participants in WIOA and/or special extraneous grant programs will not have access to classroom instruction and job trainings that lead to self-sufficiency, which would adversely impact these participants. Local businesses will have fewer qualified candidates for positions, and the local Workforce Development Board will be out of compliance with WIOA Section 134, by not meeting expenditure requirements. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller, or designee, to pay $94,124 to Sodexo America, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, to provide management and oversight of the Environmental Services Unit at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This expense will be paid by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: On February 26, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-614-13 with Sodexo America, LLC for the provision of management and oversight of the Environment Services Unit at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC), and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. At the time of negotiations, the payment limit was based on target levels of utilization. However, the utilization during the term of the agreement was higher than originally anticipated. The provider is entitled to payment for the reasonable value of its services under the equitable relief theory of quantum meruit. That theory provides that where a contractor has been asked to provide services without a valid contract, and the contractor does so to the benefit of the County, the Contractor is entitled to recover APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Marcy Wilhelm C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Payment for services provided by Sodexo America, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) the reasonable value of those services. Sodexo America, LLC provided management and oversight of the Environmental Services Unit at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers that exceeded the contract payment limit at the request of the Department. The Department is requesting that the Contractor be issued a one-time payment in the amount owed of $94,124. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this Board Order is not approved, the contractor will not be paid for the environmental management services provided to the County in good faith. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-632-2 with Napa State Hospital Dietetics Department, a government agency, to provide supervised field instruction at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers for medical residency students, for the period from August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this agreement is to provide Napa State Hospital Dietetics Department medical residency students with the opportunity to integrate academic knowledge with applied skills at progressively higher levels of performance and responsibility. Supervised fieldwork experience for students is considered to be an integral part of both educational and professional preparation. The Health Services Department can provide the requisite field education, while at the same time, benefiting from the students’ services to patients. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jaspreet Benepal, 925-370-5101 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, M Wilhelm C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-632-2 with Napa State Hospital Dietetics Department BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Unpaid Student Training Agreement #26-632-2 with Napa State Hospital Dietetics Department will allow students to receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers through July 31, 2025. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the students will not receive supervised fieldwork instruction experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended list of designated positions and disclosure categories for the Conflict of Interest Code for the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District ("District"). FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The District has amended the list of designated positions and disclosure categories, which are Exhibits A and B in its Conflict of Interest Code, and submitted the revised exhibits, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The changes include the addition and deletion of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements and updates to disclosure categories. These changes will ensure that the Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure in use by the District. A strike-out version of the list of designated positions is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, Stephanie E. Sakai, District Clerk, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - SRVFPD COI Code Designated Positions Exhibit B - SRVFPD COI Designated Positions STRIKEOUT RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the 2019 Annual Crop Report and AUTHORIZE the Agricultural Commissioner, or designee, to submit the publication to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Section 2272 and 2279 of the California Food and Agriculture Code requires the County Agricultural Commissioner to submit an annual report to the State Secretary of CDFA. Data in this report is to be collected and prepared in a manner that will provide the most reliable and accurate estimates of acreage, yield, production, and value. The material is to be presented in a uniform manner, so reports across counties are comparable and of the maximum value to CDFA. The report provides core agricultural statistical data and programmatic information. It includes information about what is being done to eradicate, control, or manage pests. It contains information about the many sources of food production in the County, including commercial and small-scale diversified farms, community and school gardens, and nurseries and livestock production. The report details the work of the Department's staff to support a robust agricultural industry. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 608-6600 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Matt Slattengren Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:2019 Annual Crop Report for Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: A negative action would delay or prevent filing the required county crop report. This would cause a breach in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA). ATTACHMENTS 2019 Crop Report CCoonnttrraa CCoossttaa CCoouunnttyy AAggrriiccuullttuurraall CCrroopp RReeppoorrtt 22001199 22002211 CCaalleennddaarr Table of Contents Staff Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures 2380 Bisso Lane Suite A, Concord, CA 94520 Tel: (925) 608-6600 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/1542/Agriculture-Weights-Measures email: AgCommissioner@ag.cccounty.us Cover Table of Contents - Staff Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer’s Letter General Information of Contra Costa County November – December 2020 Calendar January: Leading Crops - Mission Statement February: Production Summary March: Nursery Production April: Fruit & Nut Crops May: U Pick June: Pest Detection July: Certified Farmers’ Markets August: Livestock & Livestock Products September: Pest Management & Pest Exclusion October: Vegetable & Seed Crops November: Field Crops December: Weights & Measures Agricultural Commissioner / Director of Weights & Measures Matt Slattengren Assistant Agricultural Commissioner / Sealer of Weights and Measures Jose Arriaga Deputy Agricultural Commissioners Beth Slate, Larry Yost Deputy Sealer of Weights and Measures Gil Rocha Agricultural Biologists Simone Ackermann, Karen Adler, Keri Brumfield, Ralph Fonseca, Ivan Godwyn, David Hallinan, Omar Luna, Lucas Pattie, Wil Schaub, Greg Spurlock, Jorge Vargas, Janessa Weingand Weights & Measures Inspectors Gabriel Adebote, Patrick Bowen, Christine Buelna, Ngozi Egbuna, Harmeet Gil, Chris Michaels Agricultural & Standards Aides Karin Linnen, Shannon SmithAdministrative Support Roxann Crosby, Stephanna HidalgoInformation Technology Support Michael Liu Pest Detection, Pest Management & Glassy-winged Sharpshooter Staff Ana De Abreu, Danilo Angcla, Nancy Dennis, Beth Jessen, Warren Kawamoto, Lauryn Lei, John Luzar, David Maderios, Rick Mata, Linda Mazur, Kerry Motts, Connor Nitsos, Eldren Prieto, Sarah Ratto, Laura Matta-Russo, Daniel Sinz, Lindsay Skidmore, Stephen Vollmer, Oscar Zaldua Pest Quarantine Detector Canine Major Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer’s Letter Contra Costa CountyKaren Ross, Secretary California Department of Food and Agriculture and The Honorable Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County I am pleased to submit the 2019 Agricultural Crop & Livestock Report for Contra Costa County in accordance with the provisions of Section 2272 and 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code. The total gross value of agricultural crops in 2019 was $106,367,000, which is an increase of $1,148,303 or 1% from 2018. In general, demand and prices have remained strong for agricultural crops in Contra Costa County. The crop values are rounded estimates based on data collected from producers, experts, and literature. Crop values vary from year to year due to factors such as production, weather, and market conditions. Some notable changes include a production nursery acreage decrease of 44%. A majority of this decrease came from the closure of one of Contra Costa County’s largest production nurseries. Nevertheless, the total value of nursery products for 2019 was down only .3% from 2018. Despite unexpected rains putting cherries at risk, the total value of cherry production rose 44% compared to 2018. Almonds accounted for approximately 18% of the 7,200 cultivated acres among Contra Costa County’s 20 organic farms. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), effective January 1, 2019, removed industrial hemp from its Schedule I status of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The first modern crop reporting of hemp in Contra Costa County is present in the miscellaneous field crop total. The miscellaneous category is used to maintain confidential values for commodities where there are less than three producers of one product or where one producer is responsible for 60% or more of the product entering the marketplace. The product total is combined with other totals to avoid disclosure of the business affairs of the firms involved. Therefore, we have combined hemp with other products of this nature. Eleven crop categories exceeded one million dollars in value this year. These categories in decreasing order include cattle and calves, sweet corn, tomatoes, grapes, cherries, rangeland, alfalfa hay, peaches, walnuts, irrigated pasture, and apricots. During the summer of 2019, County Pest Detection staff found four peach fruit flies while performing their inspections. This find increased the fruit fly detection efforts in East Contra Costa County to assess the extent of the infestation. The detection area became part of a delimitation plan; this delimitation includes portions of, the unincorporated county, Brentwood, Oakley, and Antioch. Efforts to contain and eradicate the infestation are currently underway using an attractant bait and fruit fly pheromone. County staff along with officials from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) are working together to control the current peach fruit fly infestation and to prevent the affected area from expanding. They are working toward complete eradication of the infestation. It should be emphasized that the values stated in this report are gross receipts and do not include the cost of production, transportation, or marketing of the products. The economic benefit of agricultural production is generally thought to be about three times the gross production value. I truly appreciate the agricultural producers, farmers, ranchers, and organizations that shared information and supported our efforts in completing this report. Special recognition goes to all of the staff who assisted in compiling this information to make this report possible. Respectfully Submitted, Matt Slattengren Agricultural Commissioner Director of Weights and Measures Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer’s Letter Contra Costa CountyKaren Ross, Secretary California Department of Food and Agriculture and The Honorable Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County I am pleased to submit the 2019 Agricultural Crop & Livestock Report for Contra Costa County in accordance with the provisions of Section 2272 and 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code. The total gross value of agricultural crops in 2019 was $106,367,000, which is an increase of $1,148,303 or 1% from 2018. In general, demand and prices have remained strong for agricultural crops in Contra Costa County. The crop values are rounded estimates based on data collected from producers, experts, and literature. Crop values vary from year to year due to factors such as production, weather, and market conditions. Some notable changes include a production nursery acreage decrease of 44%. A majority of this decrease came from the closure of one of Contra Costa County’s largest production nurseries. Nevertheless, the total value of nursery products for 2019 was down only .3% from 2018. Despite unexpected rains putting cherries at risk, the total value of cherry production rose 44% compared to 2018. Almonds accounted for approximately 18% of the 7,200 cultivated acres among Contra Costa County’s 20 organic farms. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), effective January 1, 2019, removed industrial hemp from its Schedule I status of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The first modern crop reporting of hemp in Contra Costa County is present in the miscellaneous field crop total. The miscellaneous category is used to maintain confidential values for commodities where there are less than three producers of one product or where one producer is responsible for 60% or more of the product entering the marketplace. The product total is combined with other totals to avoid disclosure of the business affairs of the firms involved. Therefore, we have combined hemp with other products of this nature. Eleven crop categories exceeded one million dollars in value this year. These categories in decreasing order include cattle and calves, sweet corn, tomatoes, grapes, cherries, rangeland, alfalfa hay, peaches, walnuts, irrigated pasture, and apricots. During the summer of 2019, County Pest Detection staff found four peach fruit flies while performing their inspections. This find increased the fruit fly detection efforts in East Contra Costa County to assess the extent of the infestation. The detection area became part of a delimitation plan; this delimitation includes portions of, the unincorporated county, Brentwood, Oakley, and Antioch. Efforts to contain and eradicate the infestation are currently underway using an attractant bait and fruit fly pheromone. County staff along with officials from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) are working together to control the current peach fruit fly infestation and to prevent the affected area from expanding. They are working toward complete eradication of the infestation. It should be emphasized that the values stated in this report are gross receipts and do not include the cost of production, transportation, or marketing of the products. The economic benefit of agricultural production is generally thought to be about three times the gross production value. I truly appreciate the agricultural producers, farmers, ranchers, and organizations that shared information and supported our efforts in completing this report. Special recognition goes to all of the staff who assisted in compiling this information to make this report possible. Respectfully Submitted, Matt Slattengren Agricultural Commissioner Director of Weights and Measures Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Contra Costa Martinez has been county seat since 1850 Ranked 36th county in Agriculture Production in California (2017) Ranked 51st out of 58 counties in California by land mass Ranked 1,321th Agricultural County of 3,143 counties in the U.S. Land - 716 square miles Water - 81 square miles Market Value products sold - $ 83,229,000 Livestock & Poultry - $ 18, 823,000 Crops – $64,406,000 Contra Costa Population 2018 Total County Population – 1.15 Million Antioch – 111,535 Brentwood – 63,800 Clayton – 12,192 Concord – 129,688 Town of Danville – 44,650 El Cerrito – 25,601 Hercules – 25,601 Lafayette – 26,521 Martinez – 38,402 Town of Moraga – 17,692 Oakley – 42,129 Orinda – 19,806 Pinole – 19,318 Pittsburg – 72,437 Pleasant Hill – 34,903 Richmond – 110,146 San Pablo – 31,124 San Ramon – 75,839 Walnut Creek – 69,825 Rhode Island Ranked 50th Agricultural state in the U.S. Land 1,045 sq miles Water 169 sq miles Market value products sold - $57,998,000 Livestock & - $17,089,000 Crops – $40,909,000 Iowa Ranked 2nd Agricultural state in the U.S. Land – 56,272 sq miles Market Value products sold - $28,956,455,000 Livestock & Poultry - $15, 123, 882,000 Crops - $13,832,573,000 California Ranked 1st Agricultural state in the U.S. Land – 163,696 sq miles Market Value products sold - $45,154,359,000 Livestock & Poultry – $11,800,525,000 Crops - $33,353,834,000 *Agricultural Statistics from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service NNoovveemmbbeerr 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Daylight Savings Ends Election Day 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Offices Closed Veterans Day 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Offices Closed Thanksgiving Offices Closed 29 30 DDeecceemmbbeerr 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Grower Continuing Education Meeting Grower Continuing Education Meeting 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Christmas Eve Christmas Offices Closed 27 28 29 30 31 New Year’s Eve Mission StatementContra CostaCounty Agricultural Crop Report 2019 Brentwood 1920 The Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, under the direction of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Division of Measurement Standards, is responsible for conducting regulatory and service activities pertaining to the agricultural industry and the consumers of our County. The primary goal of this office is to promote and protect agriculture while safeguarding the public and the environment. Our work as County Weights and Measures officials in the community ensures a safe place to live and a fair marketplace for trade. The first recorded population in the US Census for Brentwood was 1950. 1950 – 1,729 1990 – 8,357 2018 – 63,800 1990 Brentwood Population – 8,357 East Contra Costa Historical Society East Contra Costa Historical Society Contra CostaCounty Agricultural Crop Report 2019January Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 Offices Closed New Year’s Day 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Offices Closed Martin Luther King Jr. Day 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Leading Crops Gross Production Values by Category 22002211 *Totals may not add due to rounding thru reportVegetable& SeedCropsFruit & NutCropsLivestock&LivestockProductsFieldCropsNurseryProducts$37,226,000$23,612,000$22,069,000$12,618,000$10,426,000051015202520.3320.2510.989.476.341.871.661.641.570.95UUSSDD MMiilllliioonnss2.58 2.68 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019John Muir National Historic site is located in Martinez. The site preserves Muir’s house and 325 acres that were part of the original 2,600-acre fruit ranch owned by the Strentzel/Muir family. John Muir managed the ranch for ten years with his father in law Dr. John Strentzel. Muir experimented with fruits by grafting and creating new varieties that matured in both early and late seasons. Muir understood that being first and last to market was most financially advantageous. He was able to convince the railroad to build a station on the Strentzel ranch to increase efficiency of getting fruit to market. John Muir National Historic Site John Muir is known as the “Father of Our National Park System”. In 1890, he was largely responsible for the act of Congress that created Yosemite National Park. He was also very involved in the creation of Sequoia, Mount Rainer, Petrified Forest, and Grand Canyon National Parks. In 1903, Muir and President Theodore Roosevelt journeyed into Yosemite and planned Roosevelt’s groundbreaking and pioneering conservation programs. The proposed action of damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley within Yosemite National Park was one of the biggest battles Muir and the Sierra Club fought. The proposed damming was to provide water for a growing San Francisco. In 1913, the battle was lost and the reservoir was built. Muir was co-founder of the Sierra Club and the first president until his death in 1914. Muir’s Home Today Muir’s Home 1900 John Muir 1902 Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019February Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Groundhog Day 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Super Bowl Lincoln’s Birthday 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Valentine’s Day Offices Closed Washington’s Birthday President’s Day 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GGrroossss VVaalluuee CChhaannggee iinn GGrroossss VVaalluuee TToottaall CCuullttiivvaatteedd AAccrreeaaggee CChhaannggee iinn AAccrreeaaggee RRaannkkiinngg CCaatteeggoorryy 22001199 22001188 %% 22001199 22001188 %% 22001199 22001188 VVeeggeettaabbllee && SSeeeedd CCrrooppss $37,226,000 $36,607,000 2% 7,125 7,224 -1%1 1 FFrruuiitt && NNuutt CCrrooppss11 $23,612,000 $22,363,000 6% 4,469 4,250 2% 2 3 LLiivveessttoocckk && LLiivveessttoocckk PPrroodduuccttss $22,069,000 $22,997,000 -4%n/a n/a n/a 3 2 FFiieelldd CCrrooppss11 $12,618,000 $12,181,000 4% 173,923 175,557 3% 4 4 NNuurrsseerryy PPrroodduuccttss $10,426,000 $10,459,000 0% 14 24 -44%5 5 TToottaall11 $$110055,,995511,,000000 $$110044,,660077,,000000 11%% ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 22002211 Production Summary 1 Correction in 2018 Statistics created new totals Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019 Lafayette Moraga There is a pear tree in Moraga that was planted at the turn of the 20th century. It has five trunks and was declared a “Heritage Tree” by the Moraga Historical Society. Some of these pear trees are next to the Joaquin Moraga Middle school today. These trees are still producing despite being over a hundred years old. E.M. Rice, a manager at the Moraga Company, in 1929 wrote to the University of California, College of Agriculture and asked how long the trees would continue to produce fruit. He was told that if they were properly cared for they could produce for a couple of centuries. James Irvine, owner of the Moraga Company, planted Bartlett pears in 1913 in much of Moraga. In 1923, the pears from these trees were shipped out of Moraga to the East Coast or to Oakland for canning. They had the reputation of being the best in the state of California. Today, the town of Moraga has an annual Wine and Pear festival to honor these roots every fall. Elam Brown was one of the first people to settle in present day Lafayette. Brown bought the 3,329-acre Mexican land grant known as Rancho Acalanus. He sold 300 acres to his neighbor Nathaniel Jones, who would become Contra Costa County’s first sheriff. Brown and Jones would raise everything from wheat and barley to cattle, horses, and sheep. Brown established a horse drawn gristmill in Lafayette and did away with the ten-day time-consuming trip to the mill in San Jose. Cattle Brands (above) Registered to Elam Brown and Nathaniel Jones One of the original Elam Brown gristmill stones (above). Present today in the Lafayette Plaza. Rancho Moraga Pear Packing 1920 Moraga Pear and Hay 1935 Rowland Ranch Hay Stacking 1898 Sullivan Ranch Haying Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019CCoommmmooddiittyy YYeeaarr PPrroodduuccttiioonn TToottaall VVaalluuee 1 Includes Bedding Plants, Christmas Trees, Ground Covers, Propagative Materials, Ornamental Tree& Shrubs, Fruit Trees, Cut Flowers. NNuurrsseerryy PPrroodduuccttss 11 2019 2018 14.19 acres 24.80 acres $10,426,000 $10,460,000 TToottaall 22001199 22001188 14.19 acres 24.80 acres $10,426,000 $10,460,000 March Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Daylight Savings Begins St. Patrick’s Day Spring Equinox 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Caesar Chavez Day Nursery Production 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019CCoommmmooddiittyy YYeeaarr PPrroodduuccttiioonn TToottaall VVaalluuee 1 Includes Bedding Plants, Christmas Trees, Ground Covers, Propagative Materials, Ornamental Tree& Shrubs, Fruit Trees, Cut Flowers. NNuurrsseerryy PPrroodduuccttss 11 2019 2018 14.19 acres 24.80 acres $10,426,000 $10,460,000 TToottaall 22001199 22001188 14.19 acres 24.80 acres $10,426,000 $10,460,000 March Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Daylight Savings Begins St. Patrick’s Day Spring Equinox 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Caesar Chavez Day Nursery Production 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019 George W. Knight, for who Knightsen was named after, developed and began to propagate a new type of almond known as the “Klondike” in 1894. Knight took this nut to the St. Louis World Fair in 1904. After the exposition, the nut and trees became more widespread and was planted throughout the Sacramento Valley. The Klondike, along with the I.X.L, which it is frequently mistaken for, is grown in Contra Costa today. East Contra Costa County has had a very diverse agriculture history. The San Joaquin Delta has played a large part in the diversity of East Contra Costa County. The soil, easy access to clean water, and an ingress to the delta for shipping was an advantage to farmers and ranchers; they grew hundreds of acres of potatoes, white celery, and asparagus that were highly sought after on the East Coast. Other crops that were grown in the East County included Cherries, Walnuts, Olives, Grapes, Lettuce, Corn, Alfalfa, Wheat, Barley, and Oats. Many of these crops are still grown in East County today and available on U-Pick farms and at certified farmer’s markets. Knightsen Almonds – 1900’s H.P. Garin Lettuce Harvest Picking Cherries – Brentwood 1920 Planting Crops by Hand – Brentwood 1930 Contra Costa County Historical Society East Contra Costa Historical Society East Contra Costa Historical Society East Contra Costa Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019 CCrroopp YYeeaarr HHaarrvveesstteedd AAccrreeaaggee PPrroodduuccttiioonn PPeerr AAccrree HHaarrvveesstteedd TToonnss VVaalluuee PPeerr TToonn TToottaall VVaalluuee 1 Includes almonds, apples, apriums, Asian pears, berries, citrus, figs, loquats, melons, pears, pecans, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, pomegranates, quinces and strawberries. 22 Correction in 2018 Statistics created new totals AApprriiccoottss 2019 2018 167 75 2.72 tons 2.58 tons 454 193 $3,451 $3,539 $1,566,000 $683,000 CChheerrrriieess 2019 2018 977 880 1.77 tons .94 tons 1,730 823 $3,666 $5,320 $6,342,000 $4,380,000 GGrraappeess 2019 2018 2,136 2,437 5.49 tons 5.30 tons 11,700 12,900 $809 $897 $9,470,000 $11,582,000 NNeeccttaarriinneess 2019 2018 32 25 4.41 tons 4.28 tons 140 107 $3,228 $3,143 $452,000 $336,000 OOlliivveess 2019 2018 173 151 3.01 tons 2.45 tons 519 370 $906 $860 $470,000 $318,000 PPeeaacchheess 2019 2018 122 111 5.00 tons 4.70 tons 609 522 $3,068 $2,978 $1,868,000 $1,554,000 PPlluummss && PPlluuoottss 2019 2018 47 35 3.58 tons 5.66 tons 169 198 $2,734 $2,644 $462,000 $524,000 WWaallnnuuttss 2019 2018 492 451 1.76 tons 1.95 tons 866 878 $1,920 $1,552 $1,663,000 $1,363,000 MMiisscceellllaanneeoouuss 11 2019 20182 428 204 Various Various Various $2,088,000 $1,612,000 TToottaall 22001199 44,,557744 $$2244,,338811,,000000 April Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 April Fool’s Day 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Easter 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tax Day 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Administrative Professional’s Day Earth Day 25 26 27 28 29 30 Fruit & Nut Crops 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report2019 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report2019May Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 May Day 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cinco de Mayo 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mother’s Day Armed Forces Day 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Offices Closed Memorial Day U-Pick Farmshttp://harvest4you.com22002211 This year for the 2019 annual crop report, the Contra Costa Agriculture Department decided to highlight some of the historical features and times of our county. This report was made possible with help from the Contra Costa County Historical Society, East Contra Costa Historical Society, Walnut Creek Historical Society, John Muir National Historic Site, Moraga Historical Society, Lafayette Historical Society, Point Richmond History Association, Martinez Historical Society, San Ramon Historical Society, and Steve Verduzco with Our Town Brentwood Ca Facebook page. The historical societies and sites are all available to visit in person and online. They are a wealth of knowledge about the history and ever changing events that make up our county. We would like to thank them all for the help that they provided. Share your agricultural pictures with us at agcommissioner@ag.cccounty.us Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Winehaven is located on San Pablo Peninsula in Richmond. The California Wine Association moved its headquarters to Point Molate after the devastation caused by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Winehaven was the “World’s Largest Winery” for 12 years until 1920 when prohibition was enacted. California Wine Association shipped all their production out of the Winehaven docks; this includes shipments to the east and west coasts, New York Markets, and abroad. The capacity for the dock was 500,000 gallons a month; this included 40 ships a year bound for New York. Annual production for the winery was 10 -12 million gallons a year. The winery produced wines using 67 different varieties of grapes from over 40 vineyards. Winehaven sat empty after prohibition until 1941 when the US Navy bought the property for use as a refueling depot. In 1978, it was registered as a US National Historic Place. The US Government returned the property back to Richmond in 1995. Today this site is operated as the Point Molate Beach Park and is a city owned park, which is open to the public. Wine Barrels awaiting shipment to Europe 1914 Winehaven Facilities 1908 Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019June Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D-Day 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Flag Day 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Father’s Day Summer Solstice 27 28 29 30 Pest Detection IInnsseecctt PPeesstt TToottaall NNoo.. ooff TTrraappss TToottaall TTrraapp SSeerrvviicciinngg’’ss IInnsseecctt PPeesstt TToottaall NNoo.. ooff TTrraappss TToottaall TTrraapp SSeerrvviicciinngg’’ss AAssiiaann CCiittrruuss PPssyylllliidd 864 14,496 JJaappaanneessee BBeeeettllee 590 4,099 EEuurrooppeeaann GGrraappeevviinnee MMootthh 123 1,617 MMeeddiitteerrrraanneeaann FFrruuiitt FFllyy 894 14,620 GGeenneerraall FFrruuiitt FFllyy 815 34,440 MMeelloonn FFllyy 788 9,509 GGllaassssyy--WWiinnggeedd SShhaarrppsshhooootteerr 864 8,865 OOrriieennttaall FFrruuiitt FFllyy 894 18,028 GGyyppssyy MMootthh 604 4,016 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019BISHOP RANCH Attorney Thomas Bishop was paid for his services in the separation of Mr. & Mrs. Norris in 1891, by receiving 960 acres of land in the San Ramon Valley. He grazed cattle and planted hay and grains. The Bishop family grew the ranch to two thousand acres over the next several decades. They diversified to pear trees, walnut groves, and purebred Shropshire sheep. The Bartlett pear orchard was planted in 1911 and by 1940 grew to be recognized as the single largest in the world. The purebred Shropshire sheep that were raised on the ranch won innumerable awards. Numa Boone was a second-generation farmer in the San Ramon Valley. He owned a 250-acre ranch and leased a ranch with an additional 700 acres on which he planted wheat and diversified into walnuts, dates, and other fruit. His son, Travis Boone with his wife Ruth Quayle Boone took over the ranch. Travis invented several items. He designed portable towers for knocking walnuts and picking dates. To knock walnuts you need a heavy-duty pole to beat the branches and knock the nuts loose. He also invented the most successful dehydrator in the industry. Ruth ran an “all ladies” picking crew through the Great Depression and years afterwards. Boone Ranch & Forest Hill Farms Ruth died in 1998, when she was 94. She donated her 22-room, 1900 Dutch colonial home and the 16-acre family farm to the City of San Ramon. The farm includes a three story 1930’s walnut processing plant with 16 barns, outbuildings, and a windmill. You can visit this park, which includes Forest Home Farms, sheep shearing, working dog, and historical tractor demonstrations. Take a tour and step back in time. Bishop Ranch Pear Picking 1900 Hay Press San Ramon Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019July Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Independence Day Offices Closed 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 In 2019, Contra Costa County Agricultural Department registered 22 farmers’ markets; issued 47Certified Producer’sCertificates and conducted 51certified market inspections. 2021 Currently operating Farmers’ Markets in Contra Costa County: CFM Name / Location Day CFM Name / Location Day Alamo Sun Orinda Sat Antioch Kaiser Thu Pinole Sat Brentwood Sat Pittsburg Sat Concord Tue + Thu Richmond Fri Danville Sat Rossmoor Fri Diablo Valley Shadelands Sat San Ramon Bishop Ranch 2 Sat El Cerrito Tue + Sat San Ramon Bishop Ranch 3 Thu Kensington Sun Walnut Creek Kaiser Tue Martinez Sun Walnut Creek Sun Moraga Sun Certified Farmers’ Markets (CFM) 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019 Luiz Dairy - San Pablo Wiedemann Ranch – San Ramon 1932 Hinds Dairy – El Cerrito In 1924, California saw a catastrophic epidemic of hoof and mouth disease in the cattle, sheep, pig, and deer populations. All the ranches in the state were quarantined. Other States and Countries had stopped importing meat and other products including vegetables from California. Arizona closed their borders to anyone from California and it took President Coolidge to get it reopened. Contra Costa was one of the hardest hit counties in the state. This disease hit almost every ranch and some lost all of their stock completely. The main duration of this disease epidemic lasted from February to October of 1924, and was estimated to cost millions of dollars. Dairy farmers in the Knightsen area shipped by railcar on average 2,500 gallons of milk a day in 1917. The six main dairy farmers in the area were Fox, Stone Brothers, Bridgeford, Burroughs Brothers, Hotchkiss, and Emerson. The Emerson Dairy was the last of these to close in the early 2000’s. Part of this property is now being developed into residential housing. Cattle Drive –Pittsburg 1910 Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society East Contra Costa Historical Society Milk Shipment - Knightsen Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019CCoommmmooddiittyy YYeeaarr NNuummbbeerr ooff HHeeaadd TToottaall LLiivvee WWeeiigghhtt VVaalluuee PPeerr CCWWTT TToottaall VVaalluuee 1 Includes honey, wax and pollination. 2 Includes chickens, ducks, emus, goats, hogs, llamas, ostriches, pigs, rabbits, sheep, turkeys, milk, wool, and eggs. CCaattttllee && CCaallvveess 2019 2018 17,523 18,579 145,000 lbs. 165,335 lbs. $140 $129 $20,326,000 $21,376,000 AAppiiaarryy PPrroodduuccttss11 2019 2018 n/a n/a n/a $967,000 $845,000 MMiisscc.. LLiivveessttoocckk22 2019 2018 n/a n/a n/a $776,000 $776,000 TToottaall 22001199 22001188 $$2222,,006699,,000000 $$2222,,999977,,000000 August Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Livestock & Livestock Products 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Marking and Branding Inspections Our inspectors survey the county for unmarked and unregistered apiaries year-round. Beekeepers are required to identify their name, address and phone number when bees are not at their residence. The markings are stenciled directly on the hives or displayed on a sign at the entrance in dark letters not less than one inch in height. They also perform serial brand number inspections in the effort to reduce hive theft. Beekeepers may only be in possession of apiary equipment that is branded; that he or she owns or has obtained through legal transfer. To obtain a serial brand number, contact our department. Apiary Registration & Pesticide Notification Contra Costa County welcomes all beekeepers and pesticide applicators to participate in the new BeeWhere program. BeeWhere allows beekeepers to complete their county registration obligations online and helps communicate bee movement to our department with a simple pin drop on a map. Annual apiary registration and bee movement notice is required under California law. Beekeepers are encouraged to receive pesticide notifications from agricultural applicators intending to apply a pesticide toxic to bees to flowering crops. California law requires pesticide applicators to provide a 48-hour notice to the beekeeper prior to performing such an application. Pesticide applicators receive beekeeper contact information when they perform a Beecheck. Visit https://beewhere.calagpermits.org/ to get started. Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019September Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Offices Closed Labor Day Patriot Day 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Grandparent’s Day 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fall Equinox 26 27 28 29 30 PPeesstt EExxcclluussiioonn Post Office/UPS/FedEx – Package Inspections 10,576 Truck Shipment Inspections from within California 1,901 Truck Shipment Inspections from other States 625 Household Goods Inspections for Gypsy Moth 34 Canine Detection Non-native Pest Interceptions 1 11 Quarantine Pest, Certification and Markings Rejections 118 11 Interceptions in Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Yolo Counties 22002211 PPeesstt MMaannaaggeemmeenntt WWeeeedd PPeesstt SSiitteess SSuurrvveeyyeedd AAccrreess TTrreeaatteedd AAccrreess SSuurrvveeyyeedd CCoonnttrrooll MMeetthhoodd Artichoke Thistle 36 29 36,865 Chemical Purple Starthistle 23 4 5,405 Chemical Red Sesbania 1 5 5 Manual Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019September Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Offices Closed Labor Day Patriot Day 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Grandparent’s Day 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fall Equinox 26 27 28 29 30 PPeesstt EExxcclluussiioonn Post Office/UPS/FedEx – Package Inspections 10,576 Truck Shipment Inspections from within California 1,901 Truck Shipment Inspections from other States 625 Household Goods Inspections for Gypsy Moth 34 Canine Detection Non-native Pest Interceptions 1 11 Quarantine Pest, Certification and Markings Rejections 118 11 Interceptions in Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, and Yolo Counties 22002211 PPeesstt MMaannaaggeemmeenntt WWeeeedd PPeesstt SSiitteess SSuurrvveeyyeedd AAccrreess TTrreeaatteedd AAccrreess SSuurrvveeyyeedd CCoonnttrrooll MMeetthhoodd Artichoke Thistle 36 29 36,865 Chemical Purple Starthistle 23 4 5,405 Chemical Red Sesbania 1 5 5 Manual Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019In 1902, Loren Lasell bought 300 acres on upper Alhambra Valley Road. He used a 2 inch galvanized pipe to transport spring water to the bottling plant in downtown Martinez, creating Alhambra Water Company. The business grew to include glass lined railcars to transport water to Oakland and San Francisco where it was bottled and distributed. In 1945, the National Water Company acquired Alhambra Water Company of San Francisco. Shortly thereafter, the name was changed to Alhambra National Water. Today it provides a variety of water products to establishments throughout the Bay Area in such locales as San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, Santa Clara, Milpitas, and Union City as well as in Central Valley communities such as Sacramento, Chico, Manteca, Stockton, and Fresno. California and Hawaii Sugar Company, known as C & H, was founded in Crockett in 1906. The refinery was created as an agricultural co-operative with the sugar cane growers in Hawaii. The Carquinez Strait shipping channel made a perfect place to off load sugar and molasses. The C & H Refinery was once the largest in the world. It produced all the sugar for the United States west of the Mississippi River. C & H was sold to American Sugar Refining in 2006 and continues to operate today. The refinery produces 750,000 metric tons of sugar annually. Unfortunately, the last load of Hawaii sugar was off loaded in 2017 due to the Hawaii sugar mills closing. To learn more, visit the Crockett Historical Museum. Today Crockett hosts the Sugartown Festival and Sweet Fair in July. During Prohibition C & H had “Juice Making” kits (picture below) for people who wanted to try their hand at bootlegging. Alhambra Water - Martinez C & H Refinery 1900 Alhambra Water – San Francisco C & H Refinery 1940 Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Crop Year Harvested Acreage Production Per Acre Tons Harvested Value Per Ton Total Value 1 Includes fresh and processing tomatoes. 2 Includes asparagus, artichokes, beets, broccoli, cabbage, cardoon, carrots, cauliflower, cucumbers, eggplant, garlic, ginseng, green beans, greens, herbs, kohlrabi, lettuce, melons, mushrooms, okra, onions, peas, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins, radishes, squash, and wheat grass. 3 Correction in 2018 Statistics created new totals Tomatoes12019 2018 2,925 3,581 63.00 tons 60.00 tons 184,000 215,000 60.00 72.00 $10,977,000 $15,412,000 Sweet Corn 2019 201833,484 2,977 9.90 tons 10.60 tons 34,500 31,500 $587 $535 $20,247,000 $16,900,000 Misc.2 2019 2018 715 666 various various various $6,002,000 $4,297,000 Total 2019 20183 7,125 7,224 $37,226,000 $36,609,000 October Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 United Nations Day 31 Halloween Vegetable & Seed Crops 22002211 Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019Bancroft Ranch “Aloha Farms” Albert L. Bancroft was a successful book publisher and seller in San Francisco. He and his wife Fannie A. Bancroft bought 183 acres in the Ygnacio Valley and started the Bancroft Ranch. Fannie took control of the agricultural, horticultural and management decisions. You can visit Ruth Bancroft Garden today and see the outstanding landscape of dry-growing plants. The Bancroft’s grew the ranch to 600 acres; Mrs. Bancroft named the ranch “Aloha Farms”. The ranch was the second commercial orchard in the Ygnacio Valley and the first in the valley to have an irrigation system. In 1916 the ranch was producing 22,000 boxes of fruit that were shipped to the east coast and overseas. They grew pears, peaches, apricots, French prunes, and almonds. Hiram Penniman and his brother in law established the Shadelands ranch in 1852, as a fruit farm on 370 acres of land. In 1903, Hiram Penniman built the home that now houses the Shadelands Ranch Historical Museum. Hiram is also credited with creating the initial layout of Walnut Creek, which the town still uses today. Shadelands was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1985 and is run today by the city of Walnut Creek. The Shadelands Ranch is open today for visitors. Shadelands Fruit Farm Walnut Harvest – Walnut Creek Apricot cutting at Bancroft Ranch 1917 Shadelands Japanese Pickers 1903 Shadelands Ranch Hay Barn 1906 Shadelands Fruit Drying Walnut Creek Historical Society Walnut Creek Historical Society Walnut Creek Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Historical Society Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019CCrroopp YYeeaarr HHaarrvveesstteedd AAccrreeaaggee PPrroodduuccttiioonn PPeerr AAccrree TToonnss HHaarrvveesstteedd UUnniitt VVaalluuee PPeerr UUnniitt TToottaall VVaalluuee AAllffaallffaa HHaayy 2019 20182 3,642 1,941 3.88 4.41 14,100 8,559 Ton $184.00 $197.00 $2,594,000 $1,686,000 CCeerreeaall HHaayy 2019 201823,919 2,548 1.88 4.07 7,370 10,400 Ton $120.00 $94.00 $884,000 $978,000 IIrrrriiggaatteedd PPaassttuurree 2019 2018 5,450 5,450 n/a n/a Acre $300.00 $300.00 $1,635,000 $1,635,000 RRaannggeellaanndd 2019 2018 149,000 149,000 n/a n/a Acre $18.00 $22.00 $2,682,000 $3,278,000 WWhheeaatt 2019 2018 2,989 967 1.90 1.90 5,680 1,840 Ton $168.00 $189.00 $954,000 $348,000 MMiisscc..11 2019 2018 8,924 9,124 various various var. various $3,879,000 $4,262,000 TToottaall 22001199 2200118822 117733,,992244 116699,,003300 $$1122,,662288,,000000 $$1122,,118877,,000000 1 Includes barley, corn silage, field corn, forage hay, hay (wild), industrial hemp, rye, safflower, silage, straw, Sudan grass, and sorghum. 22 Correction in 2018 Statistics created new totals November Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Election Day 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Daylight Savings Ends Offices Closed Veterans Day 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Offices Closed Thanksgiving Day Offices Closed 28 29 30 22002211 Field Crops Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019The Department of Agriculture was restructured in 1921 to include the Department of Weights and Measures. This included railroad track scales and devices used for commerce, in the medical field, and at prisons. At the time, the inspection of railroad scales was predominantly because the railroad tariffs were based on weight or measurement for the commodity being shipped. Test railcars were provided by the National Bureau of Standards. They contained 80,000 pounds of known weight used for tolerance testing. Tests done in 1920 proved that 52.4% of railroad scales in California were out of tolerance. When retested in 1921, all scales were found to be in tolerance. In 1913, California State Legislature created an Office of State Superintendent of Weights & Measures. County officials then began a more active role in helping the State by inspecting and sealing weight scales and measurement devices. The Weighmasters Act of 1915 arranged for licensing and oversight of people who were weighting commodities for hire. Contra Costa County Agricultural Crop Report 2019The Contra Costa County Division of Weights and Measures promotes a fair and equitable marketplace by performing inspections of retail packages and commercial weighing and measuring devices. These efforts certify that the sales of harvested crop, livestock, animal feed, vehicle fuel, and other commodities are based on a precise weight or measure. Contra Costa County has over 37,000 commercial devices that require testing. Over 19,000 devices need to be tested annually. Another 18,000 are tested less frequently per regulations. December Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 Grower Continuing Education Meeting 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pearl Harbor Remembrance Grower Continuing Education Meeting 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Winter Solstice Christmas Eve Offices Closed Christmas Day 26 27 28 29 30 31 New Year’s Eve MMeeaassuurriinngg DDeevviicceess CCoommmmeerrcciiaall DDeevviicceess Vehicle Fuel Station Meters7,875Electric Sub meters6,817Water Meters & Sub meters7,388Vapor/LPG Meters & Sub meters3,888Taxi Meters168Other Measuring Devices9WWeeiigghhiinngg DDeevviicceess Light Capacity Retail Scales2,079Heavy Capacity Retail Scales281Vehicle/Railway Scales102Prescription/Jewelers Scales38Livestock/Animal Scales20Other Weighing Devices1AAddvveerrttiisseemmeenntt && TTrraannssaaccttiioonn VVeerriiffiiccaattiioonn CCoommmmeerrcciiaall DDeevviicceess Petroleum Gas Stations267Retail Price Verification5519QQuuaalliittyy AAssssuurraannccee AAuuddiitteedd Weighmaster Locations102Consumer Complaint Investigations76Weights & Measures 22002211 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/1542/Agriculture-Weights-Measures CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures 2380 Bisso Lane Suite A, Concord, CA 94520 TEL (925) 608-6600 FAX (925) 608-6620 Steve Verduzco http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/1542/Agriculture-Weights-Measures CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Department of Agriculture Weights & Measures 2380 Bisso Lane Suite A, Concord, CA 94520 TEL (925) 608-6600 FAX (925) 608-6620 Steve Verduzco RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for Delta Diablo ("District"), including the list of designated positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: Delta Diablo has amended its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The changes include an updated list of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements. These changes will ensure that the Conflict of Interest Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure in use by Delta Diablo. A strike-out version of the Conflict of Interest Code is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, Vincent De Lange, General Manager, Delta Diablo C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for Delta Diablo ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Delta Diablo COI Code Exhibit B - Delta Diablo COI Code STRIKEOUT RECOMMENDATION(S): RATIFY the execution of a Facility Rental Agreement by the Clerk-Recorder, or designee, indemnifying the City of Walnut Creek, for the Clerk-Recorder’s rental of the parking lot at Heather Farms for the November 2020 Election. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: The Elections Division of the Clerk-Recorder’s Office will provide 153 polling places throughout the County. Sites that will be utilized include Shadelands Art Center and Heather Farms in Walnut Creek. The Facility Rental Agreement and Use Agreements for these sites all contain an indemnification provision, whereby the County agrees to indemnify the City of Walnut Creek for use of these sites as voting locations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Elections Division will not be able to use these sites as voting locations. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Scott O. Konopasek, 925-335-7808 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Ratify the execution of a Use Agreement for Polling Sites in Walnut Creek RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Contra Costa County Human Resources Department ("HRD"), including the list of designated positions. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: HRD has amended its Conflict of Interest Code and submitted the revised code, attached as Exhibit A, to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code sections 87306 and 87306.5. The changes include correction of numbering errors throughout and an updated list of positions designated to file conflict of interest statements. These changes will ensure that the Conflict of Interst Code accurately reflects the current positions and organizational structure used by HRD. A strike-out version of the Conflict of Interest Code is attached as Exhibit B. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: None. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, (925) 655-2200 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: David Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Cynthia A. Schwerin, Deputy County Counsel, Ann Elliott, Interim HR Director, Human Resources Department C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Conflict of Interest Code for the Human Resources Department ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Conflict of Interest Code of the Human Resources Department Exhibit B - Conflict of Interest Code of the Human Resources Department - STRIKEOUT RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE the list of providers recommended by Contra Costa Health Plan's Medical Director, and Health Services Director on September 16, 2020, as required by the State Departments of Health Care Services and Managed Health Care, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this action. BACKGROUND: The National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires that evidence of Board of Supervisors approval must be contained within each CCHP provider’s credentials file. Approval of this list of providers as recommended by the CCHP Medical Director will enable the Contra Costa Health Plan to comply with this requirement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, Contra Costa Health Plan’s providers would not be appropriately credentialed and not be in compliance with the NCQA. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sharron Mackey, 925-313-6104 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Terri Bostick C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve New and Recredentialing Providers in Contra Costa Health Plan’s Community Provider Network ATTACHMENTS CCHP Credential-Recredential List Sep. 16, 2020 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Abhari, Bahareh, BCBA, PhD Qualified Autism Provider Alinea, Anna, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Ashimoto, Kristin, DPT Physical Therapy Benson, Erica, DPM Podiatry Camats Falip, Roser, MFT Mental Health Services Cho, Lynn, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Fan, Zhe, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Guerra, Sofia, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Hao, Celesti, OD Optometry Harnish, Mariah, BA Qualified Autism Professional Hubbard, Benjamin, PA Mid-Level Orthopedic Surgery Assistant Idun, Jacqueline, NP Primary Care Family Medicine Ilowite, Kayla, MS Qualified Autism Provider Kane, Amy, MD OB/GYN Karimjee, Jabeen, NP Primary Care Family Medicine/ Mid-Level HIV/AIDs Ko, Anita, OD Optometry Kollo, Taylor, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Krukov, Monica, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Lacson, Mary Ann, PT Physical Therapy Lankford, Dawud, MD Urology Lee, Jessica, N., IBCLC Lactation Consultant Leng, Ellen, MD Wound Care Lim, Alice, PsyD Mental Health Services Lim, Elaine, PA Mid-Level Dermatology Marlow Lehrburger, Elizabeth, MD Ophthalmology Mata, Josette, MS Qualified Autism Provider Mondt, Caitlin, DPT Physical Therapy Munoz, Jesus, BA Qualified Autism Professional Mwanza, Helen, NP Mid-Level Nephrology Naguit, Bianca, MA Qualified Autism Provider Nevarez, Manuel, RBT, BA Qualified Autism Professional Oberlin, Daniel, MD Urology Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 CREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Parekh, Hemal, MD Pulmonary Disease Perlroth, Chi, MD Wound Care Salazar, Alyssa, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Sanchez- Arvizu, Marian, MA Qualified Autism Provider Sanpedro Duarte, Denis, MS Qualified Autism Provider Sarkar, Anumita, BA Qualified Autism Professional Solorzano, Serena, BA Qualified Autism Professional Spurs, Beverly, DPM Wound Care/ Podiatry Torneros, Nicole, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Verzi, Jr. Scott, BCBA, M.Ed. Qualified Autism Provider Vossoughi, Shabnam, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Wadhwa, Sanya, MD Gastroenterology Welcome, Stacy, PA Mid-Level Infectious Disease Zimmerman, Jay, MD Dermatology Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 CREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location Big Dog City dba: Yellow Cab of San Francisco Non - Medical Transportation San Francisco DaVita – El Sobrante Dialysis Dialysis San Pablo RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Allen, Rochelle, RCP Respiratory Therapy Chiu, Noel , MD Dermatology Counelis, George, MD Surgery – Neurological Evans, Robert, PhD Mental Health Services Galina -Quintero, Doris, MD Nephrology Goldberg, Roger, MD Ophthalmology Hashmi, Asma, MD Psychiatry Hu, Rebecca, PA Primary Care Internal Medicine/ Mid-Level HIV/AIDS Kent, Jeffrey, MFT Mental Health Services Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Khyne, Aye, MD Infectious Disease Kim, Edward, MD Primary Care Family Medicine Kinsey, Kathryn, LCSW Mental Health Services Kolovos, Valorie, NP Primary Care Internal Medicine Lee, Scott S., MD Ophthalmology Leon, Ronald, MD Psychiatry Mishra-Shukla, Nimisha, MD Infectious Disease Parma, Jennifer, DO Primary Care Internal Medicine Powers, Jenevieve, BCBA Qualified Autism Provider Romero, Denise, MD Surgery – Orthopedic Shey, Jason, MD Nephrology Shiue, Zita, MD Nephrology Stanten, Steven, MD Surgery - General Suri, Vikram, MD Nephrology Contra Costa Health Plan Providers Approved by Medical Director September 16, 2020 RECREDENTIALING PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Name Specialty Thakkar, Smita, MD Psychiatry RECREDENTIALING ORGANIZATIONAL PROVIDERS SEPTEMBER 2020 Provider Name Provide the Following Services Location GIMAG Corp dba: GIMAG Home Health Care Home Health Livermore Medic Shuttle, LLC Non-Emergency Transportation Antioch RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Interagency Agreement #28-343-6 with West Contra Costa Unified School District, a government agency, to provide school-based mobile clinic services, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a non-financial agreement. BACKGROUND: This agreement meets the social needs of County’s population by providing mobile clinic services, including comprehensive physical exams, immunizations, Tuberculosis (TB) testing, sports physicals, and well-child care to low-income and disadvantaged school children and youth within the District. Expected program outcomes include an increase in the number of healthy children within the District. On June 23, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Interagency Agreement #28-343-5 with West Contra Costa Unified School District for the provision of school-based mobile clinic services to children and youth within the District for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement #28-343-6 with West Contra Costa Unified School District BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Interagency Agreement #28-343-6 will allow Agency to continue to pay County for the provision of school-based mobile clinic services through June 30, 2025, including County’s agreement to indemnify the District. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, low-income and disadvantaged school children and youth in West Contra Costa County will not receive preventive health screenings, well-child examinations, and primary health care services from County’s mobile clinics. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The recommendation supports the following children's outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School and (5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE County Counsel or her designee to execute on behalf of the County an acknowledgement that waives any objection to a potential conflict of interest and consenting to Foley & Lardner LLP representing Sutter Health, Sutter Bay Hospitals dba Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Sutter Bay Hospitals dba Sutter Delta Medical Center, and Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Sutter Solano Medical Center (together, “Sutter Health”) in a group Medicare appeal, while continuing to represent the County in other matters, including a provider appeal and arbitration concerning various disputed claims raised by Sutter Health. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Foley & Lardner LLP (Foley) provides specialized legal services to the County’s Health Services Department in connection with various health care matters. Among other matters, Foley advises the County in connection with a provider appeal and arbitration concerning various disputed claims raised by Sutter Health. Attached is a letter from Foley. The letter requests that the County acknowledge APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Kate Andrus, 925-655-2245 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:CONSENT TO WAIVE CONFLICT OF FOLEY & LARDNER LLP BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and waive a potential conflict of interest and describes the work Foley does for Sutter Health. The work performed by Foley is in the area of Medicare appeal and is unrelated to the work the firm does for the County. In the absence of the informed written consent of each client, the California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from representing a client if there is a significant risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationship with another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests. (Rule 1.7(b).) Even when a significant risk requiring a lawyer to comply with Rule 1.7(b) is not present, a lawyer is prohibited from representing a client without written disclosure of the relationship to the client where the lawyer has, or knows that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm has, a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with or responsibility to a party or witness in the same matter. (Rule 1.7(c)(1).) Staff for the Health Services Department have advised that they do not object to the potential conflicts and recommend waiver. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Foley would not be able to simultaneously represent Sutter Health and the County. ATTACHMENTS Conflict Waiver 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: There is no fiscal impact for this action. 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 60 days until the local emergency is terminated. The Board of Supervisors last reviewed and continued the emergency declaration on August 11, 2020. Nevertheless, with the continuing high number of homeless individuals and insufficient funding available to assist in sheltering all homeless individuals and families, the emergency situation still exists and it is, therefore, appropriate for the Board to continue the declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sarah Kennard, (925) 655-2053 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTINUE EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY DECLARATION REGARDING HOMELESSNESS RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to make a deduction from special tax proceeds at the rate of $0.09 per special assessment and credit that amount to the Assessor's account 1600-9607, pursuant to Board Resolution No. 84/332. FISCAL IMPACT: This action would allow the County to recover costs incurred in collecting special taxes on behalf of local agencies. BACKGROUND: The Assessor has developed and attempted to maintain parcel use codes for the internal use of this office and is not required to maintain such codes for other purposes. Local agencies imposing special taxes have made use of the parcel use codes in collecting special taxes. Government Code Sections 50077 (b) and 53978 (d) authorize the County to deduct from special tax proceeds its reasonable costs incurred in collecting special taxes on behalf of local agencies. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Denial of this action would prevent the County from recovering its costs incurred in collecting special taxes on behalf of local agencies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Sara Holman, (925) 313-7500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Gus Kramer, Assessor Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Recovery Costs for Maintaining Use Codes for Special Taxes ATTACHMENTS Board Resolution No. 84/332 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/283 as approved by the Retirement Board, which establishes retirement plan contribution rates effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: See 'Background' below. BACKGROUND: At its October 14, 2020 meeting, the Retirement Board reviewed and accepted the actuary’s valuation report for the year ending December 31, 2019 and adopted the recommended employer and employee contribution rates, which will become effective on July 1, 2021. A copy of the December 31, 2019 Actuarial Valuation can be found on CCCERA’s website at www.cccera.org under the Actuarial Reports link. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller, Ann Elliott, Acting Director of Human Resources C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Attached are the rates to be used effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 submitted for adoption by the County Board of Supervisors by the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association. Please note the following: The rates are effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. The rates are before employer subvention, if any, of the employee contribution. The rates quoted here are the employer required rates without taking into consideration any employer subvention of employee contributions. A convenient methodology for adding subvention is included on page 20 of the attached document. Note that subvention is not always permitted for PEPRA members. The rates are before any increase in employee rate to pay a portion of the employer contribution. If an employee’s rate needs to be increased to pay a portion of the employer contribution, both employee and employer rates would need to be adjusted accordingly. A convenient methodology for adding subvention is included on page 21 of the attached document. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Rates will not reflect those adopted by the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Board. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/283 Resolution No. 2020/283 TOC, Exhibits A through P, Examples for Subvention & Employee Cost Sharing, and Prepayment Discount Factor MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/283 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/283 Subject: Approving Contribution Rates to be charged by the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Pursuant to Government Code Section 31454 and on recommendation of the Board of the Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association, BE IT RESOLVED that the following contribution rates are approved to be effective for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. I. Employer Contribution Rates for Basic and Cost-of-Living Components and Non-refundability Discount Factors For General Members (Sec. 31676.11, Sec. 31676.16 and Sec. 7522.20(a)) See attached Exhibit AA. For Safety Members (Sec. 31664, Sec. 31664.1 and Sec. 7522.25(d)) See attached Exhibit BB. II. Employee Contribution Rates for Basic and Cost-of-Living Components See attached Exhibits C through P The Pension Obligation Bonds (POB) issued by the County in March 1994 and April 2003, affected contribution rates for certain County employers. The following non-County employers who participate in the Retirement Association are referred to as “Districts”. Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District; Byron, Brentwood Knightsen Union Cemetery District; Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association;Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; Contra Costa Housing Authority; Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District; East Contra Costa Fire Protection District; First 5 - Children & Families Commission; In-Home Supportive Services Authority; Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District; Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District; Rodeo Sanitary District; San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District All other departments/employers are referred to as “County” including the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District issued Pension Obligation Bonds in 2005 which affected contribution rates for these two employers. Subsequently, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has made additional payments to CCCERA for its UAAL in 2006 and 2007. First 5 - Children & Families Commission made a UAAL prepayment in 2013 which affected contribution rates for that employer. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District made a UAAL prepayment in 2013, 2014, and 2015 which affected contribution rates for that employer. Local Agency Formation Commission made a UAAL prepayment in 2017 and 2019 which affected contribution rates for that employer. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District made a UAAL prepayment in 2017, 2018, and 2019 which affected contribution rates for that employer. Effective with the December 31, 2019 valuation, Safety members of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District are depooled from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District's Safety cost group (Cost Group 8). Safety members of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District are under their own cost group (Cost Group 13). I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director 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: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Robert Campbell, Auditor-Controller, Ann Elliott, Acting Director of Human Resources BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1200 Concord Avenue Suite 300 Concord CA 94520 925.521.3960 FAX: 925.646.5747 www.cccera.org KEdZK^dKhEdzDW>Kz^͛Zd/ZDEd^^K/d/KE    d>K&KEdEd^   WĂŐĞ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶ   ŝ DĞŵŽĨƌŽŵK  ϭ ŽĂƌĚŽĨ^ƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŽƌƐZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ  ϮŵƉůŽLJĞƌZĂƚĞƐΘZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐĨŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůdŝĞƌƐϭĂŶĚ ϯ;džŚŝďŝƚͲϭͿ  ϯŵƉůŽLJĞƌZĂƚĞƐΘZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐĨŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWWZdŝĞƌƐ ϰĂŶĚϱǁŝƚŚϮйDĂdžŝŵƵŵK>;džŚŝďŝƚͲϮͿ  ϰŵƉůŽLJĞƌZĂƚĞƐΘZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐĨŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWWZdŝĞƌƐ ϰĂŶĚϱǁŝƚŚϯйDĂdžŝŵƵŵK>;džŚŝďŝƚͲϯͿ  ϱŵƉůŽLJĞƌZĂƚĞƐΘZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐĨŽƌ^ĂĨĞƚLJdŝĞƌƐĂŶĚ ;džŚŝďŝƚͲϭͿ  ϲŵƉůŽLJĞƌZĂƚĞƐΘZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐĨŽƌ^ĂĨĞƚLJWWZdŝĞƌƐ ĂŶĚ;džŚŝďŝƚͲϮͿ   ϳ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϭDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚͿ   ϴ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϮDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚͿ   ϵ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϯDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚͿ   ϭϬ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϰDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ&Ϳ   ϭϭ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϱDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ'Ϳ   ϭϮ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϲDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ,Ϳ  ϭϯ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϳDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ/Ϳ  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 1200 Concord Avenue Suite 300 Concord CA 94520 925.521.3960 FAX: 925.646.5747 www.cccera.org ϭϰ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϴDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ:Ϳ  ϭϱ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϵDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ<Ϳ  ϭϲ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϭϬDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚ>Ϳ  ϭϳ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϭϭDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚDͿ  ϭϴ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϭϮDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚEͿ  ϭϵ ^ĂĨĞƚLJEŽŶͲWWZŽƐƚ'ƌŽƵƉηϭϯDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚKͿ  ϮϬ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJWWZDĞŵďĞƌZĂƚĞƐ;džŚŝďŝƚWͿ  Ϯϭ džĂŵƉůĞƐĨŽƌ^ƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵƉůŽLJĞĞŽƐƚ^ŚĂƌŝŶŐ  ϮϮ WƌĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌĨŽƌϮϬϮϭͲϮϮ  Exhibit A - 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATES EFFECTIVE FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 for General Tiers 1 and 3 Legacy Members Cost Group #3 Cost Group #4 Cost Group #5 GENERAL TIERS - ENHANCED Moraga-Orinda Districts Central Contra Costa Contra Costa Contra Costa County Tier 1 BASIC Enhanced County Fire District First 5 LAFCO without POB Sanitary District Housing Authority Fire Protection District First $350 monthly & in Social Security 16.41% N/A 16.32% 18.55% 19.72% N/A 20.73% N/A Excess of $350 monthly & in Social Security 24.62% N/A 24.48% 27.83% 29.59% N/A 31.09% N/A All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security 24.62% 20.11% N/A N/A 29.59% 36.05% N/A 24.44% Tier 1 COL Enhanced First $350 monthly 3.67% N/A 3.74% 5.91% 6.36% N/A 9.90% N/A Excess of $350 monthly 5.51% N/A 5.62% 8.87% 9.53% N/A 14.85% N/A All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security 5.51% 4.10% N/A N/A 9.53% 15.41% N/A 11.98% Non-Refundability Factor 0.9682 0.9682 0.9682 0.9682 0.9682 0.9609 0.9609 0.9752 Cost Group Employer Name Tier Districts Cost Group #1 County General Tier 1 Enhanced (2% @ 55) Tier 3 BASIC Enhanced County without POB LAFCO First $350 monthly 15.60% 18.98% CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Excess of $350 monthly 23.40% 28.47% Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District First 5 - Children and Families Commission All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security N/A 28.47% Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Superior Court Tier 3 COL Enhanced East Contra Costa Fire Protection District First $350 monthly 3.48% 6.18% Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Excess of $350 monthly 5.21% 9.27% Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security N/A 9.27% Cost Group #2 County General Tier 3 Enhanced (2% @ 55) Non-Refundability Factor 0.9561 0.9561 In-Home Supportive Services Authority CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Cost Group #6 Superior Court GENERAL TIER NON-ENHANCED Districts Tier 1 BASIC NON-Enhanced without POB Cost Group #3 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Tier 1 Enhanced (2% @ 55) First $350 monthly 9.06% Excess of $350 monthly 13.58% Cost Group #4 Contra Costa Housing Authority Tier 1 Enhanced (2% @ 55) All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security N/A Cost Group #5 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier 1 Enhanced (2% @ 55) Tier 1 COL NON-Enhanced Cost Group #6 Rodeo Sanitary District Tier 1 Non-enhanced (1.67% @ 55) First $350 monthly 2.69%Byron Brentwood Cemetery District Excess of $350 monthly 4.04% Basic rates shown include an administrative expense load of 0.65% of payroll. This load has been All Eligible $ if NOT in Social Security N/A incorporated and adjusted as appropriate into the first $350 and excess of $350 monthly rates shown. Non-Refundability Factor 0.9496 Cost Group #2 Cost Group #1 All Cost Groups 2021-22 Exhibit A-1 Page 2 10/05/2020 Exhibit A - 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATES EFFECTIVE FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 for General Tiers 4 and 5 PEPRA Members with 2% Maximum COLA Cost Group #3 Cost Group #4 Cost Group #5 GENERAL PEPRA TIERS Moraga-Orinda Districts Central Contra Costa Contra Costa Contra Costa County Tier 4 BASIC County Fire District First 5 LAFCO without POB Sanitary District Housing Authority Fire Protection District All Eligible $ 19.98% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.53% Tier 4 COL All Eligible $ 3.81% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.45% Non-Refundability Factor 0.9587 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.9541 Cost Group Employer Name Tier Districts Cost Group #1 County General Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Tier 5 BASIC County without POB LAFCO All Eligible $ 19.35% 24.35% CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Tier 5 COL First 5 - Children and Families Commission All Eligible $ 3.64% 7.65% Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Superior Court Non-Refundability Factor 0.9582 0.9582 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Cost Group #2 County General Tier 5 (2.5% @ 67) In-Home Supportive Services Authority CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Superior Court Cost Group #3 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #4 Contra Costa Housing Authority Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #5 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #6 Rodeo Sanitary District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Byron Brentwood Cemetery District Some tiers are not applicable to the employers as shown above in the rate table. Basic rates shown include an administrative expense load of 0.65% of payroll. Cost Group #2 Cost Group #1 All Cost Groups 2021-22 Exhibit A-2 Page 3 10/05/2020 Exhibit A - 3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATES EFFECTIVE FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 for General Tiers 4 and 5 PEPRA Members with 3% Maximum COLA Cost Group #3 Cost Group #4 Cost Group #5 Cost Group #6 GENERAL PEPRA TIERS Moraga-Orinda Districts Central Contra Costa Contra Costa Contra Costa County Districts Tier 4 BASIC County Fire District First 5 LAFCO without POB Sanitary District Housing Authority Fire Protection District without POB All Eligible $ 20.02% 15.79% 19.87% 23.25% 25.02% 31.24% 25.64% 21.66% 9.39% Tier 4 COL All Eligible $ 4.78% 3.44% 4.89% 8.13% 8.79% 14.50% 13.77% 11.95% 3.15% Non-Refundability Factor 0.9609 0.9609 0.9609 0.9609 0.9609 0.9667 0.9662 0.9581 0.9651 Cost Group Employer Name Tier Districts Cost Group #1 County General Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Tier 5 BASIC County without POB LAFCO All Eligible $ 19.52% 24.52% CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Tier 5 COL First 5 - Children and Families Commission All Eligible $ 4.55% 8.56%Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association Superior Court Non-Refundability Factor 0.9607 0.9607 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Cost Group #2 County General Tier 5 (2.5% @ 67) In-Home Supportive Services Authority CC Mosquito & Vector Control District Superior Court Cost Group #3 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #4 Contra Costa Housing Authority Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #5 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Cost Group #6 Rodeo Sanitary District Tier 4 (2.5% @ 67) Byron Brentwood Cemetery District Basic rates shown include an administrative expense load of 0.65% of payroll. Cost Group #2 Cost Group #1 All Cost Groups 2021-22 Exhibit A-3 Page 4 10/05/2020 Exhibit B - 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATES EFFECTIVE FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 for Safety Tiers A and C Legacy Members Cost Group #7 Cost Group #8 Cost Group #10 Cost Group #11 Cost Group #13 SAFETY TIERS ENHANCED Contra Costa County Moraga-Orinda San Ramon Valley East Contra Costa Safety A BASIC Enhanced County Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Fire Protection District All eligible $44.36% 34.21% 34.83% 52.06% 48.58% Safety A COL Enhanced All eligible $27.46% 36.25% 38.14% 27.91% 21.35% Non-Refundability Factor 0.9621 0.9674 0.9654 0.9682 0.9561 Cost Group #9 Cost Group Employer Name Tier Safety C BASIC Enhanced County Cost Group # 7 County Safety Tier A Enhanced (3% @ 50) All eligible $42.65% Cost Group # 8 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier A Enhanced (3% @ 50) Safety C COL Enhanced All eligible $24.78% Cost Group # 9 County Safety Tier C Enhanced (3% @ 50) Non-Refundability Factor 0.9628 Cost Group # 10 Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Tier A Enhanced (3% @ 50) Cost Group #12 Cost Group # 11 San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Tier A Enhanced (3% @ 50) SAFETY TIER NON-ENHANCED Rodeo-Hercules Safety A BASIC NON-Enhanced Fire Protection District Cost Group # 12 Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District Tier A Non-enhanced (2% @ 50) All eligible $18.73% Monthly Contribution Towards UAAL $62,273 Cost Group # 13 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Tier A Enhanced (3% @ 50) Safety A COL NON-Enhanced Basic rates shown include an administrative expense load of 0.65% of payroll. All eligible $5.21% Monthly Contribution Towards UAAL $47,830 Non-Refundability Factor 0.9651 All Cost Groups 2021-22 Exhibit B-1 Page 5 10/05/2020 Exhibit B - 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATES EFFECTIVE FOR JULY 1, 2021 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022 for Safety Tiers D and E PEPRA Members Cost Group #7 Cost Group #8 Cost Group #10 Cost Group #11 Cost Group #12 Cost Group #13 SAFETY PEPRA TIERS Contra Costa County Moraga-Orinda San Ramon Valley Rodeo-Hercules East Contra Costa Safety D BASIC (3% Maximum COLA)County Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Fire Protection District Fire Protection District All eligible $36.32% 23.92% 26.06% 40.58% 11.50% 37.54% Monthly Contribution Towards UAAL N/A N/A N/A N/A $17,140 N/A Safety D COL (3% Maximum COLA) All eligible $26.15% 34.25% 36.38% 25.47% 4.76% 19.27% Monthly Contribution Towards UAAL N/A N/A N/A N/A $13,165 N/A Non-Refundability Factor 0.9711 0.9755 0.9721 0.9747 0.9771 0.9763 Cost Group #8 Cost Group #9 Cost Group Employer Name Tier Contra Costa County Cost Group # 7 County Safety Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Safety E BASIC (2% Maximum COLA)Fire Protection District County All eligible $23.96% 35.06% Cost Group # 8 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Tier E (2.7% @ 57) Safety E COL (2% Maximum COLA) All eligible $32.56% 23.95% Cost Group # 9 County Safety Tier E (2.7% @ 57) Non-Refundability Factor 0.9706 0.9698 Cost Group # 10 Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Cost Group # 11 San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Cost Group # 12 Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Cost Group # 13 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Tier D (2.7% @ 57) Basic rates shown include an administrative expense load of 0.65% of payroll. All Cost Groups 2021-22 Exhibit B-2 Page 6 10/05/2020 Exhibit C GENERAL Cost Group #1 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic not in Social Security Basic in Social Security*COLA Total not in Social Security Total in Social Security* 15 5.32% 5.33% 2.70% 8.02% 8.03% 16 5.41% 5.42% 2.75% 8.16% 8.17% 17 5.51% 5.52% 2.81% 8.32% 8.33% 18 5.61% 5.62% 2.86% 8.47% 8.48% 19 5.71% 5.72% 2.92% 8.63% 8.64% 20 5.81% 5.82% 2.97% 8.78% 8.79% 21 5.91% 5.92% 3.03% 8.94% 8.95% 22 6.01% 6.02% 3.09% 9.10% 9.11% 23 6.12% 6.13% 3.15% 9.27% 9.28% 24 6.23% 6.24% 3.21% 9.44% 9.45% 25 6.34% 6.35% 3.27% 9.61% 9.62% 26 6.45% 6.46% 3.33% 9.78% 9.79% 27 6.57% 6.58% 3.40% 9.97% 9.98% 28 6.68% 6.69% 3.46% 10.14% 10.15% 29 6.80% 6.81% 3.53% 10.33% 10.34% 30 6.92% 6.93% 3.59% 10.51% 10.52% 31 7.05% 7.06% 3.67% 10.72% 10.73% 32 7.17% 7.18% 3.73% 10.90% 10.91% 33 7.30% 7.31% 3.81% 11.11% 11.12% 34 7.44% 7.45% 3.89% 11.33% 11.34% 35 7.57% 7.58% 3.96% 11.53% 11.54% 36 7.71% 7.72% 4.04% 11.75% 11.76% 37 7.85% 7.86% 4.11% 11.96% 11.97% 38 7.99% 8.00% 4.19% 12.18% 12.19% 39 8.14% 8.15% 4.28% 12.42% 12.43% 40 8.29% 8.30% 4.36% 12.65% 12.66% 41 8.45% 8.46% 4.45% 12.90% 12.91% 42 8.60% 8.61% 4.53% 13.13% 13.14% 43 8.75% 8.76% 4.62% 13.37% 13.38% 44 8.90% 8.91% 4.70% 13.60% 13.61% 45 9.06% 9.07% 4.79% 13.85% 13.86% 46 9.22% 9.23% 4.88% 14.10% 14.11% 47 9.38% 9.39% 4.97% 14.35% 14.36% 48 9.53% 9.54% 5.05% 14.58% 14.59% 49 9.68% 9.69% 5.14% 14.82% 14.83% 50 9.84% 9.85% 5.23% 15.07% 15.08% 51 10.00% 10.01% 5.32% 15.32% 15.33% 52 10.16% 10.17% 5.41% 15.57% 15.58% 53 10.32% 10.33% 5.49% 15.81% 15.82% 54 10.48% 10.49% 5.58% 16.06% 16.07% 55 10.63% 10.64% 5.67% 16.30% 16.31% 56 10.70% 10.71% 5.71% 16.41% 16.42% 57 10.67% 10.68% 5.69% 16.36% 16.37% 58 10.64% 10.65% 5.67% 16.31% 16.32% 59 10.33% 10.34% 5.50% 15.83% 15.84% 60 and over 10.33% 10.34% 5.50% 15.83% 15.84% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 55.90% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: For members in Social Security, the rate should only be applied to monthly compensation in excess of $116.67. The rate should be applied to compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit C Page 7 Exhibit D GENERAL Cost Group #2 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic not in Social Security Basic in Social Security*COLA Total not in Social Security Total in Social Security* 15 5.31% 5.32% 2.35% 7.66% 7.67% 16 5.40% 5.41% 2.40% 7.80% 7.81% 17 5.50% 5.51% 2.44% 7.94% 7.95% 18 5.59% 5.60% 2.49% 8.08% 8.09% 19 5.69% 5.70% 2.54% 8.23% 8.24% 20 5.79% 5.80% 2.59% 8.38% 8.39% 21 5.90% 5.91% 2.64% 8.54% 8.55% 22 6.00% 6.01% 2.69% 8.69% 8.70% 23 6.11% 6.12% 2.74% 8.85% 8.86% 24 6.22% 6.23% 2.80% 9.02% 9.03% 25 6.33% 6.34% 2.85% 9.18% 9.19% 26 6.44% 6.45% 2.90% 9.34% 9.35% 27 6.55% 6.56% 2.96% 9.51% 9.52% 28 6.67% 6.68% 3.02% 9.69% 9.70% 29 6.79% 6.80% 3.07% 9.86% 9.87% 30 6.91% 6.92% 3.13% 10.04% 10.05% 31 7.03% 7.04% 3.19% 10.22% 10.23% 32 7.16% 7.17% 3.25% 10.41% 10.42% 33 7.29% 7.30% 3.32% 10.61% 10.62% 34 7.42% 7.43% 3.38% 10.80% 10.81% 35 7.55% 7.56% 3.45% 11.00% 11.01% 36 7.69% 7.70% 3.51% 11.20% 11.21% 37 7.83% 7.84% 3.58% 11.41% 11.42% 38 7.98% 7.99% 3.66% 11.64% 11.65% 39 8.13% 8.14% 3.73% 11.86% 11.87% 40 8.27% 8.28% 3.80% 12.07% 12.08% 41 8.42% 8.43% 3.87% 12.29% 12.30% 42 8.58% 8.59% 3.95% 12.53% 12.54% 43 8.73% 8.74% 4.02% 12.75% 12.76% 44 8.88% 8.89% 4.09% 12.97% 12.98% 45 9.04% 9.05% 4.17% 13.21% 13.22% 46 9.20% 9.21% 4.25% 13.45% 13.46% 47 9.36% 9.37% 4.33% 13.69% 13.70% 48 9.50% 9.51% 4.40% 13.90% 13.91% 49 9.67% 9.68% 4.48% 14.15% 14.16% 50 9.82% 9.83% 4.55% 14.37% 14.38% 51 9.98% 9.99% 4.63% 14.61% 14.62% 52 10.14% 10.15% 4.71% 14.85% 14.86% 53 10.33% 10.34% 4.80% 15.13% 15.14% 54 10.45% 10.46% 4.86% 15.31% 15.32% 55 10.59% 10.60% 4.93% 15.52% 15.53% 56 10.70% 10.71% 4.98% 15.68% 15.69% 57 10.68% 10.69% 4.97% 15.65% 15.66% 58 10.66% 10.67% 4.96% 15.62% 15.63% 59 10.05% 10.06% 4.67% 14.72% 14.73% 60 and over 10.05% 10.06% 4.67% 14.72% 14.73% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 48.80% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: For members in Social Security, the rate should only be applied to monthly compensation in excess of $116.67. The rate should be applied to compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit D Page 8 Exhibit E GENERAL Cost Group #3 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 5.50% 2.72% 8.22% 16 5.59% 2.77% 8.36% 17 5.69% 2.83% 8.52% 18 5.79% 2.88% 8.67% 19 5.90% 2.94% 8.84% 20 6.00% 2.99% 8.99% 21 6.11% 3.05% 9.16% 22 6.22% 3.11% 9.33% 23 6.33% 3.17% 9.50% 24 6.44% 3.23% 9.67% 25 6.55% 3.29% 9.84% 26 6.67% 3.36% 10.03% 27 6.79% 3.42% 10.21% 28 6.91% 3.49% 10.40% 29 7.03% 3.55% 10.58% 30 7.16% 3.62% 10.78% 31 7.29% 3.69% 10.98% 32 7.42% 3.77% 11.19% 33 7.55% 3.84% 11.39% 34 7.68% 3.91% 11.59% 35 7.82% 3.98% 11.80% 36 7.97% 4.06% 12.03% 37 8.11% 4.14% 12.25% 38 8.26% 4.22% 12.48% 39 8.42% 4.31% 12.73% 40 8.57% 4.39% 12.96% 41 8.73% 4.48% 13.21% 42 8.88% 4.56% 13.44% 43 9.04% 4.65% 13.69% 44 9.20% 4.73% 13.93% 45 9.37% 4.82% 14.19% 46 9.52% 4.91% 14.43% 47 9.68% 4.99% 14.67% 48 9.84% 5.08% 14.92% 49 10.00% 5.17% 15.17% 50 10.16% 5.25% 15.41% 51 10.32% 5.34% 15.66% 52 10.49% 5.43% 15.92% 53 10.65% 5.52% 16.17% 54 10.79% 5.60% 16.39% 55 10.89% 5.65% 16.54% 56 11.00% 5.71% 16.71% 57 10.96% 5.69% 16.65% 58 10.72% 5.56% 16.28% 59 10.28% 5.32% 15.60% 60 and over 10.28% 5.32% 15.60% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 54.33% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit E Page 9 Exhibit F GENERAL Cost Group #4 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic not in Social Security Basic in Social Security*COLA Total not in Social Security Total in Social Security* 15 5.29% 5.30% 2.61% 7.90% 7.91% 16 5.39% 5.40% 2.66% 8.05% 8.06% 17 5.48% 5.49% 2.71% 8.19% 8.20% 18 5.58% 5.59% 2.77% 8.35% 8.36% 19 5.68% 5.69% 2.82% 8.50% 8.51% 20 5.78% 5.79% 2.87% 8.65% 8.66% 21 5.88% 5.89% 2.93% 8.81% 8.82% 22 5.99% 6.00% 2.99% 8.98% 8.99% 23 6.09% 6.10% 3.04% 9.13% 9.14% 24 6.20% 6.21% 3.10% 9.30% 9.31% 25 6.31% 6.32% 3.16% 9.47% 9.48% 26 6.42% 6.43% 3.22% 9.64% 9.65% 27 6.54% 6.55% 3.29% 9.83% 9.84% 28 6.65% 6.66% 3.35% 10.00% 10.01% 29 6.77% 6.78% 3.41% 10.18% 10.19% 30 6.89% 6.90% 3.48% 10.37% 10.38% 31 7.02% 7.03% 3.55% 10.57% 10.58% 32 7.14% 7.15% 3.61% 10.75% 10.76% 33 7.27% 7.28% 3.68% 10.95% 10.96% 34 7.40% 7.41% 3.75% 11.15% 11.16% 35 7.54% 7.55% 3.83% 11.37% 11.38% 36 7.67% 7.68% 3.90% 11.57% 11.58% 37 7.81% 7.82% 3.98% 11.79% 11.80% 38 7.96% 7.97% 4.06% 12.02% 12.03% 39 8.11% 8.12% 4.14% 12.25% 12.26% 40 8.26% 8.27% 4.22% 12.48% 12.49% 41 8.41% 8.42% 4.30% 12.71% 12.72% 42 8.56% 8.57% 4.38% 12.94% 12.95% 43 8.71% 8.72% 4.47% 13.18% 13.19% 44 8.86% 8.87% 4.55% 13.41% 13.42% 45 9.03% 9.04% 4.64% 13.67% 13.68% 46 9.18% 9.19% 4.72% 13.90% 13.91% 47 9.33% 9.34% 4.80% 14.13% 14.14% 48 9.48% 9.49% 4.88% 14.36% 14.37% 49 9.65% 9.66% 4.98% 14.63% 14.64% 50 9.79% 9.80% 5.05% 14.84% 14.85% 51 9.96% 9.97% 5.15% 15.11% 15.12% 52 10.12% 10.13% 5.23% 15.35% 15.36% 53 10.30% 10.31% 5.33% 15.63% 15.64% 54 10.45% 10.46% 5.41% 15.86% 15.87% 55 10.59% 10.60% 5.49% 16.08% 16.09% 56 10.65% 10.66% 5.52% 16.17% 16.18% 57 10.69% 10.70% 5.54% 16.23% 16.24% 58 10.53% 10.54% 5.45% 15.98% 15.99% 59 10.07% 10.08% 5.20% 15.27% 15.28% 60 and over 10.07% 10.08% 5.20% 15.27% 15.28% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 54.33% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: For members in Social Security, the rate should only be applied to monthly compensation in excess of $116.67. The rate should be applied to compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit F Page 10 Exhibit G GENERAL Cost Group #5 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 5.33% 2.79% 8.12% 16 5.42% 2.84% 8.26% 17 5.52% 2.90% 8.42% 18 5.62% 2.96% 8.58% 19 5.72% 3.01% 8.73% 20 5.82% 3.07% 8.89% 21 5.92% 3.13% 9.05% 22 6.03% 3.19% 9.22% 23 6.13% 3.25% 9.38% 24 6.24% 3.31% 9.55% 25 6.35% 3.38% 9.73% 26 6.47% 3.45% 9.92% 27 6.58% 3.51% 10.09% 28 6.70% 3.58% 10.28% 29 6.82% 3.65% 10.47% 30 6.94% 3.72% 10.66% 31 7.06% 3.79% 10.85% 32 7.19% 3.86% 11.05% 33 7.32% 3.94% 11.26% 34 7.45% 4.01% 11.46% 35 7.59% 4.09% 11.68% 36 7.72% 4.17% 11.89% 37 7.87% 4.25% 12.12% 38 8.01% 4.33% 12.34% 39 8.16% 4.42% 12.58% 40 8.31% 4.51% 12.82% 41 8.47% 4.60% 13.07% 42 8.62% 4.68% 13.30% 43 8.77% 4.77% 13.54% 44 8.92% 4.86% 13.78% 45 9.08% 4.95% 14.03% 46 9.24% 5.04% 14.28% 47 9.40% 5.13% 14.53% 48 9.55% 5.22% 14.77% 49 9.71% 5.31% 15.02% 50 9.87% 5.40% 15.27% 51 10.03% 5.50% 15.53% 52 10.18% 5.58% 15.76% 53 10.35% 5.68% 16.03% 54 10.51% 5.77% 16.28% 55 10.62% 5.84% 16.46% 56 10.69% 5.88% 16.57% 57 10.75% 5.91% 16.66% 58 10.63% 5.84% 16.47% 59 10.31% 5.66% 15.97% 60 and over 10.31% 5.66% 15.97% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 57.62% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit G Page 11 Exhibit H GENERAL Cost Group #6 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic not in Social Security Basic in Social Security*COLA Total not in Social Security Total in Social Security* 15 6.05% 6.06% 2.46% 8.51% 8.52% 16 6.16% 6.17% 2.51% 8.67% 8.68% 17 6.26% 6.27% 2.55% 8.81% 8.82% 18 6.38% 6.39% 2.61% 8.99% 9.00% 19 6.49% 6.50% 2.66% 9.15% 9.16% 20 6.61% 6.62% 2.71% 9.32% 9.33% 21 6.72% 6.73% 2.76% 9.48% 9.49% 22 6.84% 6.85% 2.81% 9.65% 9.66% 23 6.96% 6.97% 2.86% 9.82% 9.83% 24 7.09% 7.10% 2.92% 10.01% 10.02% 25 7.22% 7.23% 2.98% 10.20% 10.21% 26 7.35% 7.36% 3.04% 10.39% 10.40% 27 7.48% 7.49% 3.09% 10.57% 10.58% 28 7.61% 7.62% 3.15% 10.76% 10.77% 29 7.75% 7.76% 3.21% 10.96% 10.97% 30 7.89% 7.90% 3.27% 11.16% 11.17% 31 8.03% 8.04% 3.34% 11.37% 11.38% 32 8.19% 8.20% 3.41% 11.60% 11.61% 33 8.33% 8.34% 3.47% 11.80% 11.81% 34 8.49% 8.50% 3.54% 12.03% 12.04% 35 8.65% 8.66% 3.61% 12.26% 12.27% 36 8.81% 8.82% 3.68% 12.49% 12.50% 37 8.97% 8.98% 3.75% 12.72% 12.73% 38 9.13% 9.14% 3.82% 12.95% 12.96% 39 9.29% 9.30% 3.89% 13.18% 13.19% 40 9.46% 9.47% 3.97% 13.43% 13.44% 41 9.62% 9.63% 4.04% 13.66% 13.67% 42 9.78% 9.79% 4.11% 13.89% 13.90% 43 9.95% 9.96% 4.19% 14.14% 14.15% 44 10.11% 10.12% 4.26% 14.37% 14.38% 45 10.27% 10.28% 4.33% 14.60% 14.61% 46 10.45% 10.46% 4.41% 14.86% 14.87% 47 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 48 10.80% 10.81% 4.56% 15.36% 15.37% 49 10.95% 10.96% 4.63% 15.58% 15.59% 50 11.09% 11.10% 4.69% 15.78% 15.79% 51 11.20% 11.21% 4.74% 15.94% 15.95% 52 11.15% 11.16% 4.72% 15.87% 15.88% 53 11.07% 11.08% 4.68% 15.75% 15.76% 54 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 55 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 56 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 57 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 58 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 59 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% 60 and over 10.61% 10.62% 4.48% 15.09% 15.10% Adminstrative Expense: 0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading: 44.25% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: For members in Social Security, the rate should only be applied to monthly compensation in excess of $116.67. The rate should be applied to compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit H Page12 Exhibit I SAFETY Cost Group #7 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 16 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 17 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 18 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 19 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 20 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 21 9.48% 6.31% 15.79% 22 9.62% 6.40% 16.02% 23 9.76% 6.50% 16.26% 24 9.91% 6.61% 16.52% 25 10.06% 6.71% 16.77% 26 10.21% 6.82% 17.03% 27 10.37% 6.93% 17.30% 28 10.52% 7.04% 17.56% 29 10.68% 7.15% 17.83% 30 10.85% 7.27% 18.12% 31 11.02% 7.39% 18.41% 32 11.19% 7.51% 18.70% 33 11.37% 7.63% 19.00% 34 11.55% 7.76% 19.31% 35 11.74% 7.89% 19.63% 36 11.93% 8.03% 19.96% 37 12.12% 8.16% 20.28% 38 12.31% 8.29% 20.60% 39 12.52% 8.44% 20.96% 40 12.74% 8.59% 21.33% 41 12.95% 8.74% 21.69% 42 13.18% 8.90% 22.08% 43 13.41% 9.06% 22.47% 44 13.67% 9.25% 22.92% 45 13.89% 9.40% 23.29% 46 13.91% 9.41% 23.32% 47 13.94% 9.44% 23.38% 48 13.75% 9.30% 23.05% 49 and over 13.23% 8.94% 22.17% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:70.15% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit I Page 13 Exhibit J SAFETY Cost Group #8 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 16 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 17 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 18 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 19 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 20 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 21 9.46% 6.59% 16.05% 22 9.60% 6.69% 16.29% 23 9.74% 6.80% 16.54% 24 9.89% 6.91% 16.80% 25 10.04% 7.02% 17.06% 26 10.19% 7.13% 17.32% 27 10.34% 7.24% 17.58% 28 10.50% 7.36% 17.86% 29 10.66% 7.47% 18.13% 30 10.82% 7.59% 18.41% 31 10.99% 7.72% 18.71% 32 11.17% 7.85% 19.02% 33 11.34% 7.97% 19.31% 34 11.53% 8.11% 19.64% 35 11.72% 8.25% 19.97% 36 11.90% 8.39% 20.29% 37 12.10% 8.53% 20.63% 38 12.29% 8.67% 20.96% 39 12.49% 8.82% 21.31% 40 12.71% 8.98% 21.69% 41 12.93% 9.14% 22.07% 42 13.16% 9.31% 22.47% 43 13.39% 9.48% 22.87% 44 13.64% 9.66% 23.30% 45 13.85% 9.82% 23.67% 46 13.92% 9.87% 23.79% 47 13.86% 9.83% 23.69% 48 13.77% 9.76% 23.53% 49 and over 13.26% 9.38% 22.64% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:73.49% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit J Page 14 Exhibit K SAFETY Cost Group #9 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 16 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 17 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 18 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 19 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 20 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 21 9.06% 3.90% 12.96% 22 9.19% 3.96% 13.15% 23 9.33% 4.02% 13.35% 24 9.47% 4.09% 13.56% 25 9.61% 4.15% 13.76% 26 9.75% 4.21% 13.96% 27 9.90% 4.28% 14.18% 28 10.05% 4.35% 14.40% 29 10.20% 4.42% 14.62% 30 10.36% 4.49% 14.85% 31 10.52% 4.56% 15.08% 32 10.69% 4.64% 15.33% 33 10.86% 4.72% 15.58% 34 11.03% 4.80% 15.83% 35 11.20% 4.87% 16.07% 36 11.38% 4.95% 16.33% 37 11.56% 5.04% 16.60% 38 11.73% 5.11% 16.84% 39 11.93% 5.21% 17.14% 40 12.12% 5.29% 17.41% 41 12.31% 5.38% 17.69% 42 12.51% 5.47% 17.98% 43 12.68% 5.55% 18.23% 44 12.78% 5.59% 18.37% 45 12.79% 5.60% 18.39% 46 12.67% 5.54% 18.21% 47 12.41% 5.42% 17.83% 48 12.74% 5.57% 18.31% 49 and over 13.32% 5.84% 19.16% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:45.50% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit K Page 15 Exhibit L SAFETY Cost Group #10 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 16 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 17 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 18 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 19 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 20 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 21 9.46% 6.33% 15.79% 22 9.60% 6.43% 16.03% 23 9.74% 6.52% 16.26% 24 9.89% 6.63% 16.52% 25 10.04% 6.74% 16.78% 26 10.19% 6.84% 17.03% 27 10.34% 6.95% 17.29% 28 10.50% 7.06% 17.56% 29 10.66% 7.17% 17.83% 30 10.82% 7.29% 18.11% 31 10.99% 7.41% 18.40% 32 11.17% 7.53% 18.70% 33 11.34% 7.65% 18.99% 34 11.53% 7.79% 19.32% 35 11.72% 7.92% 19.64% 36 11.90% 8.05% 19.95% 37 12.10% 8.19% 20.29% 38 12.29% 8.32% 20.61% 39 12.49% 8.46% 20.95% 40 12.71% 8.62% 21.33% 41 12.93% 8.77% 21.70% 42 13.16% 8.94% 22.10% 43 13.39% 9.10% 22.49% 44 13.64% 9.27% 22.91% 45 13.85% 9.42% 23.27% 46 13.92% 9.47% 23.39% 47 13.86% 9.43% 23.29% 48 13.77% 9.37% 23.14% 49 and over 13.26% 9.01% 22.27% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:70.53% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit L Page 16 Exhibit M SAFETY Cost Group #11 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 16 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 17 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 18 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 19 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 20 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 21 9.63% 6.78% 16.41% 22 9.78% 6.89% 16.67% 23 9.92% 6.99% 16.91% 24 10.07% 7.10% 17.17% 25 10.22% 7.21% 17.43% 26 10.38% 7.33% 17.71% 27 10.53% 7.44% 17.97% 28 10.69% 7.56% 18.25% 29 10.85% 7.68% 18.53% 30 11.02% 7.81% 18.83% 31 11.19% 7.93% 19.12% 32 11.37% 8.07% 19.44% 33 11.55% 8.20% 19.75% 34 11.74% 8.34% 20.08% 35 11.92% 8.47% 20.39% 36 12.11% 8.62% 20.73% 37 12.31% 8.76% 21.07% 38 12.51% 8.91% 21.42% 39 12.71% 9.06% 21.77% 40 12.92% 9.22% 22.14% 41 13.14% 9.38% 22.52% 42 13.37% 9.55% 22.92% 43 13.61% 9.73% 23.34% 44 13.84% 9.90% 23.74% 45 14.07% 10.07% 24.14% 46 14.10% 10.09% 24.19% 47 14.04% 10.05% 24.09% 48 13.78% 9.85% 23.63% 49 and over 13.01% 9.28% 22.29% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:74.14% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit M Page 17 Exhibit N SAFETY Cost Group #12 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 16 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 17 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 18 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 19 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 20 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 21 9.59% 6.98% 16.57% 22 9.73% 7.09% 16.82% 23 9.88% 7.21% 17.09% 24 10.02% 7.31% 17.33% 25 10.18% 7.44% 17.62% 26 10.33% 7.55% 17.88% 27 10.48% 7.67% 18.15% 28 10.64% 7.79% 18.43% 29 10.80% 7.91% 18.71% 30 10.97% 8.04% 19.01% 31 11.14% 8.17% 19.31% 32 11.32% 8.31% 19.63% 33 11.49% 8.44% 19.93% 34 11.68% 8.59% 20.27% 35 11.88% 8.74% 20.62% 36 12.06% 8.88% 20.94% 37 12.25% 9.03% 21.28% 38 12.45% 9.18% 21.63% 39 12.66% 9.34% 22.00% 40 12.88% 9.51% 22.39% 41 13.09% 9.67% 22.76% 42 13.33% 9.85% 23.18% 43 13.56% 10.03% 23.59% 44 13.78% 10.20% 23.98% 45 13.99% 10.36% 24.35% 46 14.05% 10.41% 24.46% 47 13.97% 10.35% 24.32% 48 13.81% 10.22% 24.03% 49 and over 13.07% 9.66% 22.73% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:76.75% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit N Page 18 Exhibit O SAFETY Cost Group #13 Non-PEPRA Member Contribution Rates Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* Entry Age Basic COLA Total 15 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 16 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 17 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 18 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 19 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 20 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 21 9.46% 6.85% 16.31% 22 9.60% 6.96% 16.56% 23 9.74% 7.07% 16.81% 24 9.89% 7.18% 17.07% 25 10.04% 7.30% 17.34% 26 10.19% 7.41% 17.60% 27 10.34% 7.53% 17.87% 28 10.50% 7.65% 18.15% 29 10.66% 7.77% 18.43% 30 10.82% 7.89% 18.71% 31 10.99% 8.02% 19.01% 32 11.17% 8.16% 19.33% 33 11.34% 8.29% 19.63% 34 11.53% 8.44% 19.97% 35 11.72% 8.58% 20.30% 36 11.90% 8.72% 20.62% 37 12.10% 8.87% 20.97% 38 12.29% 9.02% 21.31% 39 12.49% 9.17% 21.66% 40 12.71% 9.34% 22.05% 41 12.93% 9.51% 22.44% 42 13.16% 9.68% 22.84% 43 13.39% 9.86% 23.25% 44 13.64% 10.05% 23.69% 45 13.85% 10.21% 24.06% 46 13.92% 10.26% 24.18% 47 13.86% 10.22% 24.08% 48 13.77% 10.15% 23.92% 49 and over 13.26% 9.76% 23.02% Adminstrative Expense:0.49% of payroll added to Basic rates. COLA Loading:76.42% applied to Basic rates prior to adjustment for administrative expenses. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation up to the annual IRC 401(a)(17) compensation limit. Membership Date before January 1, 2013 Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit O Page 19 Exhibit P PEPRA Tiers Member Contribution Rates Membership Date on or after January 1, 2013 Effective 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Expressed as a Percentage of Monthly Payroll* General Tiers Basic COLA Total Cost Group #1 – PEPRA Tier 4 (2% COLA)8.87% 2.02% 10.89% Cost Group #1 – PEPRA Tier 4 (3% COLA)8.91% 2.99% 11.90% Cost Group #2 - PEPRA Tier 5 (2% COLA)8.24% 1.85% 10.09% Cost Group #2 - PEPRA Tier 5 (3%/4% COLA)8.41% 2.76% 11.17% Cost Group #3 - PEPRA Tier 4 (3% COLA)8.37% 2.87% 11.24% Cost Group #4 - PEPRA Tier 4 (3% COLA)8.60% 2.92% 11.52% Cost Group #5 - PEPRA Tier 4 (2% COLA)10.28% 2.29% 12.57% Cost Group #5 - PEPRA Tier 4 (3% COLA)11.41% 3.79% 15.20% Cost Group #6 - PEPRA Tier 4 (3% COLA)9.23% 3.15% 12.38% Safety Tiers Basic COLA Total Cost Group #7 - PEPRA Tier D 14.50% 5.79% 20.29% Cost Group #8 - PEPRA Tier D 12.33% 5.08% 17.41% Cost Group #8 - PEPRA Tier E 12.37% 3.39% 15.76% Cost Group #9 - PEPRA Tier E 13.24% 3.59% 16.83% Cost Group #10 - PEPRA Tier D 12.44% 5.13% 17.57% Cost Group #11 - PEPRA Tier D 11.42% 4.70% 16.12% Cost Group #12 - PEPRA Tier D 11.50% 4.76% 16.26% Cost Group #13 - PEPRA Tier D 12.25% 5.06% 17.31% The Basic rates shown above also include an administrative expense load of 0.49% of payroll. *NOTE: The rate should be applied to all compensation (whether or not in Social Security) up to the applicable annual Gov. Code 7522.10(d) compensation limit. Member Rates 2021-22 Exhibit P Page 20 WĂŐĞϮϭ KEdZK^dKhEdzDW>Kz^͛Zd/ZDEd^^K/d/KE ^hsEd/KE ůůƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶĂƐĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƉĂLJƌŽůů͘ ŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞƐǀĂƌLJĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐƵƉŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƚŝĞƌĂŶĚĂŐĞĂƚĞŶƚƌLJ͘dŽĐŽŵƉƵƚĞƚŚĞĞdžĂĐƚƐƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĨŽƌĞĂĐŚĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͕ĚŽƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƌĂƚĞʹĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐƌĂƚĞďLJƚŚĞƐƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ;ŝ͘Ğ͘Ϯϱй͕ϱϬй͕ĞƚĐ͘Ϳ͘ ŵƉůŽLJĞƌƌĂƚĞʹ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌ͛ƐƌĂƚĞďLJĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƌĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJĨĂĐƚŽƌ;ĨŽƵŶĚŽŶdžŚŝďŝƚƐĂŶĚͿ͗ yDW>&KZK^d'ZKhWηϯ>'zDDZ^͗ /ĨƚŚĞƐƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŝƐϮϱй͕ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐƌĂƚĞŝƐϲ͘ϬϬй͕  ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƌĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚďLJϭ͘ϱϬй;Ϯϱйпϲ͘ϬϬйͿ dŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƌĂƚĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚďLJϭ͘ϰϰй;ϭ͘ϱϬйпϬ͘ϵϲϬϵͿ WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĨŽƌWWZŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ƐƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŝƐŐĞŶĞƌĂůůLJŶŽƚƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚ͘dŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƵŶĚĞƌ'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞ ΑϳϱϮϮ͘ϯϬ;ĂͿŝƐƚŚĂƚĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐƉĂLJĂƚůĞĂƐƚϱϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨŶŽƌŵĂůĐŽƐƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐŶŽƚƉĂLJĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵƚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐŽŵĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϳϱϮϮ͘ϯϬ;ĨͿĂůůŽǁƐƚŚĞƚĞƌŵƐ ;ƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶͿŽĨĂĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵŽĨƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĂƚŝƐ ŝŶĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϭ͕ϮϬϭϯ͕ƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞůĞŶŐƚŚŽĨĂĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͘dŚŝƐŵĞĂŶƐƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƚŚĂƚĂŶ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌǁŝůůƐƵďǀĞŶƚĂƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨĂWWZŵĞŵďĞƌ͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞĞdžƉŝƌĂƚŝŽŶĚĂƚĞŽĨƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚ͕ƐŽůŽŶŐĂƐŝƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶŝŵƉĂŝƌĞĚ͘ hd/KEʹƚŚĞƐĞƌĂƚĞƐĂƌĞĨŽƌĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐƵďǀĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨƵƉƚŽŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƵŶĚĞƌ'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞ Αϯϭϱϴϭ͘ϭ͕EKdĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƉŝĐŬͲƵƉŽĨĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞƐ͘tŚĞŶĂŶĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐƵďǀĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ƐƵďǀĞŶƚĞĚŝƐŶŽƚƉůĂĐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͛ƐĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĂŶĚŝƐƚŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞŶŽƚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌĂƐĂƌĞĨƵŶĚ͘&ŽƌƚŚŝƐ ƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕ƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƉĂLJƐƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶĂƚĂĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ;ŝ͘Ğ͘͞ZĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJ&ĂĐƚŽƌ͟Ϳ͘ ŵƉůŽLJĞƌƉŝĐŬͲƵƉƐŽĨĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞƚŚŽƐĞŵĂĚĞƵŶĚĞƌ'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϯϭϱϴϭ͘ϮĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂůZĞǀĞŶƵĞ ŽĚĞΑϰϭϰ;ŚͿ;ϮͿĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŽůĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨĚĞĨĞƌƌŝŶŐŝŶĐŽŵĞƚĂdž͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͛Ɛ ĂĐĐŽƵŶƚ͕ĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌĂƐĂƌĞĨƵŶĚĂŶĚĂƌĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚďLJZĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŵƉĞŶƐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƌĞƚŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͘ DW>KzWzDEdK&DW>KzZK^d dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůƌĞĂƐŽŶƐǁŚLJƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞƐŵĂLJŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ ƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗ 'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϯϭϲϯϭĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌŵĞŵďĞƌƐƚŽƉĂLJĂůůŽƌƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐ͘ 'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϯϭϲϯϵ͘ϵϱĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌ^ĂĨĞƚLJŵĞŵďĞƌƐƚŽƉĂLJĂƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌĐŽƐƚĨŽƌƚŚĞ͞ϯйĂƚϱϬ͟ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚ͘ 'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϳϱϮϮ͘ϯϬ;ĐͿƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĂŶĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞďĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚĞƋƵĂůƚŽƚŚĂƚŽĨƐŝŵŝůĂƌůLJƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐ͘ WĂŐĞϮϮ 'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϳϱϮϮ͘ϯϬ;ĞͿĂůůŽǁƐƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐƚŽďĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽŶĞͲŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞŶŽƌŵĂůĐŽƐƚƌĂƚĞŝĨƚŚĞ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂŐƌĞĞĚƚŽƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚŝǀĞďĂƌŐĂŝŶŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘ /ĨLJŽƵŶĞĞĚƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƌĂƚĞĨŽƌĂŶLJƌĞĂƐŽŶ͕LJŽƵǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽĂĚũƵƐƚďŽƚŚĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĂŶĚ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƌĂƚĞƐĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƌĂƚĞʹ/ŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ͛ƐƌĂƚĞďLJƚŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞĚƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƉĂLJƌŽůů͘ ŵƉůŽLJĞƌƌĂƚĞʹĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌ͛ƐƌĂƚĞďLJĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƐƚͲƐŚĂƌŝŶŐƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƉĂLJƌŽůůƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƌĞĨƵŶĚĂďŝůŝƚLJĨĂĐƚŽƌ͗ yDW>&KZK^d'ZKhWηϭϭ>'zDDZ^͗ /ĨƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƌĂƚĞŝƐϴ͘ϬϬй͕ ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƌĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚďLJϴ͘ϬϬй͘ dŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƌĂƚĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞĚďLJϳ͘ϳϱй;ϴ͘ϬϬйпϬ͘ϵϲϴϮͿ WZWzDEd/^KhEd&dKZ&KZϮϬϮϭͲϮϮ ŵƉůŽLJĞƌŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶWƌĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚWƌŽŐƌĂŵΘŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌĨŽƌϮϬϮϭͲϮϮŝƐϬ͘ϵϲϵϲ /ĨLJŽƵĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚǁŝƐŚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞ͕LJŽƵĚŽŶŽƚŶĞĞĚƚŽĚŽĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐ ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƉƌĞƉĂLJƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϭƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϮĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐŽŶŽƌďĞĨŽƌĞ:ƵůLJϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘/ĨLJŽƵǁŝƐŚƚŽ ƐƚĂƌƚƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŶŐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƚŚĞĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂƚZďLJDĂƌĐŚϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘ dŚĞĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚĨĂĐƚŽƌŝƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŽŶ:ƵůLJϯϭŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ'Žǀ͘ ŽĚĞΑϯϭϱϴϮ;ďͿŝŶůŝĞƵŽĨϭϮĞƋƵĂůƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐĚƵĞĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨĞĂĐŚŵŽŶƚŚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞ ΑϯϭϱϴϮ;ĂͿ͘dŚĞĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚĨĂĐƚŽƌĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŝƐĐĂůLJĞĂƌ:ƵůLJϭ͕ϮϬϮϭƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ:ƵŶĞϯϬ͕ϮϬϮϮǁŝůůďĞϬ͘ϵϲϵϲďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ ŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĂƐƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶŽĨϳ͘ϬϬйƉĞƌĂŶŶƵŵ͘/ƚŝƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚďLJĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶŐĞĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞϭϮĞƋƵĂůƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞ ĚĂƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚŝƐŵĂĚĞĂŶĚŝƐƚŚĞƐƵŵŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞƚĂďůĞďĞůŽǁĚŝǀŝĚĞĚďLJϭϮ͘ ĂĐŚŽĨƚŚĞĚŝƐĐŽƵŶƚĨĂĐƚŽƌƐďĞůŽǁŝƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶŚŽǁŵĂŶLJŵŽŶƚŚƐĞĂƌůLJƚŚĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚŝƐŵĂĚĞ͘ WĂLJŵĞŶƚEƵŵďĞƌEƵŵďĞƌŽĨDŽŶƚŚƐ WĂLJŵĞŶƚŝƐDĂĚĞĂƌůLJŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌ ϭ Ϭ ϭ͘ϬϬϬϬ Ϯ ϭ Ϭ͘ϵϵϰϰ ϯ Ϯ Ϭ͘ϵϴϴϴ ϰ ϯ Ϭ͘ϵϴϯϮ ϱ ϰ Ϭ͘ϵϳϳϳ ϲ ϱ Ϭ͘ϵϳϮϮ ϳ ϲ Ϭ͘ϵϲϲϳ ϴ ϳ Ϭ͘ϵϲϭϯ ϵ ϴ Ϭ͘ϵϱϱϵ ϭϬ ϵ Ϭ͘ϵϱϬϱ ϭϭ ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϵϰϱϮ ϭϮ ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϵϯϵϵ ^ƵŵŽĨŝƐĐŽƵŶƚ&ĂĐƚŽƌƐŝǀŝĚĞĚďLJϭϮ͗ Ϭ͘ϵϲϵϲ  RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the report prepared by the Office of the Sheriff in accordance with Penal Code Section 4025(e) representing an accounting of all Inmate Welfare Fund receipts and disbursements for Fiscal Year 2018/2019. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is an informational report. BACKGROUND: Penal Code Section 4025(e) states that money and property deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund shall be expended by the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the inmates confined within the jail. Any funds that are not needed for the welfare of inmates may be expended for the maintenance of county jail facilities. Maintenance of county jail facilities may include, but is not limited to, the salary and benefits of personnel used in the programs to benefit the inmates, including but not limited to education, drug and alcohol treatment, welfare, library, accounting, and other programs deemed appropriate by the Sheriff. An itemized report of these expenditures shall be submitted annually to the Board of Supervisors. This APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Heike Anderson, (925) 655-0023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Heike Anderson, Alycia Rubio, Paul Reyes C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:David O. Livingston, Office of the Sheriff Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Accept the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Inmate Welfare Fund Expenditure Report BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) fund received the majority of its revenues from inmate telephone commissions and commissary sales. The Director of Inmate Services, working with the public members of the Inmate Welfare Committee, manages the delivery of professional services, establishes an annual budget and oversees expenditures for the Sheriff. The Inmate Welfare Fund continues to provide valuable professional, educational, and recreational services to persons in custody at the Martinez Detention Facility, West County Detention Facility, and the Marsh Creek Detention Facility. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will be out of compliance with Penal Code section 4025(e). ATTACHMENTS IWF FY 18/19 Inmate Welfare Fund Statement of Receipts, Disbursements, and Fund Balance Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Receipts: GTL Telephone Commissions $680,239 Canteen Commissions 913,452 WCDF Inmate Industries 36,242 WCDF Frame Shop 5,460 Investment Interest 43,020 Miscellaneous 103 Total Receipts $1,678,516 Disbursements: Entertainment Public Performance License & Movie Rental $ 2,559 Sub-Total $ 2,559 General Expenditures Inmate Furniture $250,647 Maintenance/Equipment Lease 15,336 1,914 (AB-109 Funded) Inmate Refreshment/Rewards 15,416 Personal Care/Hygiene 3,685 Furniture/Upholstery Repair 9,132 BART/Bus Tickets 3,000 67,500 (AB-109 Funded) Telerus (Inmate information line) 27,000 6,000 (AB-109 Funded) Other Svc/GSD, labor 3,800 Entertainment (TV, Board Games, Etc.) 35,483 Sub-Total $438,913 Education and Welfare Bay Area Chaplains Contractual Services $156,051 Office of Education Contractual Services 154 562,643 (AB-109 Funded) Library Program 230,526 Inmate Legal Services 28,881 MCDF Landscape Program 33,420 WCDF Inmate Industries 125,210 26,148 (AB-109 Funded) WCDF Frame Shop Program 29,970 Sub-Total $1,193,003 Other Staff Salaries/Benefits $333,474 Staff Travel Expenses 3,003 Communication 209 Office Supplies 0 Sub-Total $ 336,686 Total Disbursements, IWF & AB109 664,205 (AB-109) 1,306,956 (IWF) $1,971,161 Receipts less Disbursements (IWF Only) $ 371,560 Cash & Investments $2,799,156 Total $3,170,716 Closing Date 12-31-2019 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/291 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Martinez Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series 2020" in an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 by the Martinez Unified School District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Martinez Unified 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 October 12, 2020 authorizing the sale and issuance of the bonds. This issuance was approved by the voters as part of a bond measure listed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:Martinez Unified School District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series 2020 CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the School District will not be able to issue the bonds. 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 2020/291 Clerk's Certificate District Resolution MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/291 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/291 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA), GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2016, SERIES 2020, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,000,000 WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, that: WHEREAS, an election was duly and regularly held in the Martinez Unified School District (the “District”) on November 8, 2016, in accordance with Section 1(b)(3) of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, for the purpose of submitting a bond measure to the qualified electors of the District, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $120,000,000 (the “Bonds”), and at least 55% of the votes cast were in favor of the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, Sections 53506 and following of the California Government Code (the “Government Code”), including Section 53508.7 thereof, provide that a school district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at a private sale pursuant to Section 15140 and 15146 of the California Education Code (the “Education Code”); and WHEREAS, Section 15140(b) of the Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of a county may authorize a school district over which the county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction, and which has not received a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim report, to issue and sell bonds on its own behalf without further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county; and WHEREAS, the Board of Education of the District, a school district under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Schools of the County of Contra Costa, adopted on October 12, 2020, a resolution (the “District Resolution”) providing for the issuance of its “Martinez Unified School District (Contra Costa County, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2016, Series 2020,” in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30,000,000, in one or more series to be designated by the District (the “Series 2020 Bonds”) pursuant to Section 53506 and following of the Government Code and additionally providing for the negotiated sale thereof pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code; and WHEREAS, by said District Resolution, the District has requested that this Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) authorize the District on its own behalf to issue and sell the Series 2020 Bonds at a negotiated sale, all pursuant to Sections 53506 and following of the Government Code and Section 15140(b) of the Education Code and subject to the terms set forth in the District Resolution, and has represented and warranted to the Board that it has not received a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim report; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED AND ORDERED as follows: Section 1 . Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct. Section 2 . Authorization of District Issuance and Sale. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and private Section 2 . Authorization of District Issuance and Sale. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and private negotiated sale of the Series 2020 Bonds by the District on its own behalf, pursuant to the terms set forth in the District Resolution and as authorized by and in full compliance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7 of the Government Code, as determined by the District’s bond counsel. This authorization shall only apply to the Series 2020 Bonds authorized to be issued by said District Resolution. Section 3 . Purpose. The purpose of this action is to permit the District to sell its Series 2020 Bonds in the manner that the District determines is in its best interests and the best interests of its taxpayers, as provided in the District Resolution. Section 4 . District Responsibilities. Pursuant to Section 15140(c) of the Education Code, the Board of Education of the District shall transmit the District Resolution and a copy of the final debt service schedule for the Series 2020 Bonds, reflecting the principal amounts and interest rates of such Series 2020 Bonds as determined in the sale thereof, to the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County (the “County Treasurer”) and to the County Controller (the “County Controller”), forthwith after the sale of the Series 2020 Bonds, and in any event no later than the date reasonably requested by such officers, in order to permit the County to establish tax rates and necessary funds or accounts for the Series 2020 Bonds. Section 5 . County Responsibilities. (a) The County, including the officers thereof and this Board of Supervisors, assumes no responsibility for any of the proceedings following the adoption of this Resolution which involve or result in the sale and issuance of the Series 2020 Bonds, including but not limited to, any proceedings for the sale and issuance of the Series 2020 Bonds or the validity of the Series 2020 Bonds. (b) The County levies and collects taxes, pays principal and interest on the Series 2020 Bonds when due, and holds the bond proceeds and tax funds for the Series 2020 Bonds that have been duly issued and sold by the District, as otherwise required by law. (c) The County, including the officers and employees thereof and this Board of Supervisors, assumes no responsibility for establishing a tax rate for any new issue of bonds in any year in which the information required by Section 4 hereof to be delivered to the County officers is delivered later than the deadline established by such officers in order to permit compliance with Government Code Section 29100 and following. (d) Except as otherwise provided by this Resolution and by law, neither the County, this Board or any officers, officials or employees of the County shall have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the Series 2020 Bonds shall be payable solely from tax proceeds available therefor as set forth in this Section 5. Section 6 . 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 Series 2020 Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District 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 7 . Limited Responsibility for Official Statement. Neither this Board of Supervisors nor any officer of the County has prepared or reviewed the official statement of the District describing the Series 2020 Bonds (the “Official Statement”), and this Board of Supervisors 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, the County Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the District’s Official Statement and in a preliminary Official Statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the Series 2020 Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any 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 are made, not misleading. Section 8 . Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the Series 2020 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 Series 2020 Bonds shall be payable solely from tax proceeds and any other moneys of the District available therefore as set forth in the District Resolution and herein. This provision in no manner limits the obligations of the County to levy, collect and hold property taxes for the Series 2020 Bonds as required by law. Section 9 . Delivery of Resolution. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to deliver a copy of this Resolution to the Superintendent of the District. Section 10. Effective Date: This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: 4141-5082-1160.1 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE I, ____________________, Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Contra Costa, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution and order duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board duly and regularly and legally conducted on October 12, 2020 in accordance with law, including in accordance with Executive Order No. N-29-30, signed by the Governor of the State of California on March 17, 2020, and duly entered in the minutes thereof, of which meeting all the members of the Board had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was acknowledged. An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor, Martinez, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and the County’s website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4664/Board-Meeting-Agendas-and- Videos, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. A copy of said agenda is attached hereto. I further certify that I have carefully compared the attached copy with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this _____ day of __________, 2020. Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2020/236 authorizing the issuance and sale of "Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C" in an amount not to exceed $110,000,000 by the Contra Costa Community College District on its own behalf pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa Community College 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 it's own behalf as authorized by Section 15140(b) of the Education Code. The District adopted a resolution on October 14, 2020 authorizing the sale and issuance of the bonds (attached). This issuance was approved by the voters as part of a bond measure listed on the June 3, 2014 ballot. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 11/03/2020 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 81 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:November 3, 2020 Contra Costa County Subject:CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2014, 2020 SERIES C BONDS CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorization, the Community College District would not be able to issue the bonds. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Certain capital projects within the Contra Costa Community College District will not be completed. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2020/236 District Resolution No. 1 District Resolution No. 2 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2020/236 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 11/03/2020 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2020/236 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TO ISSUE ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2014, 2020 SERIES C BONDS WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OR OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY WHEREAS, Section 15140 et seq. of the Education Code of the State of California (the “Education Code”), provides that a community college district may issue and sell bonds on its own behalf at a private sale; and WHEREAS, Section 15140(b) of the Education Code provides that the Board of Supervisors of a county may authorize a community college district over which the County Superintendent of Schools has jurisdiction to issue and sell bonds on its own behalf without further action of the Board of Supervisors or officers of the county; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Contra Costa Community College District (the “District”), a community college district under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Schools of the County of Contra Costa, adopted on September 9, 2020, a resolution (the “District Resolution”) providing for the issuance of its “Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C,” in one or more series (the “Bonds”) by negotiated sale pursuant to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code; and WHEREAS, by said District Resolution, the District has requested that this Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) of the County of Contra Costa (the “County”) authorize the District on its own behalf to issue the Bonds and sell the Bonds at a negotiated sale, all pursuant to Section 53506 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Government Code”) and Section 15140(b) of the Education Code and subject to the terms set forth in the District Resolution; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, determined and ordered by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, as follows: Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Authorization of District Issuance and Sale. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and private negotiated sale of the Bonds by the District on its own behalf, pursuant to the terms set forth in the District Resolution and as authorized by and in full compliance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to Sections 15140 and 15146 of the Education Code, as permitted by Section 53508.7 of the Government Code, as determined by the District’s bond counsel. This authorization shall apply to the bonds authorized by said District Resolution and all future bonds issued by the District. Section 3. Purpose. The purpose of this action is to permit the District to sell its Bonds in the manner that the District determines is in its best interests and the best interests of its taxpayers, as provided in the District Resolution. Section 4. District Responsibilities. Pursuant to Section 15140(c) of the Education Code, the Governing Board of the District shall transmit the District Resolution and a copy of the final debt service schedule for the Bonds, reflecting the principal amounts and interest rates of such Bonds as determined in the sale thereof, to the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County (the “Treasurer-Tax Collector”) and the Auditor-Controller of the County (the “Auditor-Controller”), forthwith after the sale of the Bonds, and in any event no later than the date reasonably requested by such officers, in order to permit the County to establish tax rates and necessary funds or accounts for this series of Bonds. Section 5. County Responsibilities. The County shall levy and collect taxes, pay principal and interest on the Bonds when due, and hold the Bond proceeds and tax funds for the Bonds that have been duly issued and sold by the District as otherwise required by law. Section 6. Delegation to Treasurer-Tax Collector . The Treasurer-Tax Collector or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to act on behalf of and with the authority of the County to take any official action and to execute and deliver any certificates, receipts, orders, or other documents required or intended to be signed and delivered by the County, which the Treasurer-Tax Collector deems necessary or advisable, in connection with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. Section 7. 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 Bonds in accordance herewith and with the District 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 8. 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 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 Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Treasurer-Tax Collector is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and review such information for inclusion in the District’s Official Statement and in a preliminary Official Statement, and to certify in writing prior to or upon the issuance of the Bonds that the information contained in such section does not contain any 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 are made, not misleading. Section 9. Appointment of Paying Agent. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., is hereby appointed the initial Paying Agent for the Bonds (the “Paying Agent”). Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. Contact: Timothy Ewell, 925-655-2043 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: November 3, 2020 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: 4139-7212-1126.4 RESOLUTION NO. 17-B BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $140,000,000; PRESCRIBING THE TERMS OF SAID REFUNDING BONDS; APPROVING THE FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE PAYING AGENT AGREEMENTS, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES, OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND ESCROW AGREEMENTS FOR SAID REFUNDING BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATES RELATING TO SAID REFUNDING BONDS WHEREAS, this Governing Board has heretofore caused to be issued $106,565,000 aggregate principal amount of Contra Costa Community College District 2012 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the “2012 Bonds”), $34,665,000 of which are outstanding; and WHEREAS, this Governing Board has heretofore caused to be issued $140,500,000 aggregate principal amount of Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2006, Series 2013 (the “2013 Bonds”), $12,815,000 of which are outstanding; and WHEREAS, this Governing Board has heretofore caused to be issued $120,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2014 Series A (the “2014 Bonds” and, together with the 2012 Bonds and the 2013 Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”), $84,440,000 of which are outstanding; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State (the “Government Code”) and other applicable law, and pursuant to the respective documents providing for the issuance of the Prior Bonds, the District is authorized to issue refunding bonds (the “Refunding Bonds”) to refund the Prior Bonds, and to sell its Refunding Bonds on a negotiated sale basis; and WHEREAS, this Governing Board has determined, and does hereby declare, that it is necessary and desirable and that prudent management of the fiscal affairs of the District requires that it issue the Refunding Bonds under the provisions of Article 9 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, without submitting the question of the issuance of the Refunding Bonds to a vote of the qualified electors of the District; and WHEREAS, this Governing Board intends to authorize the sale of the Refunding Bonds by negotiated sale to Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (the “Underwriter”) to preserve flexibility and take advantage of changing market conditions; and WHEREAS, Section 5852.1 of the Government Code requires that the Governing Board obtain from an underwriter, municipal advisor or private lender and disclose, prior to 2 4139-7212-1126.4 authorization of the issuance of bonds with a term of greater than 13 months, good faith estimates of the following information in a meeting open to the public: (a) the true interest cost of the bonds, (b) the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties with respect to the bonds, (c) the amount of proceeds of the bonds expected to be received net of the fees and charges paid to third parties and any reserves or capitalized interest paid or funded with proceeds of the bonds, and (d) the sum total of all debt service payments on the bonds calculated to the final maturity of the bonds plus the fees and charges paid to third parties not paid with the proceeds of the bonds; and WHEREAS, in compliance with said Section, the Governing Board has obtained from the Municipal Advisor the required good faith estimates for the Refunding Bonds and such estimates are disclosed and set forth in Appendix A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that Senate Bill 222 (Chapter 78, Statutes of 2015), which provides for a statutory lien to secure repayment of general obligation bonds, was passed by the legislature and approved by the Governor of the State (the “Governor”) and became effective January 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the pledge included in this Resolution to secure payment of the Refunding Bonds is intended to be a consensual agreement with the bondholders; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1029 (“SB1029”) was signed by the Governor on September 12, 2016 and places additional responsibilities on any issuer of public debt, including adopting debt management policies that meet certain criteria; and WHEREAS, the District represents that it is in compliance with SB1029 pre-issuance requirements, the Refunding Bonds will be issued in compliance with the debt policy of the District and the District will comply with all post-issuance requirements of SB1029; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board acknowledges that the issuance of any series of Refunding Bonds used to refinance the Prior Bonds more than 90 days in advance of the date of redemption or purchase and cancelation thereof precludes a tax-exempt refunding of the Prior Bonds and requires such series of the Refunding Bonds issued hereunder for such redemption to be federally taxable; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Schools of the County has jurisdiction over the District; and WHEREAS, the District has appointed KNN Public Finance, LLC, as municipal advisor to the District (the “Municipal Advisor”) and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as bond and disclosure counsel to the District (“Bond Counsel”) with respect to the Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., serves as the paying agent for the District’s bonds under appointment by the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County (the “Treasurer-Tax Collector”) and is approved to serve as escrow agent (the “Escrow Agent”) for the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board desires that the Treasurer-Tax Collector collect a tax on all taxable property within the District sufficient to provide for payment of the Refunding 3 4139-7212-1126.4 Bonds, and intends by the adoption of this Resolution to notify the Board of Supervisors of the County (the “Board of Supervisors”), the Auditor-Controller of the County (the “Auditor- Controller”), the Treasurer-Tax Collector and other officials of the County, that they should take such actions as shall be necessary to provide for the levy and collection of such a tax and payment of the Refunding Bonds and such portion, if any, of the Prior Bonds as shall remain outstanding following the issuance of the Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, the District proposes to execute and deliver one or more escrow agreements to the Escrow Agent directing the creation of an escrow fund for the deposit of proceeds of the sale of the Refunding Bonds for the purpose of paying and redeeming the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, the District anticipates that the Prior Bonds will be redeemed on the first optional redemption dates therefor following the issuance of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, there have been submitted and are on file with the Secretary of this Governing Board proposed forms of a Bond Purchase Agreement providing for the sale and purchase of the Refunding Bonds; an Official Statement describing the Refunding Bonds; a Paying Agent Agreement providing for the terms of issuance and repayment of the Refunding Bonds; an Escrow Agreement providing for the terms of payment and redemption of the Prior Bonds; and a Continuing Disclosure Certificate setting forth certain ongoing disclosure obligations of the District; NOW, THEREFORE, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and the Governing Board so finds, determines and represents. Section 2. Authority for Issuance. The Refunding Bonds are authorized to be issued pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and other applicable provisions of law, including applicable provisions of the Education Code of the State. Costs authorized to be paid from the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds are all of the authorized costs of issuance set forth in Sections 53550(e) and (f) of the Government Code and Section 53587 of the Government Code. Section 3. Designation of Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds shall be sold in one or more series, to be designated the “Contra Costa Community College District 2020 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Federally Taxable)” (the “Refunding Bonds”), with such additional designations as may be necessary to distinguish between bonds of different payment mechanisms or features, as authorized hereby. The Refunding Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued on a forward delivery basis. Section 4. Terms of Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds shall be issued in a principal amount not to exceed $140,000,000 in the form of current interest bonds. 4 4139-7212-1126.4 (a) Date of Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds shall be dated as of the date of their delivery, or such other date as shall be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement or the Paying Agent Agreement. (b) Denominations. The Refunding Bonds shall be issued in denominations of $5,000 principal amount or any integral multiple thereof. (c) Maturity. The Refunding Bonds shall mature on the date, in each of the years, in the principal amounts and in the aggregate principal amount as shall be set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement. No Refunding Bond shall mature prior to December 1, 2020, and no Refunding Bond shall mature later than the final maturity date of the Prior Bonds to be refunded. No Refunding Bond shall have principal maturing on more than one principal maturity date. Any Refunding Bond may mature in the same year as any other Refunding Bond. (d) Interest Payment. The Refunding Bonds shall bear interest at an interest rate not to exceed 4.0% per annum, computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve (12) 30- day months, payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 in each year (or on such other initial and semiannual interest payment dates as shall be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement). (e) Form of Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement, allowing those officials executing the Refunding Bonds to make the insertions and deletions necessary to conform the Refunding Bonds to this Resolution, the Purchase Contract and the Official Statement, or to correct or cure any defect, inconsistency, ambiguity or omission therein. (f) Payment. Payment of interest on, principal of and redemption premium, if any, on the Refunding Bonds shall be payable at the place or places set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement. Section 5. Redemption and Defeasance Provisions. The Refunding Bonds may be subject to redemption prior to their respective stated maturity dates at the option of the District as set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement and in the Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds may also be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, as specified in the Paying Agent Agreement, and in the Refunding Bonds. The Refunding Bonds shall also be subject to defeasance in the manner provided in the Paying Agent Agreement. Section 6. Bond Purchase Agreement; Sale of Refunding Bonds. The form of instrument entitled “Bond Purchase Agreement” (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved. The Chancellor, the Interim Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services, or the Associate Vice Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer of the District, or such other officer of the District designated by any aforementioned officer for the purpose (each, an “Authorized District Representative”) is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the District to execute and approve one or more instruments in substantially said forms providing for the sale by the Governing Board and the purchase by the Underwriter of the Refunding Bonds at a purchase price to be set forth therein; provided, that (i) the total net interest cost to maturity on the Refunding Bonds plus the 5 4139-7212-1126.4 aggregate principal amount of Refunding Bonds shall be less than the total net interest cost to maturity on the Prior Bonds plus the aggregate principal amount of the Prior Bonds; (ii) the present value of the debt service savings with respect to the Prior Bonds shall be at least 5.0% of the aggregate principal amount of the Prior Bonds; (iii) the Underwriter’s discount shall not exceed 0.425% of the aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds sold thereunder (excluding any costs of issuance the Underwriter agrees to pay pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreements); and (iv) the Refunding Bonds shall otherwise conform to the limitations specified herein; and provided further, that such execution and approval shall constitute conclusive evidence of the approval by the Governing Board and the District of any changes or revisions therein from the form of Bond Purchase Agreement submitted herewith. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver one or more Bond Purchase Agreements, as necessary; provided that, any such Bond Purchase Agreement so executed and delivered shall conform to the limitations provided in this Section 6. Section 7. Investment of Funds. The proceeds of the sale of the Refunding Bonds shall be deposited pursuant to the Paying Agent Agreement and the Escrow Agreement. Section 8. Notice of Defeasance and Redemption of Prior Bonds. The Escrow Agent is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of defeasance and redemption of the Prior Bonds to be redeemed on the date and in the manner set forth in the Escrow Agreement, or the District shall cause notice of defeasance and redemption of the Prior Bonds as may otherwise be necessary or desirable, and pursuant to the terms set forth in the documents governing the redemption of the Prior Bonds. Section 9. Tax Covenants. The Refunding Bonds may be issued as taxable or tax-exempt bonds under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Section 10. Continuing Disclosure. The form of instrument entitled “Continuing Disclosure Certificate” (the “Continuing Disclosure Certificate”), in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved and authorized. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the District to execute and deliver one or more Continuing Disclosure Certificates in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as deemed necessary in order to permit the Underwriter to comply with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”). The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of such Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Section 11. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the “Official Statement”), in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of this Governing Board, is hereby approved with such changes, additions and corrections as the Authorized District Representative may hereafter approve. The Underwriter is hereby authorized to distribute copies of such Official Statement in preliminary form to persons who may be interested in purchasing the Refunding Bonds. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized to certify on behalf of the District that the preliminary form of the Official Statement was deemed final as of its date, within the meaning of the Rule (except for the omission of certain final pricing, rating and related information as permitted by the Rule). The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to sign said Official Statement in its final form, including the final pricing 6 4139-7212-1126.4 information, and the Underwriter is hereby authorized and directed to deliver copies of such Official Statement in final form to subsequent purchasers of the Refunding Bonds. Section 12. Paying Agent Agreement. The form of instrument entitled “Paying Agent Agreement” (the “Paying Agent Agreement”), by and between the District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as paying agent, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, including the form of Refunding Bonds included therein, is hereby approved and authorized. An Authorized District Representative is authorized and directed to execute and deliver one or more Paying Agent Agreements in substantially said form with such changes thereto as may be acceptable to such Authorized District Representative, in accordance with this Resolution, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 13. Escrow Agreement. The form of instrument entitled “Escrow Agreement” (the “Escrow Agreement”), by and between the District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as escrow agent, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved and authorized. An Authorized District Representative is authorized and directed to execute and deliver one or more Escrow Agreements in substantially said form with such changes thereto as may be acceptable to such Authorized District Representative, in accordance with this Resolution, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 14. Pledge of Tax Revenues. There shall be levied on all the taxable property in the District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem property tax annually during the period the Refunding Bonds are outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds when due, which moneys when collected will be deposited in the interest and sinking fund of the District, and which moneys shall be applied to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Refunding Bonds when and as the same fall due, and for no other purpose. The District covenants to cause the County to take all actions necessary to levy such ad valorem property tax in accordance with this Section 14 and Section 53559 of the Government Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53515, the Refunding Bonds shall be secured by a statutory lien on all revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of ad valorem property taxes for the payment thereof The District hereby pledges all revenues from the property taxes collected from the levy by the Board of Supervisors for the payment of the Refunding Bonds and the outstanding bonds of the District heretofore or hereafter issued pursuant to voter approved measures of the District, including any refunding bonds thereof (for the purpose of this pledge, hereinafter collectively referred to as the “District Bonds”) and amounts on deposit in the interest and sinking fund of the District to the payment of the principal or redemption price of and interest on the District Bonds. This pledge shall be valid and binding from the date hereof for the benefit of the owners of the District Bonds and successors thereto. The property taxes and amounts held in the interest and sinking fund of the District shall be immediately subject to this pledge, and the pledge shall constitute a lien and security interest which shall immediately attach to the property taxes and amounts held in the interest and sinking fund of the District to secure the payment of the District Bonds and shall be effective, binding, and enforceable against the District, its successors, 7 4139-7212-1126.4 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 bondholders to provide security for the Refunding Bonds in addition to any statutory lien that may exist, and the Refunding Bonds and each of the other District Bonds secured by the pledge are or were issued to finance one or more of the projects specified in the applicable voter-approved measure. Section 15. Request for Tax Levy. The Board of Supervisors, the Auditor- Controller, the Treasurer-Tax Collector, and other officials of the County are hereby requested to take and authorize such actions as may be necessary pursuant to law to provide for the levy and collection of a property tax on all taxable property of the District sufficient to provide for payment of all principal of, redemption premium, if any, and interest on the Refunding Bonds, as the same shall become due and payable, and to apply moneys in the District’s interest and sinking fund as necessary to the payment of the Refunding Bonds, pursuant to the Paying Agent Agreement as finally executed, and to the payment of any Prior Bonds of the District which are to remain outstanding, pursuant to the documents under which such Prior Bonds were issued. The Governing Board hereby agrees to reimburse the County for any costs associated with the levy and collection of said tax, upon such documentation of said costs as the District shall reasonably request. Section 16. Appointment of Bond Counsel, Municipal Advisor and Underwriter. The firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is hereby appointed Bond Counsel to the District in connection with the Refunding Bonds. The firm of KNN Public Finance, LLC is hereby appointed Municipal Advisor to the District in connection with the Refunding Bonds. The firm of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is hereby appointed as Underwriter in connection with the Refunding Bonds. Section 17. Approval of Actions. The President of the Governing Board, the Secretary of the Governing Board, the Chancellor, the Interim Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services, or the Associate Vice Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer of the District, and any other officer of the District to whom authority is delegated by the one of the aforementioned officers for the purposes of the Refunding Bonds, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all agreements, certificates, letters, and representations, including paying agent agreements, depository agreements, investment agreements for proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, costs related to the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, custodian agreements, fiscal agent agreements, bond insurance policies, signature certificates, no-litigation certificates, certificates concerning the contents of one or more Official Statements relating to the Refunding Bonds, representation letters to The Depository Trust Company, Tax Certificates, any supplement to the Preliminary Official Statement or Official Statement and any other certificates or agreements proposed to be executed and delivered in connection with the sale of the Refunding Bonds, investment of the proceeds or compliance with the Code, as applicable, and to enter into any agreements, which any of them deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the transactions authorized herein. Section 18. Notice to California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, on behalf of the Governing Board is hereby authorized and directed to cause notices of the proposed sale and final sale of the 8 4139-7212-1126.4 Refunding Bonds to be filed in a timely manner with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission pursuant to Section 8855(g) of the Government Code and to specify that the issuance of the Refunding Bonds will be made in compliance with the District’s adopted debt policy. Section 19. Filing with Board of Supervisors. The Secretary of the Governing Board is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution upon the adoption hereof with the Secretary of the Board of Supervisors. Section 20. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: (Student Trustee Advisory Vote – aye); Rebecca Barrett- aye; Andy Li – aye; Greg Enholm – aye; John E. Márquez – aye; Vicki Gordon - aye NOES: ABSTAIN : CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Rebecca Barrett, President, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District ATTEST: g Enholm, Secretary, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District 9 4139-7212-1126 4 A-1 4139-7212-1126.4 APPENDIX A GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES The following information was obtained from KNN Public Finance, LLC, as the municipal advisor to the District (the “Municipal Advisor”) in connection with the bonds approved in the attached Resolution (the “Refunding Bonds”), and is provided in compliance with Section 15146(b)(4) of the Education Code of the State of California and Senate Bill 450 (Chapter 625 of the 2017-18 Session of the California Legislature) with respect to the Refunding Bonds: 1. True Interest Cost of the Refunding Bonds. Assuming an aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds of $134,950,000 are sold and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of this information, a good faith estimate of the true interest cost of the Refunding Bonds, which means the rate necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received for the Refunding Bonds, is 2.22%. 2. Finance Charge of the Refunding Bonds. Assuming an aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds of $134,950,000 are sold and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of this information, a good faith estimate of the finance charge of the Refunding Bonds, which means the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties (or costs associated with the Refunding Bonds), is $851,424. 3. Amount of Proceeds to be Received. Assuming an aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds of $134,950,000 are sold and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of this information, a good faith estimate of the amount of proceeds expected to be received by the District for sale of the Refunding Bonds less the finance charge of the Refunding Bonds described in paragraph 2 above and any reserves or capitalized interest paid or funded with proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, is $134,098,576. 4. Total Payment Amount. Assuming an aggregate principal amount of the Refunding Bonds of $134,950,000 are sold and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of this information, a good faith estimate of the total payment amount, which means the sum total of all payments the District will make to pay debt service on the Refunding Bonds plus the finance charge of the Refunding Bonds described in paragraph 2 above not paid with the proceeds of the Refunding Bonds, calculated to the final maturity of the Refunding Bonds, is $166,376,092.41. Attention is directed to the fact that the foregoing information constitutes good faith estimates only. The actual interest cost, finance charges, amount of proceeds and total payment amount may vary from the estimates above due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of Refunding Bonds sold, the amortization of the Refunding Bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale. The actual interest rates at which the Refunding Bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of each sale. The actual amortization of the Refunding Bonds will also depend, in part, on market interest rates at the time of each sale. Market interest rates are affected by economic and other factors beyond the District’s control. SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE I, Greg Enholm, Secretary of the Governing Board of the Contra Costa Community College District, County of Contra Costa, California, do hereby certify as follows: The attached is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Governing Board duly and regularly held on October 14, 2020, and entered in the minutes thereof, of which meeting all of the members of said Governing Board had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was present, and said resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: (Student Trustee Advisory Vote – aye); Rebecca Barrett – aye; Andy Li – aye; Greg Enholm – aye; John E. Márquez – aye; Vicki Gordon - aye NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted and the meeting was held pursuant to the Governor's executive orders N-29-20 and N-35-20. A copy of said agenda is attached hereto. I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this 14th day of October, 2020. eg Enholm, Secretary, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District 4139.7212-1126.4 4126-3295-7734.4 RESOLUTION NO. 17-A BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $110,000,000 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS BY NEGOTIATED SALE; PRESCRIBING THE TERMS OF SAID BONDS, APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, PAYING AGENT AGREEMENTS, OFFICIAL STATEMENTS RELATING TO SAID BONDS, CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATES, AND COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY CERTIFICATES AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SAID BONDS AND THE TAKING OF CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ________________________________ WHEREAS, this Governing Board of Contra Costa Community College District (the “District”), located in the County of Contra Costa, California (the “County”), duly called an election, and an election was regularly held, in the District on June 3, 2014 (the “2014 Election”), at which a proposition summarized as follows was submitted to the electors of the District: “To upgrade educational facilities at Diablo Valley, Contra Costa, and Los Medanos Colleges, and the San Ramon and Brentwood centers, and help prepare students for jobs and college transfer by modernizing classrooms and labs, building facilities for health, medical, science, and technology training, and implementing earthquake safety, accessibility, and infrastructure improvements, shall the Contra Costa Community College District issue $450 million of bonds at legal interest rates with independent oversight, audits, and all funds spent on local sites?”; and WHEREAS, as required by the laws under which such election was conducted, at least 55% of the votes cast on said proposition were in favor of issuing said bonds, and the proposition was declared approved; and WHEREAS, the District has heretofore issued, or caused the County to issue on the District’s behalf the “Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2014 Series A” in the original principal amount of $120,000,000 for authorized purposes; and WHEREAS, the District has heretofore issued, or caused the County to issue on the District’s behalf the Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2019 Series B-1 (Federally Taxable) in the original principal amount of $10,650,000, and the Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2019 Series B-2 (Tax-Exempt) in the original principal amount of $99,350,000; and 2 4126-3295-7734.4 WHEREAS, this Governing Board of the District (the “Governing Board”) hereby authorizes and deems it necessary and desirable that the District shall consummate the sale of a portion of the bonds authorized at the 2014 Election in one or more series, taxable or tax-exempt, designated as the “Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C,” (with such additional designations as may be necessary to reflect multiple series of bonds or multiple tax treatments) in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $110,000,000 (the “Series 2020C Bonds” or the “Bonds”), according to the terms and in the manner hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, a community college district is authorized by Section 53506 et seq. of the Government Code to issue and sell its Bonds at public or private sale; and WHEREAS, this Governing Board deems it necessary and desirable to authorize the sale of the Bonds by a negotiated (or private) sale to Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (the “Underwriter”) pursuant to a Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), and pursuant to Section 15146 of the Education Code of the State of California (the “Education Code”), as it applies to the Series 2020C Bonds, has found and determined the following reasons therefor: (1) provide more flexibility in the timing of the sale of the Series 2020C Bonds; (2) provide more flexibility in the debt structure; (3) allow the District to work with participants familiar with the District; and (4) increase the opportunity to pre-market the Series 2020C Bonds for sale to local residents and other investors; and WHEREAS, Section 53508.7(c) of the Government Code provides that a private sale is limited to bonds sold pursuant to Sections 15140 or 15146 of the Education Code, such as the Series 2020C Bonds; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15146 of the Education Code estimates of the costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds are attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Section 5852.1 of the Government Code requires that the Governing Board obtain from an underwriter, municipal advisor or private lender and disclose, prior to authorization of the issuance of bonds with a term of greater than 13 months, good faith estimates of the following information in a meeting open to the public: (a) the true interest cost of the bonds, (b) the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties with respect to the bonds, (c) the amount of proceeds of the bonds expected to be received net of the fees and charges paid to third parties and any reserves or capitalized interest paid or funded with proceeds of the bonds, and (d) the sum total of all debt service payments on the bonds calculated to the final maturity of the bonds plus the fees and charges paid to third parties not paid with the proceeds of the bonds; and WHEREAS, in compliance with said section, this Governing Board has obtained from the Municipal Advisor (defined herein) the required good faith estimates for such Bonds, attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Section 15140(b) of the Education Code provides that the board of supervisors of a county may authorize the governing board of a community college district over which the county superintendent of schools has jurisdiction to issue and sell its own bonds without 3 4126-3295-7734.4 the further action of the board of supervisors or officers of the county if said community college district has not received a qualified or negative certification in its most recent interim report; and WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Schools of the County of Contra Costa has jurisdiction over the District; and WHEREAS, community colleges do not produce interim reports, and as such the District has not received a qualified or negative certification on its most recent interim report; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15140(b), the District now wishes to request the County to adopt a resolution permitting the District to sell bonds on its own behalf; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15270 of the Education Code, the District shall not sell bonds authorized by the 2014 Election unless the estimated tax rate levied to pay such bonds authorized by the 2014 Election will not exceed $25 per $100,000 of taxable property when assessed valuation is projected by the District to increase in accordance with Article XIIIA of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP serves as bond counsel and disclosure counsel to the District (“Bond Counsel”) and will serve in such capacities in connection with the Bonds authorized hereby; and WHEREAS, KNN Public Finance, LLC serves as municipal advisor (the “Municipal Advisor”) to the District and will serve in such capacity in connection with the Bonds authorized hereby; and WHEREAS, the District desires that the County Auditor-Controller annually establish tax rates on taxable property within the District for repayment of said Bonds, pursuant to Sections 29100-29103 of the Government Code, and that the County Board of Supervisors annually approve the levy of such tax, and that the Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County (the “County Treasurer”) annually collect such tax and apply the proceeds thereof to the payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, all pursuant to Sections 15250 and 15251 of the Education Code and Section 53559 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that Senate Bill 222 (Chapter 78, Statutes of 2015), which provides for a statutory lien to secure repayment of general obligation bonds, was passed by the legislature and approved by the Governor of the State of California (the “Governor”) and became effective January 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the pledge included in this Resolution to secure payment of the Bonds is intended to be a consensual agreement with the bondholders; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1029 (“SB1029”) was signed by the Governor on September 12, 2016 and places additional responsibilities on any issuer of public debt, including adopting debt management policies that meet certain criteria; and 4 4126-3295-7734.4 WHEREAS, the District represents that it is in compliance with SB1029 pre-issuance requirements, the Bonds will be issued in compliance with SB1029, and the District will comply with all post-issuance requirements of SB1029; and WHEREAS, the County Treasurer has consented to the appointment of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (the “Paying Agent”) to act as an agent of the County Treasurer as paying agent, registrar and transfer agent with respect to Bonds of the District; and WHEREAS, there have been submitted and are on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board proposed forms of a Bond Purchase Agreement; the Preliminary Official Statement describing said Bonds; a form of Continuing Disclosure Certificate; a Paying Agent Agreement, providing for the terms of issuance and repayment of the Bonds; and a form of Compliance Guidelines for adoption by this Governing Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and the Governing Board so finds, determines and represents. Section 2. Authority for Issuance. The Series 2020C Bonds described herein are hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to Article 4.5 of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, and other applicable provisions of law, including applicable provisions of the Education Code, and shall be issued in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $110,000,000. Section 3. Designation of Bonds. The Series 2020C Bonds shall be sold in one or more series, taxable or tax-exempt, to be provisionally designated the “Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C,” with such additional designations as may be necessary to distinguish between Series 2020C Bonds of different payment mechanisms, tax treatments, or features, as authorized hereby. Section 4. Method of Sale of Bonds. (a) Authority to Sell Bonds by Negotiated Sale: The Bonds or any portion thereof shall be sold by negotiated sale to the Underwriter. The Board of Supervisors of the County has been requested to authorize the District to sell its Series 2020C Bonds at a negotiated sale pursuant to Sections 15140(b) and 15146 of the Education Code without further action by the Board of Supervisors or officers of the County. No Series 2020C Bonds shall be sold by the District until such authorization is granted. (b) Negotiated Sale of Bonds; Bond Purchase Agreement: The Chancellor, the Interim Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services, or the Associate Vice Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer of the District, or such other officer of the District designated by any of the aforementioned officers for the purpose (each, an “Authorized District Representative”), is hereby authorized, upon consultation with the Municipal Advisor, to sell the Bonds to the Underwriter on terms consistent with this Resolution. The Bond Purchase Agreement, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved, and the Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver one or more Bond Purchase Agreements to the Underwriter, subject to such changes 5 4126-3295-7734.4 or revisions therein as may be acceptable to the Authorized District Representative, and the District’s approval of all such changes shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall provide: (i) that the aggregate purchase price of the Series 2020C Bonds sold thereunder shall be no less than the principal amount of such Series 2020C Bonds; (ii) that the Underwriters’ discount for each series of Bonds shall not exceed 0.425% of the aggregate principal amount of such Bonds sold; and (iii) that the Bonds sold thereunder shall otherwise conform to the limitations specified in this Resolution, including specifically those terms prescribed by Section 5 hereof. Section 5. Terms of the Bonds and Interest Payment. The Bonds shall be issued in the form of current interest Bonds as provided in this Section. (a) Maturity: No Bond shall mature later than permitted by law. (b) Maximum Rate of Interest: Each series of Bonds shall bear interest or accrue in value at a nominal annual rate not to exceed 5.50% per year, and shall yield no more than such limit per year to maturity. (c) The maximum true interest cost for each series of Bonds shall not be in excess of 3.45% or the legal maximum. (d) The Bonds shall bear interest computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months payable on such initial and periodic interest payment dates as shall be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement or other sale document, until maturity or prior redemption. (e) Recital of Terms of Bonds: The Bond Purchase Agreement shall recite the terms of the Bonds sold under such document in accordance with this Section as determined in the sale thereof, and such terms shall be memorialized in the Paying Agent Agreement described in Section 9 hereof. (f) Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement, allowing those officials executing the Bonds to make the insertions and deletions necessary to conform the Bonds to this Resolution, the Purchase Contract and the Official Statement, or to correct or cure any defect, inconsistency, ambiguity or omission therein. (g) Payment. Payment of interest on, principal of and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable at the place or places set forth in the Paying Agent Agreement. Section 6. Tax Treatment of Bonds. All or any portion of any series of Bonds may be issued as taxable or tax-exempt bonds under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the Authorized District Representative shall determine upon consultation with the Municipal Advisor, and according to the terms and conditions Bond Counsel to the District shall advise are appropriate to and necessary for the issuance of tax-exempt bonds and/or taxable bonds, as applicable. Section 7. Approval of Paying Agent Agreement. The Paying Agent Agreement relating to the Bonds between the District and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as paying agent/registrar and transfer agent (the “Paying Agent”), in substantially the form on file 6 4126-3295-7734.4 with the Secretary of the Governing Board, including the form of Bonds included therein, is hereby approved. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized to execute and deliver one or more instruments in substantially said form, completed with the terms of the Bonds determined upon the sale thereof, and with such other changes thereto as the Authorized District Representative may require or approve, and the District’s approval of the Paying Agent Agreement shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Section 8. Approval of Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved with such changes, additions and corrections as the Authorized District Representative may hereafter approve. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized to certify on behalf of the District that the preliminary form of the Official Statement was deemed final as of its date, within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (except for the omission of certain final pricing, rating and related information as permitted by said Rule). The Underwriter is hereby authorized to distribute copies of such Official Statement in preliminary form to persons who may be interested in purchasing the Bonds. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to sign said Official Statement in its final form, including the final pricing information, and the Underwriter is hereby authorized and directed to deliver copies of such Official Statement in final form to subsequent purchasers of the Bonds. The Authorized District Representative is authorized to deliver one or more Official Statements, as may be necessary or desirable. Section 9. Approval of Continuing Disclosure Certificate. The Continuing Disclosure Certificate relating to the Bonds, in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Governing Board, is hereby approved. The Authorized District Representative, or the designee thereof, is hereby authorized on behalf of the District to execute and deliver one or more Continuing Disclosure Certificates in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as deemed necessary in order to permit the purchaser of the Bonds to comply with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. The District hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of such Continuing Disclosure Certificate as finally executed and delivered. Section 10. Pledge of Tax Revenues. There shall be levied on all the taxable property in the District, in addition to all other taxes, a continuing direct ad valorem property tax annually during the period the Bonds are outstanding in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, which moneys when collected will be deposited in the interest and sinking fund of the District, and which fund is hereby designated for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when and as the same falls due, and for no other purpose. The District covenants to cause the County to take all actions necessary to levy such ad valorem property tax in accordance with this Section 10. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53515, the Bonds shall be secured by a statutory lien on all revenues received pursuant to the levy and collection of ad valorem property taxes for the payment of the Bonds. The District hereby pledges all revenues from the property taxes collected from the levy by the Board of Supervisors of the County for the payment of the Bonds and the outstanding bonds of the District heretofore or hereafter issued pursuant to voter approved measures of the District, including any refunding bonds thereof (for the purpose of this pledge, hereinafter collectively 7 4126-3295-7734.4 referred to as the “District Bonds”) and amounts on deposit in the interest and sinking fund of the District to the payment of the principal or redemption price of and interest on the District Bonds. This pledge shall be valid and binding from the date hereof for the benefit of the owners of the District Bonds and successors thereto. The property taxes and amounts held in the interest and sinking fund of the District shall be immediately subject to this pledge, and the pledge shall constitute a lien and security interest which shall immediately attach to the property taxes and amounts held in the interest and sinking fund of the District to secure the payment of the District Bonds and 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 bondholders to provide security for the Bonds in addition to any statutory lien that may exist, and the Bonds and each of the other District Bonds secured by the pledge are or were issued to finance one or more of the projects specified in the applicable voter-approved measure. Section 11. Request for Tax Levy. The Board of Supervisors and officers of the County are obligated by statute to provide for the levy and collection of property taxes in each year sufficient to pay all principal and interest coming due on the Bonds in such year, and to pay from such taxes all amounts due on the Bonds as provided by law and in the Paying Agent Agreement. Pursuant to Section 15252 of the Education Code and Section 53559 of the Government Code, the District hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to annually levy a tax upon all taxable property in the District sufficient to: (a) redeem $110,000,000 of Series 2020C Bonds authorized by District voters at the election held June 3, 2014, the sale of which is authorized by this Resolution, and to pay the principal thereof, redemption premium, if any, and interest thereon as and when the same become due, and to provide for any mandatory sinking fund payments or set-asides that may be required, as Bond Counsel shall advise. Section 12. Approval of Actions. The President of this Governing Board, the Secretary of the Governing Board, the Chancellor or Executive Vice Chancellor, Administrative Services of the District, the Associate Vice Chancellor, Chief Financial Officer of the District, and any other officer of the District to whom authority is delegated by one of the named officers for the purposes of the Bonds, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all certificates and representations, including signature certificates, no-litigation certificates, certificates concerning the contents of Official Statements, representation letters to The Depository Trust Company, tax certificates and any other certificates proposed to be distributed in connection with the sale of the Bonds, and to enter into any agreements, including depository agreements, commitment letters and agreements with bond insurers, agreements providing for payment of costs related to the issuance of the Series 2020C Bonds, any supplement to the Preliminary Official Statement or Official Statement,, and any other agreements, letters, or representations, which any of them deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the transactions authorized herein. Actions of the Authorized District Representative heretofore taken to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and consistent herewith are hereby ratified. Section 13. Notice to California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, on behalf of the Governing Board is hereby authorized and directed to cause notices of the proposed sale and final sale of the Bonds to 8 4126-3295-7734.4 be filed in a timely manner with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission pursuant to Section 8855(g) of the Government Code and to specify that the issuance of the Bonds will be made in compliance with the District’s adopted debt policy. Section 14. Filing with the County. The Authorized District Representative is hereby authorized and directed to report to the Auditor-Controller of the County the final terms of sale of the Bonds, and to file with the Auditor-Controller and with the County Treasurer a copy of this Resolution, and the schedule of amortization of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and this Resolution shall serve as the notice required to be given by Section 15140(c) of the Education Code and as the District’s request to the Auditor-Controller of the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County to propose and adopt in each year a tax rate applicable to all taxable property of the District for payment of the Bonds pursuant to law; and to the other officers of the County to levy and collect said taxes for the payment of the Bonds, to pay in a timely manner to the Paying Agent on behalf of the owners of the Bonds the principal, interest, and premium, if any, due on the Bonds in each year, and to create in the County treasury to the credit of the District a building fund and an interest and sinking fund pursuant to Section 15146 of the Education Code. Section 15. Indemnification. 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 because of action or inaction related to the adoption of a resolution by the County Board of Supervisors providing for the issuance and sale of the Bonds, or related to the proceedings for sale, award, issuance and delivery of the 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. Section 16. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: (Student Trustee Advisory Vote – aye); Rebecca Barrett – aye; Andy Li – aye; Greg Enholm – aye; John E. Márquez – aye; Vicki Gordon - aye NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: APPROVED: Rebecca Barrett, President, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District ATTEST: reg Enh6lm, Secretary, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District 9 412 3295-7734 4 A-1 4126-3295-7734.4 EXHIBIT A ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF ISSUANCE CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, ELECTION OF 2014, 2020 SERIES C Costs of Issuance Consultant Total * Bond and Disclosure Counsel Fees and Expenses Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP $52,766 Rating S&P Global Ratings 55,909 Rating Moody’s Investors Service 53,889 Municipal Advisor Fees and Expenses KNN Public Finance, LLC 79,710 Paying Agent and COI Custodial Fees The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. 1,010 Demographic Reports California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 898 Printing TBD 763 Misc./Contingency 30,729 Total Estimated Costs of Issuance $275,674 * Preliminary, subject to change. B-1 4126-3295-7734.4 EXHIBIT B GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES The good faith estimates set forth herein are provided with respect to the “Contra Costa Community College District General Obligation Bonds, Election of 2014, 2020 Series C” (the “Bonds”) in compliance with Section 5852.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. Such good faith estimates have been provided to the District by KNN Public Finance, LLC, as the municipal advisor to the District (the “Municipal Advisor”). Principal Amount. The Municipal Advisor has informed the District that, based on the District’s financing plan and current market conditions, the good faith estimate of the aggregate principal amount of Bonds to be sold is $110,000,000 (the “Estimated Principal Amount”). True Interest Cost of the Bonds. The Municipal Advisor has informed the District that, assuming that the Estimated Principal Amount of the Bonds is sold, and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of such estimate, the good faith estimate of the true interest cost of the Bonds, which means the rate necessary to discount the amounts payable on the respective principal and interest payment dates to the purchase price received for the Bonds, is 1.99%. Finance Charge of the Bonds. The Municipal Advisor has informed the District that, assuming that Estimated Principal Amount of the Bonds is sold, and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of such estimate, the good faith estimate of the finance charge for the Bonds, which means the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties (or costs associated with the Bonds), is $761,915. Amount of Proceeds to be Received. The Municipal Advisor has informed the District that, assuming that Estimated Principal Amount of the Bonds is sold, and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of such estimate, the good faith estimate of the amount of proceeds expected to be received by the District for sale of the Bonds, less the finance charge of the Bonds, as estimated above, and any reserves or capitalized interest paid or funded with proceeds of the Bonds, is $121,361,535. Total Payment Amount. The Municipal Advisor has informed the District that, assuming that Estimated Principal Amount of the Bonds is sold, and based on market interest rates prevailing at the time of preparation of such estimate, the good faith estimate of the total payment amount, which means the sum total of all payments the District will make to pay debt service on the Bonds, plus the finance charge for the Bonds, as described above, not paid with the proceeds of the Bonds, calculated to the final maturity of the Bonds, is $149,397,500. The foregoing estimates constitute good faith estimates only. The actual principal amount of the Bonds issued and sold, the true interest cost thereof, the finance charges thereof, the amount of proceeds received therefrom and total payment amount with respect thereto may differ from such good faith estimates due to (a) the actual date of the sale of the Bonds being different than the date assumed for purposes of such estimates, (b) the actual principal amount of Bonds sold being different from Estimated Principal Amount, (c) the actual amortization of the Bonds being different than the amortization assumed for purposes of such estimates, (d) the actual market B-2 4126-3295-7734.4 interest rates at the time of sale of the Bonds being different than those estimated for purposes of such estimates, (e) other market conditions, or (f) alterations in the District’s financing plan, or a combination of such factors. The actual date of sale of the Bonds and the actual principal amount of Bonds sold will be determined by the District based on the need for project funds and other factors. The actual interest rates borne by the Bonds will depend on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. The actual amortization of the Bonds will also depend, in part, on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. Market interest rates are affected by economic and other factors beyond the control of the District. SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE I, Greg Enholm, Secretary of the Governing Board of the Contra Costa Community College District, County of Contra Costa, California, do hereby certify as follows: The attached is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of said Board of said District duly and regularly held on October 14, 2020, and entered in the minutes thereof, of which meeting all of the members of said Governing Board had due notice and at which a quorum thereof was present, and said resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: (Student Trustee Advisory Vote – aye); Rebecca Barrett – aye; Andy Li – aye; Greg Enholm – aye; John E. Márquez – aye; Vicki Gordon - aye NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted and the meeting was held pursuant to the Governor's executive orders N-29-20 and N-35-20. A copy of said agenda is attached hereto. I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect. WITNESS my hand this 14 th day of October, 2020. 'Greg Enholm, Secretary, Governing Board Contra Costa Community College District 4126-3295-773,44