Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04272021 - Board of SupervisorsCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS, AGENCIES, AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNED BY THE BOARD BOARD CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 DIANE BURGIS, CHAIR, 3RD DISTRICT FEDERAL D. GLOVER, VICE CHAIR, 5TH DISTRICT JOHN GIOIA , 1ST DISTRICT CANDACE ANDERSEN, 2ND DISTRICT KAREN MITCHOFF , 4TH DISTRICT MONICA NINO, 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 April 27, 2021            9:00 A.M. Convene, call to order and opening ceremonies. Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)) David Cushman v. Contra Costa County, WCAB Nos. ADJ10458673, ADJ10312394, ADJ11097228, ADJ11540530, ADJ8395526, ADJ554323, ADJ7787875 1. Robert Falconer v. Contra Costa County, WCAB Nos. ADJ10456490; ADJ9229870, ADJ3768490, ADJ45007942. Barbara Vargen-Kotchevar v Contra Costa County, WCAB Nos. ADJ135316963. Jason Kung v. County of Contra Costa, et al.; Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C18-018604. Marco Balestrieri, et al. v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C21-003835. B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9(d)(2): [One potential case.] 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:Monica Nino, County Administrator Mary Ann Mason, Deputy County Counsel 1. Claim of Gus S. Kramer        Inspirational Thought- "Nothing can dim the light that shines from within." ~Maya Angelou   CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.80 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 waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Charles Waters in the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department; FIND that the appointment of Mr. Waters as an Elections Temporary Assignment worker is necessary; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Mr. Waters as a temporary employee effective May 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. (Deborah Cooper, Clerk Recorder)       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 9:30 A.M.   D. 2 HEARING to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a two-lot minor subdivision at 2216 Blackwood Drive in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area, and to consider adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and related actions. (Appellant, Daniel Schoenberg; Applicant, Campos Development, LLC) (Ruben Hernandez, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Daniel Schoenberg, Appellant. Jeff Rooney, Campos Development LLC, Applicant; Barbara Spruck, Walnut Creek.    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 land use permit to establish a warehouse at 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point area, and to consider adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and related actions. (Appellant, DeNova Homes, Inc.; Applicant, Ware Malcomb; Owner, CP Logistics Willow Pass, LLC) (Stanley Muraoka, Department of Conservation and Development)       Speakers: Dana, General Counsel, Denova Homes; Tim, CP Logistics Willow Pass.    AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 4 HEARING to consider adoption of Resolution of Necessity No. 2021/134 for acquisition by eminent domain of real property required for the Marsh Creek Road Bridges #28C-143 & #28C-145 Replacement Project, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Brentwood and Clayton areas. (89% Federal Highway Bridge Program Funds, 11% Local Road Funds) (Jessica Dillingham, Public Works Department)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover D. 5 HEARING to consider the proposed formation of Zone 3007 within County Service Area P-6 (Police Services) for Subdivision No. 9423 in the North Richmond area of the County for County File #SD15-9423. (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 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2021/138 and Ordinance No. 2021-07, authorizing the levy of a    D. 6 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2021/138 and Ordinance No. 2021-07, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 3007 of County Service Area P-6 for Subdivision No. 9423 (County File #SD15-9423) in the North Richmond area of the County, and fixing an election on June 29, 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. 7 HEARING to consider the proposed formation of Zone 213 within County Service Area P-6 (Police Services) for Subdivision No. 9340 in the Bay Point area of the County for County File #SD13-9340. (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. 8 HEARING to consider adopting Resolution No. 2021/140 and Ordinance No. 2021-08, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 213 of County Service Area P-6 for Subdivision No. 9340 (County File #SD13-9340) in the Bay Point area of the County, and fixing an election on June 29, 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. 9 ACCEPT update on COVID 19; and PROVIDE direction to staff. Health Department - Anna Roth, Director and Dr. Farnitano, Health Officer1.       Speakers: Jan, M.D., resident of Contra Costa County.   D.10 CONSIDER ratifying plan and accepting award of approximately $39.5 million Federal Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Enhancing Detection through Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Funds for the period January 15, 2021 through July 31, 2023. (Anna Roth, 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 D.11 CONSIDER accepting the All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP) developed by the Regional Impact Council (RIC). The RAP outlines eight (8) strategies and a program investment framework to reduce unsheltered homelessness in the Bay Area and Contra Costa County by 75% by 2024. (Supervisors Burgis and 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 D. 12 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.    There were no consent items removed for discussion.   D. 13 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)    Pete Bennett, resident of Walnut Creek, spoke on fires he has experienced and friends and loved ones lost.   D. 14 CONSIDER reports of Board members.    There were no items reported today.   Closed Session    There were no reports from Closed Session.   ADJOURN    Adjourned today's meeting at 12:40 p.m.   CONSENT ITEMS   Road and Transportation   C. 1 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4500 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on portions of Camille Avenue (Road No. 4334B), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 2 ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4501 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on a portion of Loring Avenue (Road No. 2294D), as recommended by the Public Works Director, Crockett 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 Engineering Services   C. 3 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/129 accepting completion of improvements for subdivision SD14-09389 for a project developed by Laurel Ranch III, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord area. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Special Districts & County Airports   C. 4 As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a right of entry agreement with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District authorizing the flood control district’s use of portions of sanitary district-owned property within APNs 159-250-020, 159-140-050, and 159-140-057, in connection with the Flood Control District’s Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez area, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 5 As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a right of way contract between the District and Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. ( dba Conco), to acquire easements in Conco-owned property identified as APNs 159-250-006, -018, -019, -021, and -022,and for payment to Conco in the amount of $49,900 in connection with the District’s Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez area, as recommended by the Chief Engineer. (100% Flood Control Zone 3B 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 Claims, Collections & Litigation   C. 6 DENY claims filed by EE, a minor (2) and Melissa Landreth.      AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Statutory Actions   C. 7 ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2021.      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. 2021/147 proclaiming May 2021 as "Bike to Wherever Days" in Contra Costa County, and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to sign a memorandum requesting County Department Heads to participate in outreach efforts to their employees for Bike to Wherever Days, as recommended by the Conservation and Development 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. 9 ADOPT Resolution NO. 2021/152 recognizing Gennie McNeal for his service to the United States of America and recognizing and wishing him well on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth, as recommended by Supervisor Burgis.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Ordinances   C. 10 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-15 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Associate Medical Direct-Exempt and include in the list of classifications excluded from the merit system, as recommended by the Human Resources 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. 11 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-14 amending the County Ordinance Code to retitle the classification of Departmental Personnel Officer-Exempt to Departmental Human Resources Officer I - Exempt and exclude from the merit system the new classification of Departmental Human Resources Officer II - Exempt, as recommended by the Human Resources 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. 12 ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-13, allowing community members to care for found dogs and cats and establishing new leash restrictions, as recommended by the Animal 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 Appointments & Resignations   C. 13 ACCEPT the resignations of Frank Napoli, Local Committee Walnut Creek seat and Ron Tervelt, Local Committee Clayton seat on the Advisory Council on Aging, and Direct the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancies, 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 ADOPT revisions to the Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws to modify process for subsequent appointments and allow for appointments made prior to October 1, 2021, to use the current recruitment pool; and APPOINT Steven Bliss as the District II Alternate to the Measure X Community Advisory Board, as recommended by the County Administrator.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 15 ACCEPT the resignation of Linda Mason, Community # 3 seat of the Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity; DECLARE the seat vacant and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County Equal Employment Opportunity Officer.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Intergovernmental Relations   C. 16 ACCEPT the concept introduced by the Contra Costa Health Plan at the March 12, 2021 Joint Conference Committee Meeting to convert CCHP from a Medi-Cal two plan model to a single plan model known as a County Organized Health System, and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board and the Contra Costa Health Plan Chief Executive Officer to sign a non-binding letter of intent to the State of California, as recommeded 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 Personnel Actions   C. 17 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25716 to add one Administrative Services Assistant II (represented) position and cancel one vacant Engineering Technician Supervisor – Materials Testing (represented) position in the Public Works Department. (Cost savings)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 18 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25715 to add one Accountant III (represented) position and cancel one vacant Supervising Accountant (represented) position in the Public Works Department. (Cost savings)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 19 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25711 to cancel one Library Assistant-Advanced (represented) position and add one Media Production Technician (represented) position in the Library Department. (100% Library 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. 20 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25712 to increase the hours of one Library Assistant-Journey Level position (represented) in the Library Department. (100% Library 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. 21 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25724 to reassign ten Registered Nurse-Project (represented)   C. 21 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25724 to reassign ten Registered Nurse-Project (represented) positions from Department 0450 (Public Health) to Department 0540 (Hospital and Clinics) in the Health Services Department. (100% Federal and State emergency 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. 22 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25725 to temporarily increase the hours of one Video Production Assistant (represented) position from part time (30/40) to full time through June 30, 2021 in the Office of Communication & Media under County Administration. (100% CCTV Franchise Fees)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 23 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25708 to cancel one Clerk-Experienced Level (represented) position and add one Information Systems Specialist II (represented) position. (100% Library 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 Leases   C. 24 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease amendment with Pleasant Hill CA I SGF, LLC, to extend the initial term through September 30, 2035, for approximately 137,232 square feet of office space, located at 300, 400, and 500 Ellinwood Way, Pleasant Hill, at an annual rent of $3,491,160 with rent increases thereafter. (20% Children & Family Services, 10% Aging and Adult Services, 70% Workforce 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 Grants & Contracts   APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreements between the County and the following agencies for receipt of fund and/or services:   C. 25 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/135 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with California Department of Education to increase the payment limit by $5,270 to a new payment limit of $3,866,015 for general childcare and development program services with no change to term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021.       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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah, to pay County an amount of $4,000 to provide car seats and car seat boosters to low-income families under the AAA Child Passenger Safety Donation Program for the period April 1, 2021 through December 31, 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. 27 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Public Health Institute, to pay County in an amount not to exceed $65,000 for County’s Substance Use Navigator services and participation in the California Bridge Program, which ensures people with substance use disorder receive 24/7 high-quality care in every California hospital by 2025, for the period February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022. (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. 28 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with John Muir Health, to pay County an amount not to exceed $50,000 for respite care services for homeless adults provided at the Philip Dorn Respite Center for the period April 1, 2021 through December 31, 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. 29 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to pay County in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to collaborate with youth enrolled in the Mt. Diablo Youth Employment Services and Career Pathways Program to be placed in internships throughout Contra Costa Health Services for the period March 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021.       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 ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/136 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the California Department of Aging for the County to receive an amount not to exceed $143,750 for the Dignity at Home, Fall Prevention Program and extend the term end date of June 30, 2021 to a new term end date of March 31, 2022. (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. 31 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract and accept payment in an amount not to exceed $27,408 from Mount Diablo Unified School District, for the provision of food services to the Crossroads High School childcare program for the period August 19, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of agreement between the County and the following parties as noted for the purchase of equipment and/or services:   C. 32 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with The Ratcliff Architects, effective April 27, 2021, to extend the term from July 10, 2022 to July 10, 2023 and increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $2,250,000, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. (100% Various Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 33 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with KMD Architects, effective April 27, 2021, to extend the term from July 10, 2022 to July 10, 2023 and increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $2,000,000, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. (100% Various Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 34 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Applied Materials and Engineering, Inc., effective April 27, 2021, to extend the term from June 26, 2021 to December 31, 2022 and increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $1,350,000, to provide as-needed material testing and inspection services for various County projects, Countywide. (100% Various Funds)       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. 35 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Delta Personnel Services, Inc. dba Guardian Security Agency in an amount not to exceed $475,000 to provide security guard service for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (54.5% Federal, 42% State, 3.5% 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. 36 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College in an amount not to exceed $36,000 to provide Resource Family Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (25% State and 75% Federal funding)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 37 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College in an amount not to exceed $37,800 to provide foster parent and relative caregiver Heritage training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (75% Federal; 17.5% State; and 7.5% County 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. 38 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College in an amount not to exceed $20,160 to provide heritage training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (75% Federal, 17.5% State and 7.5% County 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. 39 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), in an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 to provide emergency vehicle outfitting services for various County departments for the period May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2024, Countywide. (75% Fleet Internal Service Fund, 25% User Departments)       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 Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to provide Resource Family Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (75% Federal and 25% 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. 41 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology Associates Medical Group, Inc. (dba BATROA), in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to provide radiology and oncology services to Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2024. (100% CCHP 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 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the    C. 42 AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a construction contract in the amount of $12,990,000 with W.E. Lyons Construction, Co. for the Buchanan Field Terminal Replacement Project, Concord area. (47% Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program, 1% Caltrans, 52% Airport Enterprise 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. 43 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Minh Nguyen, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $69,000 to a new payment limit of $324,000, for additional pulmonary critical care services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, and Health Centers with no change in the original term of June 1, 2020 through May 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. 44 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Service Masters Restoration Services), to increase the payment limit by $3,500,000 to a new payment limit of $7,500,000 for additional emergency deep cleaning and restoration services to resolve emergency events at Contra Costa Regional Medical and Health Centers with no change in the term of December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. (100% Federal and State emergency funding)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 45 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC, in an amount not to exceed $1,823,000 to provide plastic surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. (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. 46 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa County Office of Education in an amount not to exceed $216,090 ($108,045 annually for two years) to provide educational liaison services for children and youth in foster care for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. (70% State, 30% County)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 47 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Daniel T. Oberlin, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $930,000 to provide urologic oncology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers patients for the period May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2024. (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. 48 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Global Orphan Project, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to provide CarePortal, a web-based, secure database platform to fulfill basic needs for Children and Family Services foster youth and caregivers for the period May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022. (70% state and 30% county)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with    C. 49 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center to provide additional physicians to provide remote neurology and consultation services with no change in the payment limit of $510,000 and no change in the term 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 Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Jon K. Takata Corporation (dba Restoration Management Company), to extend the term from February 28, 2021 to February 28, 2022 to provide on-call restoration services at various County facilities, with no change to the payment limit of $2,500,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 51 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Denalect, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 to provide alarm monitoring services at various County facilities for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024, 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 C. 52 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute a purchase order with OmniPro LLC on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department, Information Technology Unit, in an amount not to exceed $249,768 to procure approximately 174 personal computers for the period of April 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. (6% County; 36% State; 58% 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. 53 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Stephen P. Taylor, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $495,000 to provide urology services for Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers patients for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. (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 amendment with Robert A. Buckley, M.D., to increase the payment limit by $45,000 to a new payment limit of $650,000 to provide additional orthopedic services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers with no change in the original term of July 1, 2018 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. 55 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with East Bay Retina Consultants, A Medical Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $900,000 to provide ophthalmology and retina surgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024. (100% Contra Costa Health Plan Enterprise Fund II)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 56 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with George James Counelis, M.D., Inc. (dba Bay Area Neurosciences), in an amount not to exceed $300,000 to provide neurosurgery services for Contra Costa Health Plan members for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024. (100% CCHP 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. 57 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with K.B.R., Inc. (dba Rash Curtis & Associates), in an amount not to exceed $450,000 to provide debt collection services for unpaid accounts for the Health Services Department for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (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. 58 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Laura Swafford, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to provide technical support and training services for the Health Services Department for County’s ccLink System for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (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. 59 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Margaret L. Miller. M.D., in an amount not to exceed $209,664 to provide outpatient psychiatric care services in Central Contra Costa to mentally ill adults for the period from May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022. (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. 60 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel, or designee, to execute, on behalf of Contra Costa County, a first amended and restated legal services contract, effective February 1, 2021, among Soluri Meserve, a Law Corporation, and the Counties of Contra Costa, Solano, and San Joaquin, to pay the firm an amount not to exceed $224,000 in connection with the firm's legal work for these three Delta Counties Coalition counties between October 22, 2019, and December 31, 2022. (100% 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. 61 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Community Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,911,380 to operate the East County Interim Housing Program for homeless individuals in East County for the period April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (100% Project Homekey California)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 62 APPROVE and ACKNOWLEDGE that, by its terms, the contract between the County and East Bay Cardiovascular & Thoracic Associates, Inc., pertaining to cardiothoracic and vascular surgery services to Contra Costa Health Plan members and initially approved by the Board on February 2, 2021, (C.67), does not have a maximum payment limit of $1,600,000 as previously specified in the Board action but, rather, has a maximum payment $2,400,000 with no other change in terms. (100% CCHP 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. 63 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director or designee to execute, on behalf of the Community Services Bureau, a contract with WestEd, a California Teaching Pyramid Consulting Agency, in an amount not to exceed $28,000 to provide coaching services to the Bureau for the period January 1 through December 31, 2021. (100% Federal funds, no County match)       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. 64 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a non-financial contract with 1st Northern California Credit Union to provide auto loan services for the Keeping Employment Equals Your Success (KEYS) Auto Loan Program, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (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. 65 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Mark Scott Construction, Inc., to extend the term from March 31, 2021 through March 31, 2022 to provide on-call restoration services at various County facilities, with no change to the payment limit of $7,000,000, Countywide. (No fiscal impact)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 66 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Chabot-Las Positas Community College District, in an amount not to exceed $750,000 for the District to deliver education and training services to foster care providers, community partners, and Children and Family Services staff for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. (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. 67 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Language Line Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,100,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. (6% County, 36% State, 58% 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. 68 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Associated Consultants, LLC., in an amount not to exceed $1,155,000 to provide data analytics consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit for the period March 1, 2021 through February 29, 2024. (100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 69 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Ride Roundtrip, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $1,100,000 to a new payment limit of $2,900,000 for additional hosted software portal services for transportation coordination, scheduling, and dispatch for Medi-Cal patients with no change in the term of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 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. 70 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Northern California Health Care System, to extend the termination date from March 31, 2021 to March 31, 2022, with no change in the payment limit of $2,294,377, to continue providing nuclear medicine services. (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. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with    C. 71 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Nordic Consulting Partners, Inc., to increase the payment limit by $6,000,000 to a new payment limit of $17,000,000 and extend the termination date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022 for additional consultation and technical assistance to the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit in support of ccLink. (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. 72 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Kava Massih Architects, effective April 27, 2021, to extend the term from October 8, 2022 to October 8, 2023 and increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. (100% Various Funds)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover Other Actions   C. 73 APPROVE the amended Head Start Policy Council Bylaws for the Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director.       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 74 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, Davis Health System, to extend the termination date to June 30, 2026, to continue providing training and clinical experience to medical students at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers. (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. 75 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute non-financial Art Exhibition and Loan Agreements with local artists for the display of original artwork in County facilities, as recommended by the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa 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 AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the 2021-2024 Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Recertification Application (Application) to the State of California Employment Development Department. for submission by the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee on behalf of the Workforce Development Board.       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 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent, on behalf of the Health Services Department, to purchase five hundred Safeway gift cards in an aggregate amount not to exceed $7,125 to use as incentives for consumer participation in Mental Health Services Act-Prop 63 (MHSA) planning process. (100% MHSA)       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 AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Department, transportation vouchers in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for County patients served under the Whole Person Care Pilot Program for the period from May 1, 2021 through December, 31 2021. (100% State Whole Person Care)       AYE: District I Supervisor John Gioia, District II Supervisor Candace Andersen, District III Supervisor Diane Burgis, District IV Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District V Supervisor Federal D. Glover C. 79 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to close the Antioch Library to the public from April 21 through May 31, 2021 for planned facility improvements. (100% Library 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. 80 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District extending the term of the existing emergency ambulance agreement for Emergency Response Area IV through June 30, 2021, as recommended by the Health Services Director. (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   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 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 June 9, 2021 11:00 a.m.See above Family & Human Services Committee May 24, 2021 9:00 a.m.See above Finance Committee May 3, 2021 9:00 a.m.See above Hiring Outreach Oversight Committee June 7, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Internal Operations Committee May 10, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Legislation Committee May 10, 2021 1:00 p.m.See above Public Protection Committee May 24, 2021 10:30 a.m.See above Sustainability Committee May 24, 2021 1:00 p.m.See above Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee May 10, 2021 9:00 a.m.See above 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 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): Claim for Gus Kramer. See attachment. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Please see attached letter. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: County Counsel I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: 1. To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Closed Session Claim- Gus Kramer ATTACHMENTS Claim - Gus Kramer RECOMMENDATION(S): CONSIDER waiving the 180-day sit-out period for Charles Waters in the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department; FIND that the appointment of Mr. Waters as an Elections Temporary Assignment worker is necessary for continuing a specialized task; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the hiring of retiree Mr. Waters as a temporary employee effective May 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This temporary assignment will be funded by a combination of grant money and the General Fund. It is within the department's current budget, as the expectation is it will be an intermittent assignment on an as-needed basis. BACKGROUND: Charles Waters retired on March 30, 2021 after more than 25 years with the County at the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department. As an Elections Processing Supervisor, Mr. Waters helmed our warehouse operations and was chiefly responsible for deploying outreach trailers in order to offer services beyond our office and throughout the County. The department does not have any other staff available to move the outreach trailers at this time. Training another employee would APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Tyler Stull, 925-335-7997 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 1 To:Board of Supervisors From:Deborah R. Cooper, Clerk-Recorder Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Hire of County Retiree - Waiver of 180-day Sit-out Period BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) require pulling someone from their regular assignment. Moreover, it would require a significant amount of time to adequately train them. The Department is already experiencing an increased workload, and pulling someone off their normal work assignment would further cripple the departments operations. Lastly, it is crucial that a skilled individual is responsible for moving these trailers as they are very expensive and can be damaged easily if not properly handled. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department will not be able to utilize outreach trailers in the community. Additionally, it will disrupt constituents services at planned events throughout the county, particularly in underrepresented areas. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a two-lot minor subdivision at 2216 Blackwood Drive in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area (MS19-0007), RECEIVE public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. DENY the appeal of Daniel Schoenberg. 3. FIND that the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project adequately analyses the project’s environmental impacts, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 4. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project. 5. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring program for the project. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Margaret Mitchell (925) 655-2875 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, 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:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Appeal of County Planning Commission's Approval of a Two-Lot Minor Subdivision (County File #MS19-0007) RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 6. APPROVE the tentative map for the project and the associated exceptions to sidewalk and underground utility requirements (MS19-0007). 7. APPROVE the variance to allow an average parcel width of 110.8 feet where 120 feet is required. 8. APPROVE the tree permit to allow removal of 13 code-protected trees. 9. APPROVE the findings in support of the project. 10. APPROVE the project conditions of approval. 11. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 12. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicants are responsible for all costs associated with processing the subdivision application. BACKGROUND: Project Description This is a hearing of an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot, located at 2216 Blackwood Drive in the unincorporated Walnut Creek area, into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet). The project includes removal of 13 code-protected trees on Parcel A and within the Blackwood Drive public right-of-way, and a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The project also includes an exception to the Title 9 sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the requirement for existing overhead utility lines to be relocated underground for Parcel A. The subject property is within an established residential neighborhood that is primarily within the R-20 Residential Zoning District, with several properties in an R-15 Zoning District to the east and several properties within a P-1 Zoning District to the southwest. Interstate 680 is located approximately 0.6 miles to the west, and the City of Walnut Creek is approximately 570 feet to the northeast and 1,700 feet to the southwest of the subject property. The subject property is a gently sloped lot located between Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, with Parcel A fronting Blackwood Drive, a public road, and Parcel B fronting Norris Road, a private road. The property slopes more steeply from the existing residence located on Parcel A down to Blackwood Drive. Blackwood Drive has a pavement width of approximately 23 feet within a 50-foot right of way. Norris Road provides access to Mountain View Boulevard to the southeast and has a right of way of approximately 30 feet. The pavement on Norris Road ends at the subject property where the easement is chained off. The pavement resumes 800 feet to the northwest, where Norris Road provides access to San Miguel Drive. Portions of the Norris Road private road easement were widened as part of MS05-0046, and the pavement was widened and curbs were constructed along the frontage. An existing residence is located on Parcel A and is to remain with no proposed modifications. Approval of the two-lot subdivision would allow future development of one new single-family residence Approval of the two-lot subdivision would allow future development of one new single-family residence on Parcel B. Along the frontage for Parcel A, the pavement of Blackwood Drive will be widened to 36 feet within the existing 50-foot right of way. Blackwood Drive frontage improvements will include pavement widening and a curb to be constructed along the frontage with the face of the curb to be located 18 feet from the centerline of the right of way. The project includes an exception to the sidewalk requirement of Title 9 of the County Code as there are no other sidewalks in this neighborhood along Blackwood Drive. The existing driveway on Parcel A will be redesigned due to the widening of Blackwood Drive and the steepness of the existing driveway. For Parcel B, the Norris Road easement and pavement will be widened to match other portions of Norris Road, and a curb will be constructed at the frontage. A paved turnaround will be added at the termination of the paved portion of Norris Road, which will also provide access to Parcel B. The project also includes an exception to the requirement that overhead utilities shall be relocated underground for Parcel A. An explanation of the reasons for granting the exception to the undergrounding requirements for Parcel A and for the granting a variance to the lot widths can be found in the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval document. Procedural History The applicant (Campos Development, LLC) submitted an application for a two-lot subdivision of the subject property on August 2, 2019. On October 1, 2020, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. During the comment period, 15 letters were received providing concerns regarding trees proposed for removal, impacts to Norris Road (a private road), and concerns regarding the process of the minor subdivision application. On December 21, 2020, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the project. Public comments concerning access from Norris Road, tree removal, and potential impacts to neighboring properties were provided. The Zoning Administrator closed the hearing and approved the project with modifications to COA #5, which was changed slightly for clarification, and to COA #12, which required a tree permit for tree removal on Parcel B. To address neighbor privacy concerns, the Zoning Administrator increased the size of replacement trees to 25-gallon size trees in COA #13A and B and added that the neighbor at 2244 Blackwood Drive be allowed to review and comment on the required tree planting plan. Lastly, COA #40 was added to include compliance with the CALGreen debris recovery program. Staff received one letter on December 30, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The appeal points were primarily related to the concerns regarding access to the subject property from Norris Road. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project and appeal on February 10, 2021. Public comments included concerns regarding access from Norris Road and the undergrounding of utility lines. The Planning Commission closed the hearing and unanimously upheld the County Zoning Administrator’s decision and denied the appeal. One appeal was filed on the matter by Daniel Schoenberg, a neighbor of the subject property. Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Decision On February 19, 2021, Daniel Schoenberg filed an appeal with the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, of the County Planning Commission’s denial of the appeal and approval of the project. The appeal points have been summarized and addressed below. Summary of Appeal Point #1: The appellant questions the County’s authority to grant access and new address rights to a primary residence on Norris Road and would like for the County to show where two primary access rights exist. Staff Response: County staff has reviewed the available information and materials, including the 1912 subdivision map that originally subdivided the area and the current Assessor's parcel page for the subject property. The subject property is a portion of a larger lot depicted on the 1912 map. Based on the 1912 map, the subject property’s boundary extends to the centerline of the Norris Road easement. the 1912 map, the subject property’s boundary extends to the centerline of the Norris Road easement. Prior to the creation of Blackwood Drive in 1945, the Norris Road easement provided the only access to the subject property. After the creation of Blackwood Drive, the subject property fronted both Blackwood Drive and Norris Road. Staff has not identified any record that the property ever relinquished or vacated access rights to Norris Road. The current Assessor’s parcel page depicts that the subject property abuts Norris Road. Accordingly, staff determined that the resulting Parcel B may be accessed by Norris Road. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The appellant requests that both Parcel A and Parcel B be accessed from Blackwood Drive, or that the applicant produce a feasibility study why such access is not feasible. Staff Response: Staff has determined that Parcel B may be accessed from Norris Road. Because the subject property may be accessed from Norris Road for Parcel B, a feasibility study regarding access to Parcel B from Blackwood Drive is not required. Requiring access to Parcel B from Blackwood Drive, through Parcel A, would place an undue burden on the project and Parcel A. Due to the width of the lot, the location of the existing residence, and the steepness of the slope from Blackwood Drive, access from Blackwood Drive would require the approval of an access easement, additional setback and lot size variances, additional tree removals, and more exceptions to the Title 9 requirements. Access from Norris Road is the least intrusive option. Although alternative access points were considered by the applicant, a feasibility study was not done and is not required. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The 1912 parcel map provided does not specify the rights to have two primary address access points for one property. Staff Response: The 1912 parcel map shows the original parcel from which the subject property was created with access to Norris Road. After the creation of Blackwood Drive, the subject property fronted both Blackwood Drive and Norris Road. Staff has not identified any record that the property ever relinquished or vacated access rights to Norris Road. Summary of Appeal Point #4: Several questions raised at the County Planning Commission hearing could not be confirmed. Staff Response: Staff was available and answered all questions. The appeal letter does not specify which questions are at issue. Summary of Appeal Point #5: At the February 10, 2021 hearing, only the underground utility requirement for Parcel A was discussed and an exception for Parcel A was approved. The appellant wants the underground utility requirement for Parcel B to be upheld to eliminate fire risk due to downed or exposed power lines. Staff Response: Per Condition of Approval #32, the service lines to any new residence on Parcel B are required to be installed underground. Conclusion The proposed two-lot minor subdivision is consistent with the Single-Family, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation and the Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. Staff has determined that the subject property, and the resulting Parcel B, may be accessed by Norris Road. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and approve County File #MS19-0007. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the subdivision of the subject property would be denied If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the subdivision of the subject property would be denied and the applicant and owner, Campos Development LLC, would be unable to move forward with the project as proposed. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Daniel Schoenberg, Appellant. Jeff Rooney, Campos Development LLC, Applicant; Barbara Spruck, Walnut Creek. ATTACHMENTS Findings and Conditions of Approval Appeal Letter Maps 1912 Map CPC Staff Report Tentative Map Memo RE: Norris Rd. Access Presentation BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 1 of 21 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007, CAMPOS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT & 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. This minor subdivision will create two new parcels that will result in the future development of a single-family residence for Parcel B. The project will not generate more than 100 peak-hour traffic trips to and from the subject property. 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 is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). In a letter dated August 16, 2019 EBMUD stated that subdivision of the subject property will require a main extension to service the new lot. Separate meters will be required for each lot. In another letter dated October 26, 2020, EBMUD provided comments during the comment period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in relation to water service, geology, and water conservation. In addition to the water service comments stated above, a minimum 20-foot right-of-way is required for installation of the new water mains. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting EBMUD regarding its requirements and permits. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property is served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. In a letter dated August 12, 2019 the Central Sanitary District stated the project resulting in the construction of one new residence is not expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system. This work will be reviewed by the sanitary district and will be approved prior to issuance of a building permit from the County Building Department. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 21 whereby the building plans must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The GMP requires that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district area, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The subject property is in the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The applicant will be required to meet applicable Fire District requirements. Further, fire sprinklers will need to be installed in the new single- family residence as required by the Fire District. The District will inspect the roadway improvements, and the plans for the future single-family residence for compliance with its requirements for residential buildings. The future construction of one additional residence will not substantially increase the demand for fire services. 5. Public Protection: The GMP requires 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 one new single- family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for police service facilities or personnel. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a fee of $1,000.00 for residential construction on Parcel B for police services mitigation in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 6. Parks and Recreation: The GMP requires three-acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 in population. The one new single-family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay Park Impact and Park Dedications fees for residential construction on Parcel B. The fees will be used to fund park and recreation improvements in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The subject property is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) and drainage improvements will be subject to the requirements of the County Code and the Public Works Department design standards, as well as the regulations of the national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 3 of 21 Discharge Control Ordinance. Accordingly, no flood control or risk assessment is required. B. Tentative Parcel Map The following are required findings for the approval of a tentative map: 1. The subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; Project Finding: The subject property is within the Single-Family, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. The SL designation allows for a residential density between 1.0 and 2.9 single family units per net acre. The 0.9-acre site allows for a development density of 2.7 units per net acre. With approval of the Tentative Map, the project site would have a development density that would be consistent with the SL designation. The subject property is located in a Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. The two lots that will be created by the February 25, 2020 Tentative Map are consistent with the lot area (minimum 20,000 square-feet), and lot depth (minimum 120 feet) requirements for the R-20 District, but the lot width for both lots is 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) and requires approval of a variance. The attached Tentative Map shows the tentative footprint of one single-family residence for Parcel B. The proposed single-family residence on Parcel B would meet all setback requirements of the R-20 Zoning District. 2. The proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The minor subdivision will accommodate one new single-family residence with access onto the private street Norris Road. The new residence will not create any significant traffic or circulation impacts. Development on the project site will be required to comply with County storm water requirements, as well as other conditions included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Parcel B, the applicant will be required to contribute fees for parks and recreation, school districts, and police services. C. Tree Permit The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a Tree Permit have been satisfied as follows: BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 4 of 21 1. Reasonable development of the property would require alteration or removal of a code-protected tree, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 2. The arborist report indicates that some of the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. D. Variance The following are required findings for the approval of a variance: 1. Any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The granting of a variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) for both parcels will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The configuration of the existing lot is already 110.8 feet in width and will not change with the subdivision of the property. The subject property cannot be subdivided in any other way to allow for the minimum required average width to be met without compromising other requirements. The surrounding lots have all been developed and are typically smaller than the subject property and the two proposed lots. Many of the properties adjacent to and within the vicinity of the subject property are also within the R-20 Zoning District and are substandard in width. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: The subject property has an existing width of 110.8. In order to subdivide the lot and meet the minimum requirements of lot size and lot depth, the property must be subdivided in the proposed configuration. As the subject property is surrounded by other developed lots, it is not possible to widen the existing property to meet the required minimum lot width without approval of a lot line adjustment, which would cause the adjacent properties to be substandard in size or width. As mentioned above, many of the surrounding properties within BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 5 of 21 the R-20 Zoning District are also substandard in width. Thus, strict application of the minimum lot width would deprive the subject property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-20) land use district is to facilitate orderly development and maintenance of single-family residential neighborhoods. Single-family dwellings are an allowed use on each lot within the R-20 land use district. With the reduced lot width, a single-family residence can be constructed on Parcel B and still meet the required minimum setbacks. Therefore, approval of a reduced lot width meets the intent and purpose of the R-20 land use district. E. Exceptions The following are required findings for the approval of exceptions to the requirements of Title 9, Chapter 92-6 and Chapter 96-10: 1. That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: An exception request from the sidewalk requirement was submitted for consideration in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 92- 6 of the County Ordinance Code. Improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Chapter 96-10 of the County Ordinance Code requires all overhead utilities serving the subdivision, as well as existing facilities along the public street frontage, to be relocated underground. The applicant submitted an exception request from this Code requirement citing similar reasoning as with the sidewalk exception discussed above. Underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 6 of 21 Project Finding: As mentioned above, there are no other sidewalks in the neighborhood, and other properties also have overhead utility lines. Therefore, not relocating existing overhead utility lines for Parcel A underground, and not requiring sidewalks when they will not connect to any other sidewalks in the neighborhood is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The utility lines for the existing residence on Parcel A are currently overhead, and there are not currently any sidewalks in the neighborhood. Therefore, allowing the utility lines for Parcel A to remain overhead, and not requiring sidewalks for the subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. F. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identified several potential environmental impacts in the areas of: Air Quality, Tribal/Cultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The MND was prepared indicating that no significant environmental impacts will be created by the proposed project, with the enforcement of the stated mitigation measures. The MND and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9, 2020. The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29, 2020, during which 15 public comment letters were received. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included in the Conditions of Approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: Project Approval 1. Minor Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Map: The Two-Lot Minor Subdivision is APPROVED, as generally shown and based on the following documents: BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 7 of 21 • Application and materials submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on August 2, 2019; • Revised Tentative Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 and received by CDD on March 5, 2020; • Arborist Report dated September 23, 2019 (and revised December 18, 2019) prepared by Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist (#WE-10270A), of Traverso Tree Service. 2. Tree Permit: A Tree Permit to allow the removal of 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from within the Blackwood Drive public right of way), is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 3. Variance: A variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet for both Parcel A and Parcel B (where 120 feet is required) is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 4. Exceptions: Exceptions from Title 9 to the sidewalk requirements for both parcels and the underground utility line requirement for Parcel A is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 5. Any modifications to the project approved under this permit’s Conditions of Approval shall be subject to the review and approval of the CDD. Application Costs 6. The Minor Subdivision application was subject to an initial deposit of $5,400.00. The application is subject to time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013/340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of approval. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 8 of 21 Indemnification 7. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate full in the defense. Compliance Report 8. Prior to filing a Parcel Map or at the time of application for a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an application for a COA Compliance Review and provide a report on compliance with the conditions of approval for the review and approval by the CDD. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,500.00 that is subject to time and material costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. A copy of the permit conditions of approval may be obtained from the CDD. Child Care Fee 9. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay a fee toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Impact and Park Dedication Fees 10. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay park impact and park dedication fees as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services Fee 11. Prior to the submittal of building or grading permits for the construction of a single- BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 9 of 21 family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation as established by the Board of Supervisors. Tree Removal 12. The 13 trees approved for removal (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) shall remain on the property until a building or grading permit for development of the subdivision has been obtained. All future development on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be subject to the provisions of the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. A tree permit will be required for tree removal on Parcel B. Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal 13. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) that have been approved for removal: A. Tree Restitution Planting/Irrigation Plan: Prior to removal of any tree or obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of CDD. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least eight (8) 25-gallon size drought tolerant trees within Parcel A. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements on the plan. Due to privacy concerns, Staff shall allow the neighbor at 2244 Blackwood Drive to review and comment on the tree planting plan. B. The tree restitution planting plan shall comply with the requirements of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or County Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, whichever ordinance applies. Information relating to this ordinance is available at the Application and Permit Center. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Plan Improvements: Prior to removal of the trees, the applicant shall submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) that is acceptable to CDD to ensure that the restitution plan is implemented. Determination of Security Amount: The security shall provide for a breakdown of all of the following costs: BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 10 of 21 • A labor and materials estimate for planting the eight (8) 25-gallon size draught tolerant trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required, prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor. • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Initial Fee Deposit for Processing a Security: The County ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees for all staff time and material costs associated with processing a landscape improvement security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial deposit of $200. D. Duration of Security: The security shall be retained by the County for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months following the completion of replanting and construction or grading activity to ensure that the restitution plan is successfully implemented. A prerequisite of releasing the bond between 12 and 24 months shall be to have the applicant arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and prepare a report on the planted trees’ health and successful implementation of the plan. If CDD determines that the applicant has not been diligent in implementing the plan, then CDD may require that part or all of the security be used to implement the plan. Arborist Expense 14. The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the applicant and/or property owner. State Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO) 15. If any landscaping is proposed to be installed during development for Parcel B that equals 500 square-feet or more, prior to issuance of a building permit a Compliance Review application shall be submitted and approved that shows compliancy with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 16. 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 BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 11 of 21 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. F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 12 of 21 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. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLIED AS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE MS19-0007: The applicant shall implement and complete the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as additional Conditions of Approval for County File MS19-0007: Air Quality 17. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans: A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; C. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; F. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 13 of 21 G. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; H. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 18. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction that would occur on-site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the applicant shall have a preconstruction nesting survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Nesting surveys must be completed during springtime of the year during which construction will occur in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. An established buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone for raptors and 50-foot zone for common passerines until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by July 15th, but sometimes not until into August. Any qualified biologist hired to conduct nesting surveys or that monitors any active nests shall have the authority to shut the job down if this is necessary to protect the nesting birds. At the time the ornithologist determines that the young have fledged the nest and that the young are no longer dependent upon the nesting tree, the project may resume without any restrictions for nesting birds. Once the young fledge and the nest is no longer in use, as determined by the ornithologist, any tree that must be removed to accommodate the project may be removed without further requirements for nesting birds. Until such nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence, impacts to this hawk from reasonably anticipated future development on the remainder parcel are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 14 of 21 Tribal and Cultural Resources 19. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during project-related ground disturbance and shall be included on all construction plans: A. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. It is recommended that such deposits be avoided by further ground disturbance activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they should be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical resources; If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If eligible, deposits will need to be avoided by impacts or such impacts must be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, a report should be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa County agencies. B. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 15 of 21 Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the tentative map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on March 5, 2020. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval prior to filing of the Parcel Map. General Requirements 20. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on March 5, 2020. 21. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements - Public (Blackwood Drive Frontage) 22. The applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall construct face of curb 18 feet from the right of way centerline. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): The applicant is granted an exception from installation of sidewalk along the subdivision frontage in that such improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Any cracked and displaced curb or gutter shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Blackwood Drive. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 16 of 21 Roadway Improvements - Private (Norris Road Frontage) 23. The applicant shall construct curb, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Norris Road. Applicant shall construct face of curb 16 feet from the centerline of the existing 30-foot right of way. 24. The applicant shall construct a paved turnaround along the project frontage per County and Fire District standards. Road Dedications 25. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 25 feet of right of way along the north property line to provide for an ultimate 50-foot-wide right of way for Norris Road. The north property line coincides with the centerline of the existing 30-foot-wide private easement for Norris Road. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to encumber the turnaround area with one foot of additional clearance. 26. The applicant shall convey to all holders of private access and/or utility easement rights over Norris Road between the subject property and Mountain View Boulevard an additional easement to encumber the right of way dedication described above. 27. Dedicate a 6-foot wide Public Access and Utility Easement adjacent to the length of the dedicated right of way along Mountain View Boulevard. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 28. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 29. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right-of-way of Blackwood Drive. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 17 of 21 Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance Sight Distance 30. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of the private driveways with Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in accordance with Chapter 82-18 “Sight Obstructions at Intersections” of the County Ordinance Code. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at these intersections, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at these intersections shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Street Lights 31. Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Utilities/Undergrounding 32. The applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities, including those along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): Applicant shall be granted an exception from the undergrounding requirements of the Ordinance Code in that underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 18 of 21 Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 33. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 34. The nearest public drainage facility is the existing 24-inch storm drain located along the south side of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall verify its adequacy prior to discharging run-off to it. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 35. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 36. The applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 37. A private storm drain easement, conforming to the width specified in Section 914- 14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be reserved over the proposed storm drain line traversing Parcel A in favor of Parcel B. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 38. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stormwater pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's stormwater drainage: BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 19 of 21 • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. • Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by the Public Works Department. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance 39. The applicant will not be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, since the proposed project will not create or replace at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. However, this project is subject to all other provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014, Ordinance No. 2005-01) and future development applications on the subject parcel may be required to comply with Provision C.3. Debris Recovery 40. Prior to final inspection, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with the CALGreen debris recovery program, which requires at least 65 percent of the jobsite debris generated by construction to be recycles, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 20 of 21 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements, which include grading and drainage compliance. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. D. The applicant must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire District. BOS – April 27, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 21 of 21 E. The applicant must submit building plans to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. F. The applicant is responsible for contacting the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding its requirements and permits. G. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District regarding its requirements and permits. H. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K. Further development of the parcel may need to comply with the latest Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This compliance may require a Stormwater Control Plan and an Operations and Maintenance Plan prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Compliance may also require annexation of the subject property into the Community Facilities District 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) and entering into a standard Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County. Daniel Schoenberg 2158 Norris Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-899-4110 dan@sewingmachineshop.com January 19,2021 Margaret Mitchell, Planner CCC Zoning Administrator Dear Margaret Mitchell, This letter is to serve as an official appeal of the February 10, 2021 approval for the Blackwood Drive two-lot Subdivision (file # MS19-0007). On behalf of several Norris Road residents this appeal is based on the following: 1. Residents of Norris Road believe that the County's approval of the Subdivision MS19-0007 is unlawful for the following reasons: a) In question is the county’s authority to grant access and new address rights to a primary residence on Norris Road. The request to show where two primary access rights exist still stands. The staff response on the February 10, 2021 documentation is inadequate. b) In the February 10, 2021 meeting, legal counsel for Campos Development referenced the Abutter's Rights case as justification for allowing a property to be accessed from a street if that property borders said street. This right is not applicable in this case as Abutter's Rights specifically refers to public roads NOT private roads. c) In addition, Campos Development incorrectly stated that the 2216 Blackwood Drive property had been regularly accessed via Norris Road. This is also inaccurate. In the Summer 2015, renters of 2216 Blackwood Drive began accessing the Blackwood property via Norris Road. Norris Road residents deemed this as trespassing and contacted the county for guidance. The county advised the Norris Road residents to contact the Sheriff's office indicating the situation was a criminal matter. Residents contacted the Sheriff and the renters were told to discontinue this access and they complied. 2. Feasibility study for subdivided property entrance on Blackwood Drive has not been produced. We maintain that the entrance for both parcel A and B stay on Blackwood Drive. Campos Development stated that extensive research was conducted showing that an entrance to both parcel A and B via Blackwood Drive was not feasible. This feasibility study has not yet been produced. 3. The 1912 parcel map provided does not specify the rights to have two primary address access points for one property (one via a public road; one via the proposed private road). In the first meeting dated December 21, 2020, County representative Larry Gossett referenced there were specific notes on the 1912 map showing justification of Blackwood property primary access rights via Norris Road. 4. In the meeting dated February 10, 2021, the County did not have legal counsel present. There were several questions raised that could not be confirmed as a result. 5. In meeting dated February 10, 2021, only the underground utility requirement for Parcel A was discussed and an exception for Parcel A was approved. We maintain that the underground utility requirement should be upheld for Parcel B (ie., Underground Utility District requirement 20B) to eliminate fire risk due to downed or exposed power lines. The approval would be consistent with the underground utilities requirement by the county which applied to the new development completed in the 2006-2008 timeframe (ie., two new homes constructed at 2175 and 2171 Norris Road). We look forward to working towards a more agreeable and equitable solution. Regards, Daniel Schoenberg & Norris Road residents Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. General Plan: Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) 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) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) WS (Watershed) Address Points Streets Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-20) 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) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Forestry Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) F-1 (Water Recreational) F-1 -FH (Water Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-2, -BS (General Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) A-2 -FH (General Agriculture - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 -SD-1 (General Agriculture - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) A-2 -X (General Agriculture - Railroad Corridor Combining District) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-3 -BS (Heavy Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. MS19-0007 Aerial Photograph Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, February 10, 2021 – 6:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Approval for a Two-Lot Minor Subdivision County File(s): #MS19-0007 Applicant: Owner: Campos Development, LLC Same as Applicant Appellants: Barbara Spruck and Ryan Kish Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan Site Address/Location: 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN: 183-172-001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project indicating no significant environmental impacts. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner II (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 two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet), including the approval to remove 13 code-protected trees on Parcel A and within the Blackwood Drive public right-of- way and approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The project also includes an exception to the Title 9 CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 6 sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the requirement for existing overhead utility lines to be relocated underground for Parcel A. The development of a residence is not proposed as a part of this project. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: A. DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s decision for MS19-0007. B. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before the County, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment and that the October 1, 2020, Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. C. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) dated October 2020, finding it to be adequate and complete, finding that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and finding that it reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. D. APPROVE the proposed Tentative Map (County File #MS19-0007) by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. E. APPROVE the exception to the sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the underground utility requirements for Parcel A by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. F. APPROVE the tree permit to allow the removal of 13 code-protected trees from Parcel A and the Blackwood Drive public right of way by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 3 of 6 G. APPROVE the variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. H. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. III. BACKGROUND An application for a two-lot subdivision filed on the subject property was submitted on August 2, 2019. On October 1, 2020, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project. During the comment period, 15 letters were received providing concerns regarding trees proposed for removal, impacts to Norris Road (a private road), and understanding the process of the minor subdivision application. The project was scheduled at the December 7, 2020 Zoning Administrator hearing, however, the project description in the notice did not include the requested exception to the underground utility requirement from Title 9 for Parcel A. The project was then re-noticed and continued to the December 21, 2020 Zoning Administrator hearing. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing, public comments were heard, and the Zoning Administrator approved the project with modifications to the Conditions of Approval (COA). The language of COA #5 was changed slightly for clarification and the requirement of a tree permit for tree removal on Parcel B was added to COA #12 (formerly #11 on page 9). In order to address privacy concerns from the neighbor at 2244 Blackwood Drive, the Zoning Administrator increased the size of the trees to be planted to 25-gallon size trees in COA #13A and B (formerly #12A and B) and added that the neighbor at 2244 Blackwood Drive shall be allowed to review and comment on the required tree planting plan. Lastly, COA #40 was added to include compliance with the CALGreen debris recovery program. Staff received one letter on December 30, 2020, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet), including the approval to remove 13 code-protected trees on Parcel A and within the Blackwood Drive public right-of- way and approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The project also includes an exception to the Title 9 CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 4 of 6 sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the requirement for existing overhead utility lines to be relocated underground for Parcel A. The development of a residence is not proposed as a part of this project. Future development of one new single-family residence on Parcel B would be the result of approval of this subdivision, and the new residence would be able to meet all required setbacks. The pavement of Blackwood Drive will be widened to 36 feet within the existing 50-foot right of way. Frontage improvements that will be required include pavement widening, curb and sidewalk to be constructed along the frontage, with the face of the curb to be located 18 feet from the centerline of the right of way, however, the project includes an exception to the sidewalk requirement of Title 9 of the County Code as there are no other sidewalks in this neighborhood. The existing driveway will be redesigned, due to the widening of Blackwood Drive and the steepness of the existing driveway. The Norris Road easement and pavement will be widened to match other portions of Norris Road, and a curb will be constructed at the frontage. A paved turnaround will be added at the termination of the paved portion of Norris Road, which will also provide access to Parcel B. The project also includes an exception to the requirement that overhead utilities shall be relocated underground for Parcel A. V. APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION On December 30, 2020, Barbara Spruck and Ryan Kish (neighbors at 2154 Norris Road, Walnut Creek) filed an appeal with the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division 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: There are no zoning maps showing an address at this location and this is not available on any public record. Staff Response: The subject property is located within the R-20 zoning district as can be seen in the attached zoning map. The address of the existing residence is 2216 Blackwood Drive. Upon approval of the subdivision, the address for Parcel A will remain the same (2216 Blackwood Drive) and Parcel B will have a Norris Road address since it fronts on Norris Road and will be accessed from Norris Road, which is a private road. B. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The appellants indicated that they needed a CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 5 of 6 better understanding of the proposed road access situation and of the variances given this is a privately maintained road. Staff Response: For the discussion regarding roadway access, see staff’s response to appeal point #1 above. In terms of the variance issue, the existing average width of the subject parcel is 110.8 feet which is less than the required average width of 120 feet required for the R-20 zoning district in which the property is located in. Upon subdividing the property, the average width of the resulting parcels will remain the same at 110.8-feet therefore necessitating the need for a variance to allow the creation of two new parcels (Parcel A and Parcel B) with an average width of 110.8-feet where an average width of 120-feet is required. Since both new parcels will exceed the minimum lot size for the R-20 zoning district, staff has determined that the findings for granting the variance to the average lot width can be made and recommended that the variance be approved, which was approved by the Zoning Administrator. The variance findings are attached. C. Summary of Appeal Point #3: They would also like clarity on the property owner’s responsibility for future maintenance (in conjunction with the existing neighbors). Staff Response: Norris Road is a private road and has no formal entity or agreement in place to maintain it. In general, the property owners of the parcels fronting Norris Road are responsible for maintenance of private roads. As such, the owner of Parcel B can coordinate with the other property owners along Norris Road regarding the maintenance. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed two-lot minor subdivision is consistent with the Single-Family, Low- Density (SL) General Plan land use designation and the Single-Family Residential (R- 20) Zoning District. The Zoning Administrator modified COA #12 to address privacy concerns related to tree removal and added COA #40 which requires compliance with the CALGreen debris recovery program. 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 #MS19-0007, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 6 of 6 Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Appeal Letter 3. Maps (Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph) 4. Legal Description of Property 5. ZA Staff Reports 6. Tentative Map 7. PowerPoint Presentation CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 1 of 21 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007, CAMPOS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT & 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. This minor subdivision will create two new parcels that will result in the future development of a single-family residence for Parcel B. The project will not generate more than 100 peak-hour traffic trips to and from the subject property. 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 is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). In a letter dated August 16, 2019 EBMUD stated that subdivision of the subject property will require a main extension to service the new lot. Separate meters will be required for each lot. In another letter dated October 26, 2020, EBMUD provided comments during the comment period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in relation to water service, geology, and water conservation. In addition to the water service comments stated above, a minimum 20-foot right-of-way is required for installation of the new water mains. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting EBMUD regarding its requirements and permits. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property is served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. In a letter dated August 12, 2019 the Central Sanitary District stated the project resulting in the construction of one new residence is not expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system. This work will be reviewed by the sanitary district and will be approved prior to issuance of a building permit from the County Building Department. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 21 whereby the building plans must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The GMP requires that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district area, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The subject property is in the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The applicant will be required to meet applicable Fire District requirements. Further, fire sprinklers will need to be installed in the new single- family residence as required by the Fire District. The District will inspect the roadway improvements, and the plans for the future single-family residence for compliance with its requirements for residential buildings. The future construction of one additional residence will not substantially increase the demand for fire services. 5. Public Protection: The GMP requires 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 one new single- family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for police service facilities or personnel. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a fee of $1,000.00 for residential construction on Parcel B for police services mitigation in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 6. Parks and Recreation: The GMP requires three-acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 in population. The one new single-family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay Park Impact and Park Dedications fees for residential construction on Parcel B. The fees will be used to fund park and recreation improvements in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The subject property is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) and drainage improvements will be subject to the requirements of the County Code and the Public Works Department design standards, as well as the regulations of the national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 3 of 21 Discharge Control Ordinance. Accordingly, no flood control or risk assessment is required. B. Tentative Parcel Map The following are required findings for the approval of a tentative map: 1. The subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; Project Finding: The subject property is within the Single-Family, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. The SL designation allows for a residential density between 1.0 and 2.9 single family units per net acre. The 0.9-acre site allows for a development density of 2.7 units per net acre. With approval of the Tentative Map, the project site would have a development density that would be consistent with the SL designation. The subject property is located in a Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. The two lots that will be created by the February 25, 2020 Tentative Map are consistent with the lot area (minimum 20,000 square-feet), and lot depth (minimum 120 feet) requirements for the R-20 District, but the lot width for both lots is 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) and requires approval of a variance. The attached Tentative Map shows the tentative footprint of one single-family residence for Parcel B. The proposed single-family residence on Parcel B would meet all setback requirements of the R-20 Zoning District. 2. The proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The minor subdivision will accommodate one new single-family residence with access onto the private street Norris Road. The new residence will not create any significant traffic or circulation impacts. Development on the project site will be required to comply with County storm water requirements, as well as other conditions included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Parcel B, the applicant will be required to contribute fees for parks and recreation, school districts, and police services. C. Tree Permit The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a Tree Permit have been satisfied as follows: CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 4 of 21 1. Reasonable development of the property would require alteration or removal of a code-protected tree, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 2. The arborist report indicates that some of the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. D. Variance The following are required findings for the approval of a variance: 1. Any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The granting of a variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) for both parcels will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The configuration of the existing lot is already 110.8 feet in width and will not change with the subdivision of the property. The subject property cannot be subdivided in any other way to allow for the minimum required average width to be met without compromising other requirements. The surrounding lots have all been developed and are typically smaller than the subject property and the two proposed lots. Many of the properties adjacent to and within the vicinity of the subject property are also within the R-20 Zoning District and are substandard in width. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: The subject property has an existing width of 110.8. In order to subdivide the lot and meet the minimum requirements of lot size and lot depth, the property must be subdivided in the proposed configuration. As the subject property is surrounded by other developed lots, it is not possible to widen the existing property to meet the required minimum lot width without approval of a lot line adjustment, which would cause the adjacent properties to be substandard in size or width. As mentioned above, many of the surrounding properties within CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 5 of 21 the R-20 Zoning District are also substandard in width. Thus, strict application of the minimum lot width would deprive the subject property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-20) land use district is to facilitate orderly development and maintenance of single-family residential neighborhoods. Single-family dwellings are an allowed use on each lot within the R-20 land use district. With the reduced lot width, a single-family residence can be constructed on Parcel B and still meet the required minimum setbacks. Therefore, approval of a reduced lot width meets the intent and purpose of the R-20 land use district. E. Exceptions The following are required findings for the approval of exceptions to the requirements of Title 9, Chapter 92-6 and Chapter 96-10: 1. That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: An exception request from the sidewalk requirement was submitted for consideration in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 92- 6 of the County Ordinance Code. Improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Chapter 96-10 of the County Ordinance Code requires all overhead utilities serving the subdivision, as well as existing facilities along the public street frontage, to be relocated underground. The applicant submitted an exception request from this Code requirement citing similar reasoning as with the sidewalk exception discussed above. Underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 6 of 21 Project Finding: As mentioned above, there are no other sidewalks in the neighborhood, and other properties also have overhead utility lines. Therefore, not relocating existing overhead utility lines for Parcel A underground, and not requiring sidewalks when they will not connect to any other sidewalks in the neighborhood is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The utility lines for the existing residence on Parcel A are currently overhead, and there are not currently any sidewalks in the neighborhood. Therefore, allowing the utility lines for Parcel A to remain overhead, and not requiring sidewalks for the subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. F. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identified several potential environmental impacts in the areas of: Air Quality, Tribal/Cultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The MND was prepared indicating that no significant environmental impacts will be created by the proposed project, with the enforcement of the stated mitigation measures. The MND and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9, 2020. The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29, 2020, during which 15 public comment letters were received. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included in the Conditions of Approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: Project Approval 1. Minor Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Map: The Two-Lot Minor Subdivision is APPROVED, as generally shown and based on the following documents: CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 7 of 21 • Application and materials submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on August 2, 2019; • Revised Tentative Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 and received by CDD on March 5, 2020; • Arborist Report dated September 23, 2019 (and revised December 18, 2019) prepared by Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist (#WE-10270A), of Traverso Tree Service. 2. Tree Permit: A Tree Permit to allow the removal of 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from within the Blackwood Drive public right of way), is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 3. Variance: A variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet for both Parcel A and Parcel B (where 120 feet is required) is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 4. Exceptions: Exceptions from Title 9 to the sidewalk requirements for both parcels and the underground utility line requirement for Parcel A is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 5. Any modifications to the project approved under this permit’s Conditions of Approval shall be subject to the review and approval of the CDD. Application Costs 6. The Minor Subdivision application was subject to an initial deposit of $5,400.00. The application is subject to time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013/340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of approval. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 8 of 21 Indemnification 7. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate full in the defense. Compliance Report 8. Prior to filing a Parcel Map or at the time of application for a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an application for a COA Compliance Review and provide a report on compliance with the conditions of approval for the review and approval by the CDD. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,500.00 that is subject to time and material costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. A copy of the permit conditions of approval may be obtained from the CDD. Child Care Fee 9. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay a fee toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Impact and Park Dedication Fees 10. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay park impact and park dedication fees as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services Fee 11. Prior to the submittal of building or grading permits for the construction of a single- CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 9 of 21 family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation as established by the Board of Supervisors. Tree Removal 12. The 13 trees approved for removal (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) shall remain on the property until a building or grading permit for development of the subdivision has been obtained. All future development on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be subject to the provisions of the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. A tree permit will be required for tree removal on Parcel B. Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal 13. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) that have been approved for removal: A. Tree Restitution Planting/Irrigation Plan: Prior to removal of any tree or obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of CDD. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least eight (8) 25-gallon size drought tolerant trees within Parcel A. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements on the plan. Due to privacy concerns, Staff shall allow the neighbor at 2244 Blackwood Drive to review and comment on the tree planting plan. B. The tree restitution planting plan shall comply with the requirements of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or County Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, whichever ordinance applies. Information relating to this ordinance is available at the Application and Permit Center. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Plan Improvements: Prior to removal of the trees, the applicant shall submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) that is acceptable to CDD to ensure that the restitution plan is implemented. Determination of Security Amount: The security shall provide for a breakdown of all of the following costs: CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 10 of 21 • A labor and materials estimate for planting the eight (8) 25-gallon size draught tolerant trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required, prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor. • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Initial Fee Deposit for Processing a Security: The County ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees for all staff time and material costs associated with processing a landscape improvement security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial deposit of $200. D. Duration of Security: The security shall be retained by the County for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months following the completion of replanting and construction or grading activity to ensure that the restitution plan is successfully implemented. A prerequisite of releasing the bond between 12 and 24 months shall be to have the applicant arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and prepare a report on the planted trees’ health and successful implementation of the plan. If CDD determines that the applicant has not been diligent in implementing the plan, then CDD may require that part or all of the security be used to implement the plan. Arborist Expense 14. The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the applicant and/or property owner. State Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO) 15. If any landscaping is proposed to be installed during development for Parcel B that equals 500 square-feet or more, prior to issuance of a building permit a Compliance Review application shall be submitted and approved that shows compliancy with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 16. 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 CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 11 of 21 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. F. The construction site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 12 of 21 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. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLIED AS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE MS19-0007: The applicant shall implement and complete the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as additional Conditions of Approval for County File MS19-0007: Air Quality 17. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans: A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; C. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; F. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 13 of 21 G. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; H. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 18. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction that would occur on-site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the applicant shall have a preconstruction nesting survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Nesting surveys must be completed during springtime of the year during which construction will occur in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. An established buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone for raptors and 50-foot zone for common passerines until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by July 15th, but sometimes not until into August. Any qualified biologist hired to conduct nesting surveys or that monitors any active nests shall have the authority to shut the job down if this is necessary to protect the nesting birds. At the time the ornithologist determines that the young have fledged the nest and that the young are no longer dependent upon the nesting tree, the project may resume without any restrictions for nesting birds. Once the young fledge and the nest is no longer in use, as determined by the ornithologist, any tree that must be removed to accommodate the project may be removed without further requirements for nesting birds. Until such nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence, impacts to this hawk from reasonably anticipated future development on the remainder parcel are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 14 of 21 Tribal and Cultural Resources 19. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during project-related ground disturbance and shall be included on all construction plans: A. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. It is recommended that such deposits be avoided by further ground disturbance activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they should be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical resources; If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If eligible, deposits will need to be avoided by impacts or such impacts must be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, a report should be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa County agencies. B. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 15 of 21 Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the tentative map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on March 5, 2020. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval prior to filing of the Parcel Map. General Requirements 20. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on March 5, 2020. 21. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements - Public (Blackwood Drive Frontage) 22. The applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall construct face of curb 18 feet from the right of way centerline. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): The applicant is granted an exception from installation of sidewalk along the subdivision frontage in that such improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Any cracked and displaced curb or gutter shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Blackwood Drive. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 16 of 21 Roadway Improvements - Private (Norris Road Frontage) 23. The applicant shall construct curb, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Norris Road. Applicant shall construct face of curb 16 feet from the centerline of the existing 30-foot right of way. 24. The applicant shall construct a paved turnaround along the project frontage per County and Fire District standards. Road Dedications 25. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 25 feet of right of way along the north property line to provide for an ultimate 50-foot-wide right of way for Norris Road. The north property line coincides with the centerline of the existing 30-foot-wide private easement for Norris Road. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to encumber the turnaround area with one foot of additional clearance. 26. The applicant shall convey to all holders of private access and/or utility easement rights over Norris Road between the subject property and Mountain View Boulevard an additional easement to encumber the right of way dedication described above. 27. Dedicate a 6-foot wide Public Access and Utility Easement adjacent to the length of the dedicated right of way along Mountain View Boulevard. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 28. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 29. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right-of-way of Blackwood Drive. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 17 of 21 Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance Sight Distance 30. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of the private driveways with Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in accordance with Chapter 82-18 “Sight Obstructions at Intersections” of the County Ordinance Code. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at these intersections, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at these intersections shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Street Lights 31. Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Utilities/Undergrounding 32. The applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities, including those along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): Applicant shall be granted an exception from the undergrounding requirements of the Ordinance Code in that underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 18 of 21 Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 33. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 34. The nearest public drainage facility is the existing 24-inch storm drain located along the south side of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall verify its adequacy prior to discharging run-off to it. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 35. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 36. The applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 37. A private storm drain easement, conforming to the width specified in Section 914- 14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be reserved over the proposed storm drain line traversing Parcel A in favor of Parcel B. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 38. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stormwater pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's stormwater drainage: CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 19 of 21 • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. • Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by the Public Works Department. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance 39. The applicant will not be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, since the proposed project will not create or replace at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. However, this project is subject to all other provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014, Ordinance No. 2005-01) and future development applications on the subject parcel may be required to comply with Provision C.3. Debris Recovery 40. Prior to final inspection, the developer shall demonstrate compliance with the CALGreen debris recovery program, which requires at least 65 percent of the jobsite debris generated by construction to be recycles, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 20 of 21 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements, which include grading and drainage compliance. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. D. The applicant must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire District. CPC – February 10, 2021 County File #MS19-0007 Page 21 of 21 E. The applicant must submit building plans to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. F. The applicant is responsible for contacting the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding its requirements and permits. G. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District regarding its requirements and permits. H. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K. Further development of the parcel may need to comply with the latest Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This compliance may require a Stormwater Control Plan and an Operations and Maintenance Plan prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Compliance may also require annexation of the subject property into the Community Facilities District 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) and entering into a standard Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County. Barbara Spruck / Ryan Kish 415-845-9992; barbspruck@gmail.com December 30, 2020 Margaret Mitchell, Planner Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Margaret Mitchell, Planner: This letter is to officially appeal the approval of the Blackwood Lane Subdivision project / County file # CDMS19-00007 approved at the December 21, 2020 hearing. The neighbors expressed concerns during this meeting and via writing. Several neighbors will be adversely affected by the additional property entrance on Norris Road – as this is a privately maintained road, as outlined by the additional information / unanswered questions below: • Lack of a zoning map that shows an address / entry via Norris Road (a private road) – for the Blackwood Lane property. This is not available on any public record at this time. • Comprehensive understanding of road access / variances given this is a privately maintained road. • Clarity on the additional Blackwood Lane property’s responsibility for future maintenance (in conjunction with the existing neighbors). We look forward to working towards a more mutually agreeable solution. Regards, Barbara Spruck, Ryan Kish (and additional Norris Road neighbors outlined on the hearing notes) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. General Plan: Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) 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) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) WS (Watershed) Address Points Streets Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-20) 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) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Forestry Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) F-1 (Water Recreational) F-1 -FH (Water Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-2, -BS (General Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) A-2 -FH (General Agriculture - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 -SD-1 (General Agriculture - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) A-2 -X (General Agriculture - Railroad Corridor Combining District) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-3 -BS (Heavy Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. MS19-0007 Aerial Photograph Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations EXHIBIT"A" Legal Descripüion For APNIPareel 1Ds):183-172-001 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA,COUNTY OF CONTRA coSTA,STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF LOT 4,AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "RN BURGESS cOMPANY'S MAP NO 1,NORRIS ADDITION TO WALNUT HEIGHTS,A PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA",WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,ON JULY 22,1912 IN VOLUME 7 OF MAPS,AT PAGE 174,CONTAINING ONE ACRE,MORE OR LESS,AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOwS: BEGINNING IN THE CENTER LINE OF NORRIS ROAD,DISTANT THEREON NORTH 58°54'WEST 166.5 FEET FROM THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5,SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 1.5 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM OAKLAND AND ANTIOCH LAND CO.TO WILLIAM F. WHITEMAN DATED JANUARY 20,1917 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 287 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 398,THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 58°54'WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 111 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE 0.50 OF AN ACRE PORTION OF LOT 4,DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM WESTERN GROUP SECURITIES COMPANY TO GUY L PUTNAM,ET AL,DATED MARCH 27,1925 AND RECORDED APRIL 2,1925 IN voLUME 484 OF DEEDS,AT PAGE 370,THENCE SOUTH 31°06'WEST ALONG SAID LINE 392.28 FEET TO THE sOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 4,THENCE SOUTH 58 54'EAST ALONG SAID LINE 111 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE SAID WHITMAN PARCEl (287 D 396)THENCE NORTH 31°06'EAST ALONG SAID LINE 392 28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Gren DeedsCADOOO128.doe/Upeoed:11.20.17 Printod:05.13.1902:52 PMCAFTFCHco1500.081801-FCHC 6011600826 Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, December 7, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Two-Lot Minor Subdivision County File(s): #MS19-0007 Applicant: Owner: Campos Development, LLC Same as Applicant Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan Site Address/Location: 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN: 183-172-001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project indicating no significant environmental impacts. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner I (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Continue to December 21, 2020 I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350- square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square- feet). This subdivision includes a request for approval of a tree permit to remove 25 code-protected trees and requests approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The project also includes an exception from Title 9 to the sidewalk requirements and to the underground utility line requirement for Parcel A. ZA – December 7, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 2 II. BACKGROUND A public notice was sent to properties within 300 feet of the subject property for the December 7, 2020 Zoning Administrator hearing. The project description in the notice did not include the requested exception to the underground utility requirement from Title 9 for Parcel A; therefore, Staff recommends that the project be re-noticed and continued to the December 21, 2020 Zoning Administrator hearing. Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, December 21, 2020 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Two-Lot Minor Subdivision County File(s): #MS19-0007 Applicant: Owner: Campos Development, LLC Same as Applicant Zoning/General Plan: Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan Site Address/Location: 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN: 183-172-001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project indicating no significant environmental impacts. Project Planner: Margaret Mitchell, Planner II (925) 674-7804 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet). This subdivision includes a request for approval to remove 25 code-protected trees and requests approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The project also includes an exception to the Title 9 sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the requirement for existing overhead utility lines to be relocated underground for Parcel A. The development of a residence is not proposed as a part of this project. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 18 II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: A. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before the County, including the Initial Study and the comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation measures will have a significant effect on the environment and that the October 1, 2020, Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) dated October 2020, finding it to be adequate and complete, finding that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and finding that it reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis, and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. C. APPROVE the proposed Tentative Map (County File #MS19-0007) by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. D. APPROVE the exception to the sidewalk requirements for the subdivision and the underground utility requirements for Parcel A by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. E. APPROVE the tree permit to allow the removal of 13 code-protected trees from Parcel A and the Blackwood Drive public right of way by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. F. APPROVE the variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) by ADOPTING the attached findings and conditions of approval. G. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 3 of 18 III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The subject property is located within the Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan Land Use designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R- 20) Zoning District. C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identified several potential environmental impacts in the areas of: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Tribal/Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The MND was prepared indicating that no significant environmental impacts will be created by the proposed project, with the enforcement of the stated mitigation measures. The MND and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9, 2020. The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29, 2020, during which 15 public comment letters were received. These comments are expanded on in the Public Comments section of this Staff Report. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) is available for the project and the applicant has agreed to all of the mitigations. All of the mitigations are herein incorporated as conditions of approval. D. Previous Applications: a. LP05-2097: A Land Use Permit for a home occupation to allow administrative work for a nurse recruiting business. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The subject property is within an established neighborhood that is primarily within the R-20 Residential Zoning District, with a small portion of properties in an R-15 Zoning District to the east and a small portion of properties within a P-1 Zoning District to the southwest. Interstate 680 is located approximately 0.6 miles to the west, and the City of Walnut Creek is approximately 570 feet to the northeast and 1,700 feet to the southwest of the subject property. The subject property is a gently sloped lot located between Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, with Parcel A fronting ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 4 of 18 Blackwood Drive, a public road, and Parcel B fronting Norris Road, a private road. The property slopes more steeply from the existing residence located on Parcel A down to Blackwood Drive. Blackwood Drive has a pavement width of approximately 23 feet within a 50-foot right of way. Norris Road provides access to Mountain View Boulevard to the southeast and has a right of way of approximately 30 feet. The pavement ends at the subject property where the easement is chained off. The pavement resumes 800 feet to the northwest, where Norris Road provides access to San Miguel Drive. Portions of the Norris Road private road easement were widened as part of MS05-0046, where the pavement was also widened and curbs were constructed along the frontage. An existing residence is located on Parcel A and is to remain with no proposed modifications. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a tentative map for a minor subdivision that proposes to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet). Parcel A will have a depth of 180.98 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet, and Parcel B will have a depth of 184.85 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet. This subdivision includes a request for approval of a Tree Permit to remove 25 code-protected trees to allow for the future construction of a new residence on Parcel B, for the widening of Blackwood Drive, and due to the poor health of some of the trees. The subdivision also requests approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). Future development of one new single-family residence on Parcel B would be the result of approval of this subdivision, and the new residence would be able to meet all required setbacks. The pavement of Blackwood Drive will be widened to 36 feet within the existing 50-foot right of way. Frontage improvements that will be required include pavement widening, curb and sidewalk to be constructed along the frontage, with the face of the curb to be located 18 feet from the centerline of the right of way, however, the project includes an exception to the sidewalk requirement as there are no other sidewalks in this neighborhood. The existing driveway will be redesigned, due to the widening of Blackwood Drive and the steepness of the existing driveway. The Norris Road easement and pavement will be widened to match other portions of Norris Road, and a curb will be constructed at the frontage. A paved turnaround will be added at the termination of the paved portion of Norris Road, which will also provide access to Parcel B. The project also includes an exception to the requirement that overhead utilities shall be relocated underground for Parcel A. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 5 of 18 VII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division: In a returned Agency Comment Request form dated July 23, 2019, Building Inspection staff did not have any comments. B. Department of Conservation and Development, Advanced Planning Division: In a returned Agency Comment Request form dated August 6, 2019, Advanced Planning staff had no comments. C. Department of Conservation and Development, Housing Programs: In a returned Agency Comment Request form dated August 13, 2019, Housing staff stated that the project is not subject to the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and that the site is not listed in the County’s Housing Element Sites Inventory. D. Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division (PWD): In a memo dated March 31, 2020, PWD staff provided their analysis of the project and conditions of approval. All PWD recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into this project. See the attached memo for details on PWD staff comments. E. Public Works Department, Traffic Division: In a returned Agency Comment Request form dated September 8, 2019, Traffic staff commented that as Parcel B will gain access from Norris Road and Norris Road is a private road at this location and not a through road, have right of access of private Norris Road been established. F. Public Work Department, Flood Control District: In an email dated August 26, 2019, Flood Control staff commented that the subject property is located in the unformed Drainage Area 49, so no drainage fees are due, and that Flood Control staff do not have any comments at this time. G. Contra Costa Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division: In a letter dated August 29, 2019, Environmental Health staff advised that prior issuance of Environmental Health permits are required for any well or soil boring activity, and for the removal of abandoned wells or septic tanks. It is recommended that the parcels be served by public sewer and public water. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 6 of 18 Construction debris and hazardous materials must be disposed of at an appropriate facility meeting applicable requirements. See the attached letter for additional details on these comments. H. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD): In a letter dated August 28, 2019, Fire District staff stated that access shall comply with Fire District requirements, the project may require the installation of an approved Fire District turnaround, the developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection, and any development shall be subject to the review and approval of the fire district. Please refer to the attached letter for the details of their comments and additional requirements. I. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San): In an email dated August 12, 2019, Central San staff advised that the subject property is within their service boundary and is currently receiving sanitary sewer service. The new proposed unit would not be expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system, nor interfere with existing facilities. See the attached email for details on Central San staff comments. J. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD): In a letter dated August 16, 2019, EBMUD staff stated that once the property is subdivided, separate meters for each lot will be required. A main extension at the project sponsor’s expense will be required to serve the proposed development. The project sponsor should contact EBMUD’s New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine the costs and conditions of providing water service to the development. See the attached letter for additional EBMUD staff comments. In another letter dated October 26, 2020, EBMUD provided comments during the public comment period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in relation to water service, geology, and water conservation. In addition to the water service comments stated above, a minimum 20-foot right-of-way is required for installation of the new water mains. EBMUD’s New Business Office can provide a water service estimate to determine the costs and conditions of providing additional water service. Engineering and installation of water mains and services require substantial lead time and should be considered in the overall development schedule of the future residences. K. Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District: In a returned agency comment request form dated August 8, 2019, Vector Control District staff ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 7 of 18 stated that at no time should any aspect of the project or property produce, harbor, or maintain vectors or other nuisances. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A CEQA Initial Study was prepared for the project. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources, and it includes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The public review comment period for the Initial Study extended from October 9, 2020 until October 29, 2020, during which 15 letters were received from neighbors within the vicinity of the subject property in opposition to the project. Two additional letters were received after the conclusion of the public comment period. Following are the staff responses to the comments received. A. Daniel Speir – 2180 Hadden Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Speir will be sharing a fence with the new property designated as Parcel B. The elevation of the parcel is higher than their property and the new residence will look down into their backyard. In order to maintain as much privacy as possible, Mr. Speir requests that trees #31 and #33 not be removed. They also request that the developer replace the fence separating the properties with a new taller fence. Staff Response: Trees #31 and #33 are proposed for removal by the arborist due to their close proximity to the tentative storm drain location on Parcel B, however, the removal of these trees is not recommended for approval at this time. A separate tree permit will be required when the construction of a single- family residence on Parcel B is proposed. Installation of a privacy fence is not a requirement of the minor-subdivision. B. Barbara Spruck and Ryan Kish – 2154 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Ms. Spruck and Mr. Kish are in strong opposition to the project. They asked the following questions: • Clearly outline the process for reviewing this proposal. Is it reviewed at only one meeting and a final decision will be made? • Who makes the final decision on approval or revisions to this plan? • Will the concerned neighbors have future/additional opportunity to ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 8 of 18 express their concerns and have the broader committee address them? • Who approves the authorization to allow one home (on a different road) to access/create a front entry to this new home on an existing private road? • As a private road, who manages the maintenance in the future once the extensions are complete? Will the county then manage future repairs/maintenance? Will it then no longer be considered a private road? Staff Response: An email response was sent to Ms. Spruck and Mr. Kish in response to their questions. The project is subject to a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator, during which public testimony will be heard. The Zoning Administrator will render a decision regarding the approval of the minor subdivision, followed by a ten-day appeal period. If the decision is appealed, the project will be subject to a public hearing before the County Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission will render a decision, followed by a 10-day appeal period. If the County Planning Commission decision is appealed, the project will be subject to a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors renders the final decision. The subject property currently fronts both Blackwood Drive and Norris Road, although Blackwood Drive functions as the primary front to the existing residence on proposed Parcel A. With approval of the minor-subdivision, Blackwood Drive would front Parcel A only, and Norris Road would front Parcel B only. Although approval of the minor subdivision would require improvements to Norris Road on the subject property and within the private road easement in front of the subject property, Norris Road would remain a private road. C. Dan and Kelly Schoenberg – 2158 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Although Mr. and Mrs. Schoenberg live across the street, they did not receive notice of the proposed project. They would like to understand their rights as a Norris Road property owner. The project will disrupt them in a major way and they strongly oppose the project. Staff Response: An email response was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Schoenberg regarding their questions. A Notice of Public Review for the Initial Study was mailed to the adjacent property owners and occupants. The public hearing ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 9 of 18 notice for the Zoning Administrator hearing was mailed to properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property. The hearing before the Zoning Administrator is a public hearing during which testimony may be heard and considered in the rendering of a decision. D. Daniel Sanom – 2175 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Kimberly J. Rotticci – 2154 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Jon Jones and Allison Kenney – 2244 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Darcy Wallace – 2167 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Ryan Kish – 2154 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Allison Kenney – 2244 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Sharon Heath Dauer – 2167 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Valentina and Yevgeny German – 2171 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Comment: The neighbors listed above would like to understand their rights as a property owners/long term property tenants. The project will disrupt the neighborhood in many ways and they strongly oppose the project. They would like to know how the process will work since many of the neighbors are concerned; they want to make sure there will be an opportunity to make their voices heard and they have many more questions that need to be answered before this is approved. Staff Response: An email response was sent to each neighbor listed above regarding their questions. Please see the response to comments B and C above regarding the project review process and opportunity to provide testimony. E. Jon Jones and Allison Kenney – 2244 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Jones and Ms. Kenney state that the removal of Siberian elm trees #58 and #59 will negatively impact their property in two ways: the trees provide privacy from the street and will damage the aesthetics of their property; and they will lose natural shading and will be in direct line of site for the setting sun causing their energy expense to drastically increase during the summer months. (Please see the attached letter for more information and photographs.) Staff Response: The removal of trees #58 and 59 is recommended for approval due to the grading required on Parcel A. As restitution for this removal, the planting of new trees on Parcel A will be a Condition of Approval (please see COA #12 for details). These trees may be located such that they continue to ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 10 of 18 provide privacy and shading in the future. F. Gary Wallace – 2167 Norris Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Wallace would like to understand his rights as a property owner in the neighborhood. His concerns include but are not limited to: • The widening and disruption of Norris Road which is privately maintained • The expansion of pavement/road into existing property yards • The ability for this property to create a front entrance to a new home on a private road • The widening/disturbance of Blackwood Drive • The removal of 25 trees that are not unhealthy • The disturbance of wildlife • Increased traffic to a quiet neighborhood Mr. Wallace would like the following questions answered: • Clearly outline the process for reviewing this proposal. Is it reviewed at only one meeting and a final decision will be made? • Who makes the final decision on approval or revisions to this plan? • Will the concerned neighbors have future/additional opportunity to express their concerns and have the broader committee address them? • Who approves the authorization to allow one home (on a different road) to access/create a front entry to this new home on an existing private road? • As a private road, who manages the maintenance in the future once the extensions are complete? Will the county then manage future repairs/maintenance? Will it then no longer be considered a private road? • Given the proposal will affect several existing property landscaping/yards/trees how is this managed? Will new landscaping, trees, and costs be provided if such is approved? Given the fact that some of the homes and yards of those homes being affected have been in their existing configuration since at least the early 1930s, disruption of these properties should not be allowed. There are many factors that might impact Norris Road which is currently maintained by five current property owners such as increased traffic, damage to the private road during construction, parking during construction, and changing the look of the current ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 11 of 18 Norris Road layout by adding curbs. Staff Response: Please see the staff response to comment B above regarding the questions that are the same, and the above staff responses related to tree removal. The proposed project will not impact the landscaping, yards, and trees of the surrounding properties – required road improvements are as shown on the attached Tentative Map and are only for the sections of Blackwood Drive and Norris Road that front the subject property. These are not requirements for all properties located on Norris Road and Blackwood Drive, and the road improvements will not change the configuration of other properties located on Norris Road and Blackwood Drive. There will be some disruption to the neighborhood during construction; however, the project is subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and the construction will be temporary. G. Charles Wickman – 2188 Hadden Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Wickman has concerns regarding the negative environmental impact that the project will have on the surrounding area including: • The reduction in trees would increase surface temperature of adjacent property during the dry summer months. • Many of the trees have a much wider trunk than reported in the reference document. • There are many birds that have spent significant time on the property. • Deer/coyotes/etc have been using the property as a highway and use it to access other parts of the neighborhood. Staff Response: Please see the attached arborist report for more details regarding the size of trees proposed for removal. The arborist has recommended removal of trees based on the proposed improvements related to the subdivision as well as for the tentative location of a single-family residence on Parcel B. The arborist states that the thinning of the trees on Parcel B will allow the remaining trees to grow to their mature size, which have been previously stunted due to competition of the existing trees. At this time, staff is recommending that tree removal be approved only for trees on Parcel A. Tree removal on Parcel B will require a separate tree permit when construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B is proposed. The biological mitigation measures are designed to reduce impacts to birds that may be nesting within the trees proposed for removal (see the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for details related to the required mitigation measures). ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 12 of 18 H. T. Eric Sun – 2203 San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Sun has concerns that the tree removal might include approximately 10 trees that are located on the unpaved section of Norris Road within their property lines and subject to the Norris Road public easement. These trees line his backyard fence and if they are to be removed, Mr. Sun objects to their removal and requests mitigation. See the attached letter and photographs for more detailed comments. Staff Response: The trees indicated on Mr. Sun’s photos are not proposed for removal. Only trees within the subject property or just in front of the subject property within the Blackwood Drive public right of way are proposed for removal; no trees within the Norris Road private road easement are proposed for removal as part of this project. Trees approved for removal on the subject property will require restitution for their removal, which includes the planting of replacement trees on the property. At this time, staff is recommending that tree removal be approved only for trees on Parcel A. Tree removal on Parcel B will require a separate tree permit when construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B is proposed. I. James Attencio – 2196 Hadden Road, Walnut Creek Comment: Mr. Attencio states that the MND does not provide an adequate analysis regarding the effect of tree removal on the property, specifically loss of shade and the subsequent use of air conditioners, etc. The applicant has not demonstrated undue hardship that allows them to receive the setback variance requested on the property for the new dwelling. Mr. Attencio also has concerns regarding the impact the changes to the driveway and widening of Blackwood would have on surrounding properties. Staff Response: Per the attached arborist report, the removal of some trees will allow the remaining trees to grow to full maturity, and there will be replacement trees required to be planted as restitution for trees to be removed. As mentioned above, it is recommended that tree removal be approved only for trees on Parcel A. Tree removal on Parcel B will require a separate tree permit when construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B is proposed. Please also see the staff response to the comments above and the attached Conditions of Approval regarding tree removal. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 13 of 18 There are no setback variances proposed for the construction of a new residence on Parcel B. The existing 12.1-foot minimum side yard of the existing residence on Parcel A is at variance (where a minimum side yard of 15 feet is required), however, the side and front property lines are to remain as is and the existing residence will not be modified as part of this project, and therefore approval of a variance for the existing side yard is not required. Surrounding properties are not subject to the required road improvements to Blackwood Drive and the re-grading of the existing driveway on Parcel A. Although construction for these improvements may cause a disturbance in the neighborhood, the disturbance will be temporary and limited to the construction hours in the attached Conditions of Approval. J. Pam Kessler – 2245 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Comment: The plans call for an excessive amount of tree removal that will impact their natural environment, and Ms. Kessler is in agreement with Allison and Jon Jones. Staff Response: Per the attached arborist report, the removal of some trees will allow the remaining trees to grow to full maturity, and there will be replacement trees required to be planted as restitution for trees to be removed. As mentioned above, it is recommended that tree removal be approved only for trees on Parcel A. Tree removal on Parcel B will require a separate tree permit when construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B is proposed. Please also see the staff response to the comments above and the attached Conditions of Approval regarding tree removal. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: The attached February 25, 2020 Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying would create two residential parcels, one fronting Blackwood Drive, a public road, and one fronting Norris Road, a private road. The Tentative Map includes the tentative footprint of one future single-family residence on Parcel B, which shows future development of the property would result in a comparably sized residence for the area. The single-family residential use is allowed by right in the R-20 Zoning District and would be consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 14 of 18 B. General Plan Consistency: The subject property is within the Single-Family, Low- Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. The SL designation allows for a residential density between 1.0 and 2.9 single family units per net acre. The 0.9-acre site allows for a development density of 2.7 units per net acre. With approval of the Tentative Map, the project site would have a development density that would be consistent with the SL designation. C. Zoning Compliance: The subject property is located in a Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. The two lots that would be created by the Tentative Map would be consistent with the lot area (minimum 20,000 square- feet), and lot depth (minimum 120 feet) requirements for the R-20 District, but the lot width for both lots is 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) and requires approval of a variance. The attached Tentative Map shows the tentative footprint of one single-family residence for Parcel B. The proposed single- family residence on the project site would meet all setback requirements of the R-20 Zoning District. The existing 12.1-foot minimum side yard of the existing residence on Parcel A is at variance (where a minimum side yard of 15 feet is required), however, the side and front property lines are to remain as is and the existing residence will not be modified as part of this project, and therefore approval of a variance for the existing side yard is not required. Although the project requests approval to remove 25 trees from the subject property and within the Blackwood Drive public right of way, the residence footprint, driveway, and 4-inch storm drain on Parcel B are tentative locations and will not be constructed at this time. Therefore, tree removal of 13 code- protected trees on Parcel A and within the Blackwood Drive public right of way are recommended for approval to allow for the required grading, and roadway and storm drain improvements, but approval will not be recommended for removal of trees on Parcel B at this time. Any tree removal proposed for Parcel B will require a separate tree permit when construction of a single-family residence is proposed. D. Traffic and Circulation: The subject property is located between Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek. Blackwood Drive is a public street. It has a pavement width of approximately 23 feet within a 50-foot right of way. It is planned to be widened to a 36-foot pavement width, but no additional right of way is required. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 15 of 18 The County Ordinance Code requires frontage improvements including pavement widening, curb and sidewalk be constructed along the project frontage, the face of curb to be located 18 feet from the centerline of the right of way. Curb and streetlights have been installed along the opposite side of the street. The pavement widening requires re-design of the existing driveway serving the residence due to its existing steep gradient. It should be noted that there are no other sidewalks in this neighborhood. An exception request from the sidewalk requirement was submitted for consideration in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 92-6 of the County Ordinance Code. There is little opportunity that any additional sidewalks will be constructed in this area via the land development process, and therefore, the Public Works Department is not averse to the granting of this exception. Norris Road is a private road providing access to Mountain View Boulevard to the southeast. It has a basic easement width of 30 feet. The pavement terminates at the subject property and the easement is chained off at that point. The pavement resumes 800 feet to the northwest, providing access for those fronting residences to San Miguel Drive. Portions of the right of way have been dedicated to the public or otherwise widened as a private easement over the years, but at the present it remains a private road. The most recent subdivision in the area, MS05-0046 filed in 2007, widened the private easement an additional 10-feet and dedicated an additional 6-foot public utility easement contiguous to the widened right of way. That subdivision also widened the pavement and constructed curb along their frontage. Similar curb and pavement should be constructed along the subject frontage. The face of curb should be located 16 feet from the north property line. Based on the property configurations and existing residences along the 800- foot pavement gap adjacent to the Norris Road easement, it is unlikely it will ever be extended under the development process. Since this will most likely be the termination of the paved roadway from the Mountain View Boulevard side, the County Ordinance Code requires construction of a paved turnaround. Appurtenant right of way for this turnaround should be reserved for the easement holders of Norris Road. E. Underground Utilities: Chapter 96-10 of the County Ordinance Code requires all overhead utilities serving the subdivision, as well as existing facilities along the public street frontage to be relocated underground. This will apply to the existing utilities along Blackwood Drive. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 16 of 18 The applicant submitted an exception request from this Code requirement citing similar reasoning as with the sidewalk exception discussed above. There is little opportunity that any additional utility undergrounding that will occur in this area via the land development process, and therefore, the Public Works Department is not averse to the granting of this exception for Parcel A. However, the future residence on Parcel B will be required to comply with the underground utility requirement. F. Drainage: Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires that all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm water to an adequate natural watercourse. The applicant intends to collect stormwater runoff from the site and convey it to the storm drain system along the south side of Blackwood Drive. Adequacy of this system will need to be verified before it can be deemed acceptable in terms of County Code requirements. G. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications that will create and/or redevelop impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet in compliance with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This minor subdivision estimates approximately 8,235 square feet of new impervious surface (assuming 5,180 square feet of impervious area for a new residence on Parcel B), which is below the threshold for requiring submittal of a SWCP. The estimated square footage of impervious surface for the future residence is based on the Flood Control District’s worksheet relative to drainage fee calculations for various lot sizes. In the event the new house and appurtenant improvements exceed the 10,000 square foot threshold, a SWCP shall be prepared using the latest edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook and template (available at www.cccleanwater.org) and meet requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The design, location, and installation of the clean water facilities cannot be deferred to a later date linked to the acquisition of building permits for each lot proposed with this subdivision ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 17 of 18 request. Provision C.10, Trash Load Reduction, of the County’s NPDES Permit requires control of trash in local waterways. To prevent or remove trash loads from municipal storm drain systems, trash capture devices shall be installed in catch basins (excludes those located within a bioretention/stormwater treatment facility). Devices must meet the County’s NPDES Permit and approved by Public Works Department. The location must be approved by the Public Works Department. H. Floodplain Management: The subject property is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. I. Annexation to Lighting District: The subject property is not annexed into the lighting district. The applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to annex into the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for the Countywide Street Light Financing. J. Area of Benefit Fee: The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the South County Traffic Fee, Tri- Valley Transportation Fee, Southern Contra Costa (SCC) Sub Regional Fee, and SCC Regional Fee, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. K. Drainage Area Fee and Creek Mitigation: The subject property is located within unformed Drainage Area 49. There is currently no fee ordinance adopted by Board of Supervisors for this area. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed two-lot minor subdivision is consistent with the Single-Family, Low- Density (SL) General Plan land use designation and the Single-Family Residential (R- 20) Zoning District. Staff recommends (1) adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this application and the respective Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the attached findings; (2) direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; (3) approval of County File MS19-0007 two-lot minor subdivision, including the Tentative Parcel Map, Tree Permit, and Variance and (4) grant approval of the exception requests to County Code Section 92-6 requiring ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 18 of 18 sidewalks and Section 96-10 requiring all overhead utilities to be relocated underground, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval 2. Maps (Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph) 3. Public Comments 4. Acceptance of Mitigation Measures 5. CEQA Initial Study (IS) & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 6. Arborist Report 7. Agency Comments 8. Tentative Map ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 1 of 21 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007, CAMPOS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (APPLICANT & 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. This minor subdivision will create two new parcels that will result in the future development of a single-family residence for Parcel B. The project will not generate more than 100 peak-hour traffic trips to and from the subject property. 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 is served by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). In a letter dated August 16, 2019 EBMUD stated that subdivision of the subject property will require a main extension to service the new lot. Separate meters will be required for each lot. In another letter dated October 26, 2020, EBMUD provided comments during the comment period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in relation to water service, geology, and water conservation. In addition to the water service comments stated above, a minimum 20-foot right-of-way is required for installation of the new water mains. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting EBMUD regarding its requirements and permits. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The GMP requires new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. The subject property is served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. In a letter dated August 12, 2019 the Central Sanitary District stated the project resulting in the construction of one new residence is not expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system. This work will be reviewed by the sanitary district and will be approved prior to issuance of a building permit from the County Building Department. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 2 of 21 whereby the building plans must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection: The GMP requires that a fire station be within one and one-half miles of development in urban, suburban and central business district area, or requires that automatic fire sprinkler systems be installed to satisfy this standard. The subject property is in the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The applicant will be required to meet applicable Fire District requirements. Further, fire sprinklers will need to be installed in the new single- family residence as required by the Fire District. The District will inspect the roadway improvements, and the plans for the future single-family residence for compliance with its requirements for residential buildings. The future construction of one additional residence will not substantially increase the demand for fire services. 5. Public Protection: The GMP requires 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 one new single- family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for police service facilities or personnel. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a fee of $1,000.00 for residential construction on Parcel B for police services mitigation in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 6. Parks and Recreation: The GMP requires three-acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 in population. The one new single-family residence will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Further, prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay Park Impact and Park Dedications fees for residential construction on Parcel B. The fees will be used to fund park and recreation improvements in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The subject property is not within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year flood boundary) as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) and drainage improvements will be subject to the requirements of the County Code and the Public Works Department design standards, as well as the regulations of the national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 3 of 21 Discharge Control Ordinance. Accordingly, no flood control or risk assessment is required. B. Tentative Parcel Map The following are required findings for the approval of a tentative map: 1. The subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; Project Finding: The subject property is within the Single-Family, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. The SL designation allows for a residential density between 1.0 and 2.9 single family units per net acre. The 0.9-acre site allows for a development density of 2.7 units per net acre. With approval of the Tentative Map, the project site would have a development density that would be consistent with the SL designation. The subject property is located in a Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. The two lots that will be created by the February 25, 2020 Tentative Map are consistent with the lot area (minimum 20,000 square-feet), and lot depth (minimum 120 feet) requirements for the R-20 District, but the lot width for both lots is 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) and requires approval of a variance. The attached Tentative Map shows the tentative footprint of one single-family residence for Parcel B. The proposed single-family residence on Parcel B would meet all setback requirements of the R-20 Zoning District. 2. The proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding: The minor subdivision will accommodate one new single-family residence with access onto the private street Norris Road. The new residence will not create any significant traffic or circulation impacts. Development on the project site will be required to comply with County storm water requirements, as well as other conditions included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Parcel B, the applicant will be required to contribute fees for parks and recreation, school districts, and police services. C. Tree Permit The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a Tree Permit have been satisfied as follows: ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 4 of 21 1. Reasonable development of the property would require alteration or removal of a code-protected tree, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. 2. The arborist report indicates that some of the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. D. Variance The following are required findings for the approval of a variance: 1. Any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The granting of a variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet (where 120 feet is required) for both parcels will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. The configuration of the existing lot is already 110.8 feet in width and will not change with the subdivision of the property. The subject property cannot be subdivided in any other way to allow for the minimum required average width to be met without compromising other requirements. The surrounding lots have all been developed and are typically smaller than the subject property and the two proposed lots. Many of the properties adjacent to and within the vicinity of the subject property are also within the R-20 Zoning District and are substandard in width. 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding: The subject property has an existing width of 110.8. In order to subdivide the lot and meet the minimum requirements of lot size and lot depth, the property must be subdivided in the proposed configuration. As the subject property is surrounded by other developed lots, it is not possible to widen the existing property to meet the required minimum lot width without approval of a lot line adjustment, which would cause the adjacent properties to be substandard in size or width. As mentioned above, many of the surrounding properties within ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 5 of 21 the R-20 Zoning District are also substandard in width. Thus, strict application of the minimum lot width would deprive the subject property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding: The intent and purpose of the Single-Family Residential (R-20) land use district is to facilitate orderly development and maintenance of single-family residential neighborhoods. Single-family dwellings are an allowed use on each lot within the R-20 land use district. With the reduced lot width, a single-family residence can be constructed on Parcel B and still meet the required minimum setbacks. Therefore, approval of a reduced lot width meets the intent and purpose of the R-20 land use district. E. Exceptions The following are required findings for the approval of exceptions to the requirements of Title 9, Chapter 92-6 and Chapter 96-10: 1. That there are unusual circumstances or conditions affecting the property. Project Finding: An exception request from the sidewalk requirement was submitted for consideration in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 92- 6 of the County Ordinance Code. Improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Chapter 96-10 of the County Ordinance Code requires all overhead utilities serving the subdivision, as well as existing facilities along the public street frontage, to be relocated underground. The applicant submitted an exception request from this Code requirement citing similar reasoning as with the sidewalk exception discussed above. Underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. 2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 6 of 21 Project Finding: As mentioned above, there are no other sidewalks in the neighborhood, and other properties also have overhead utility lines. Therefore, not relocating existing overhead utility lines for Parcel A underground, and not requiring sidewalks when they will not connect to any other sidewalks in the neighborhood is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. Project Finding: The utility lines for the existing residence on Parcel A are currently overhead, and there are not currently any sidewalks in the neighborhood. Therefore, allowing the utility lines for Parcel A to remain overhead, and not requiring sidewalks for the subdivision will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other people in the territory in which the property is situated. F. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identified several potential environmental impacts in the areas of: Air Quality, Tribal/Cultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. The MND was prepared indicating that no significant environmental impacts will be created by the proposed project, with the enforcement of the stated mitigation measures. The MND and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9, 2020. The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29, 2020, during which 15 public comment letters were received. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included in the Conditions of Approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: Project Approval 1. Minor Subdivision and Tentative Parcel Map: The Two-Lot Minor Subdivision is APPROVED, as generally shown and based on the following documents: ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 7 of 21 • Application and materials submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on August 2, 2019; • Revised Tentative Parcel Map for Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 and received by CDD on March 5, 2020; • Arborist Report dated September 23, 2019 (and revised December 18, 2019) prepared by Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist (#WE-10270A), of Traverso Tree Service. 2. Tree Permit: A Tree Permit to allow the removal of 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from within the Blackwood Drive public right of way), is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 3. Variance: A variance to allow a lot width of 110.8 feet for both Parcel A and Parcel B (where 120 feet is required) is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 4. Exceptions: Exceptions from Title 9 to the sidewalk requirements for both parcels and the underground utility line requirement for Parcel A is APPROVED, subject to the conditions below. 5. Any modifications to the project approved under this permit that is not required by a Condition of Approval herein shall be subject to the review and approval of the CDD. Application Costs 6. The Minor Subdivision application was subject to an initial deposit of $5,400.00. The application is subject to time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to an application for a grading or building permit, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013/340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of approval. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 8 of 21 Indemnification 7. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate full in the defense. Compliance Report 8. Prior to filing a Parcel Map or at the time of application for a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit an application for a COA Compliance Review and provide a report on compliance with the conditions of approval for the review and approval by the CDD. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,500.00 that is subject to time and material costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each condition followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. A copy of the permit conditions of approval may be obtained from the CDD. Child Care Fee 9. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay a fee toward childcare facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. Park Impact and Park Dedication Fees 10. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall pay park impact and park dedication fees as established by the Board of Supervisors. Police Services Fee 11. Prior to the submittal of building or grading permits for the construction of a single- ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 9 of 21 family residence on Parcel B, the applicant shall contribute $1,000.00 to the County for police services mitigation as established by the Board of Supervisors. Tree Removal 11. The 13 trees approved for removal (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) shall remain on the property until a building or grading permit for development of the subdivision has been obtained. All future development on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be subject to the provisions of the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. Required Restitution for Approved Tree Removal 12. The following measures are intended to provide restitution for the 13 code-protected trees (eight (8) from Parcel A and five (5) from the Blackwood Drive public right of way) that have been approved for removal: A. Tree Restitution Planting/Irrigation Plan: Prior to removal of any tree or obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of CDD. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least eight (8) 15-gallon size drought tolerant trees within Parcel A. The plan shall be accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements on the plan. B. The tree restitution planting plan shall comply with the requirements of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or County Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, whichever ordinance applies. Information relating to this ordinance is available at the Application and Permit Center. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Plan Improvements: Prior to removal of the trees, the applicant shall submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) that is acceptable to CDD to ensure that the restitution plan is implemented. Determination of Security Amount: The security shall provide for a breakdown of all of the following costs: • A labor and materials estimate for planting the eight (8) 15-gallon size draught tolerant trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required, prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape contractor. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 10 of 21 • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Initial Fee Deposit for Processing a Security: The County ordinance requires that the applicant pay fees for all staff time and material costs associated with processing a landscape improvement security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial deposit of $200. D. Duration of Security: The security shall be retained by the County for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months following the completion of replanting and construction or grading activity to ensure that the restitution plan is successfully implemented. A prerequisite of releasing the bond between 12 and 24 months shall be to have the applicant arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and prepare a report on the planted trees’ health and successful implementation of the plan. If CDD determines that the applicant has not been diligent in implementing the plan, then CDD may require that part or all of the security be used to implement the plan. Arborist Expense 13. The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the applicant and/or property owner. State Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO) 14. If any landscaping is proposed to be installed during development for Parcel B that equals 500 square-feet or more, prior to issuance of a building permit a Compliance Review application shall be submitted and approved that shows compliancy with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Construction Period Restrictions and Requirements 15. 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) ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 11 of 21 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. 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. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 12 of 21 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MEASURES APPLIED AS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE MS19-0007: The applicant shall implement and complete the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as additional Conditions of Approval for County File MS19-0007: Air Quality 16. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans: A. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; B. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; C. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; D. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; E. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; F. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; G. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 13 of 21 H. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 17. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction that would occur on-site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the applicant shall have a preconstruction nesting survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Nesting surveys must be completed during springtime of the year during which construction will occur in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. An established buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone for raptors and 50-foot zone for common passerines until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by July 15th, but sometimes not until into August. Any qualified biologist hired to conduct nesting surveys or that monitors any active nests shall have the authority to shut the job down if this is necessary to protect the nesting birds. At the time the ornithologist determines that the young have fledged the nest and that the young are no longer dependent upon the nesting tree, the project may resume without any restrictions for nesting birds. Once the young fledge and the nest is no longer in use, as determined by the ornithologist, any tree that must be removed to accommodate the project may be removed without further requirements for nesting birds. Until such nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence, impacts to this hawk from reasonably anticipated future development on the remainder parcel are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Tribal and Cultural Resources 18. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during project-related ground disturbance and shall be included on all construction plans: ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 14 of 21 A. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. It is recommended that such deposits be avoided by further ground disturbance activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they should be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical resources; If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If eligible, desposits will need to be avoided by impacts or such impacts must be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, a report should be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa County agencies. B. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007: The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the tentative map submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on March 5, 2020. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval prior to filing of the ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 15 of 21 Parcel Map. General Requirements 19. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on March 5, 2020. 20. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements - Public (Blackwood Drive Frontage) 21. The applicant shall construct curb, 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall construct face of curb 18 feet from the right of way centerline. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): The applicant is granted an exception from installation of sidewalk along the subdivision frontage in that such improvements have not been required of recent neighboring subdivisions, are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation to connect to other sidewalks via the land development process. Any cracked and displaced curb or gutter shall be removed and replaced along the project frontage of Blackwood Drive. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 16 of 21 Roadway Improvements - Private (Norris Road Frontage) 22. The applicant shall construct curb, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Norris Road. Applicant shall construct face of curb 16 feet from the centerline of the existing 30-foot right of way. 23. The applicant shall construct a paved turnaround along the project frontage per County and Fire District standards. Road Dedications 24. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 25 feet of right of way along the north property line to provide for an ultimate 50-foot-wide right of way for Norris Road. The north property line coincides with the centerline of the existing 30-foot-wide private easement for Norris Road. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to encumber the turnaround area with one foot of additional clearance. 25. The applicant shall convey to all holders of private access and/or utility easement rights over Norris Road between the subject property and Mountain View Boulevard an additional easement to encumber the right of way dedication described above. 26. Dedicate a 6-foot wide Public Access and Utility Easement adjacent to the length of the dedicated right of way along Mountain View Boulevard. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 27. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 28. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right-of-way of Blackwood Drive. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 17 of 21 Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance Sight Distance 29. Applicant shall provide sight distance at the intersection of the private driveways with Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in accordance with Chapter 82-18 “Sight Obstructions at Intersections” of the County Ordinance Code. The applicant shall trim vegetation, as necessary, to provide sight distance at these intersections, and any new signage, landscaping, fencing, retaining walls, or other obstructions proposed at these intersections shall be setback to ensure that the sight line is clear of any obstructions. Street Lights 30. Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-1 formed for Countywide Street Light Financing. Annexation into a street light service area does not include the transfer of ownership and maintenance of street lighting on private roads. Utilities/Undergrounding 31. The applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities, including those along the frontage of Blackwood Drive. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. Exception (Subject to Advisory Agency findings and approval): Applicant shall be granted an exception from the undergrounding requirements of the Ordinance Code in that underground utilities are not characteristic of the area, and there is no expectation that any other utility lines in the neighborhood will be undergrounded via the land development process. The service lines to the new house on Parcel B will still be required to be installed underground. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 18 of 21 Drainage Improvements Collect and Convey 32. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 33. The nearest public drainage facility is the existing 24-inch storm drain located along the south side of Blackwood Drive. Applicant shall verify its adequacy prior to discharging run-off to it. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements 34. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 35. The applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 36. A private storm drain easement, conforming to the width specified in Section 914- 14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be reserved over the proposed storm drain line traversing Parcel A in favor of Parcel B. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 37. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stormwater pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's stormwater drainage: • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 19 of 21 • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter. • Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by the Public Works Department. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance 38. The applicant will not be subject to the requirements of Provision C.3 of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, since the proposed project will not create or replace at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. However, this project is subject to all other provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014, Ordinance No. 2005-01) and future development applications on the subject parcel may be required to comply with Provision C.3. ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 20 of 21 opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements, which include grading and drainage compliance. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. D. The applicant must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire District. E. The applicant must submit building plans to the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. F. The applicant is responsible for contacting the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding its requirements and permits. G. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District regarding its requirements and permits. H. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. I. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region (Region 3), 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534, of any ZA – December 21, 2020 County File #MS19-0007 Page 21 of 21 proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Wildlife Code. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. K. Further development of the parcel may need to comply with the latest Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. This compliance may require a Stormwater Control Plan and an Operations and Maintenance Plan prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Compliance may also require annexation of the subject property into the Community Facilities District 2007-1 (Stormwater Management Facilities) and entering into a standard Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. General Plan: Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) 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) AL, OIBA (Agricultural Lands & Off Island Bonus Area) CR (Commercial Recreation) ACO (Airport Commercial) LF (Landfill) PS (Public/Semi-Public) PR (Parks and Recreation) OS (Open Space) AL (Agricultural Lands) AC (Agricultural Core) DR (Delta Recreation) WA (Water) WS (Watershed) Address Points Streets Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R-20) 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) F-R (Forestry Recreational) F-R -FH (Forestry Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) F-1 (Water Recreational) F-1 -FH (Water Recreational - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 (General Agriculture) A-2, -BS (General Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) A-2 -FH (General Agriculture - Flood Hazard Combining District) A-2 -SD-1 (General Agriculture - Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District) A-2 -X (General Agriculture - Railroad Corridor Combining District) A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) A-3 -BS (Heavy Agriculture - Boat Storage Combining District) Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:1,128 Notes0.00.02 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.0 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. MS19-0007 Aerial Photograph Address Points Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations From:DanBethany Speir To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:Public comment - 2216 Blackwood Drive. 2-Lot Subdivision Date:Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:26:16 PM Hi Ms. Mitchell, I'd like to offer public comment on the proposed 2-Lot subdivision of 2216 Blackwood Drive in unincorporated Walnut Creek. My family lives at 2180 Hadden Road, and we would be sharing a fence with the new property designated as parcel "B". The elevation of parcel "B" is higher than our property, and the new residence will look down into our backyard. We would like to maintain as much privacy as possible, and to that end, I would like to request the following... trees #31 and #33, which are slated for removal, not be removed These trees are Valley Oaks of modest size and are very close to the fence line. Neither tree 31 nor 33 is close to the proposed building footprint or driveway. Keeping these trees would help us maintain some privacy in our backyard. We would like the developer to replace the short, dilapidated fence, separating the properties, which presents almost no visible barrier, with a new taller fence. Thank you very much. That concludes my comment. Daniel Speir 2180 Hadden Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 From:Barb Spruck To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Darcywallace5@gmail.com; Ryan Kish Subject:Opposition letter: 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007) Date:Friday, October 23, 2020 9:00:30 PM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, We are writing to express our concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, we would also like to understand our rights as property owners in the neighborhood. This project is to add one home to an existing property - and significantly disrupts no fewer than 3 areas of the neighborhood. This letter is to officially let you and the planning board know that we are in strong opposition to the proposed plan - as are many neighbors in the area. As follow up to this letter, can you please: Clearly outline the process for reviewing this proposal? Is it reviewed at only one meeting and a final decision will be made? Who makes the final decision on approval or revisions to this plan? Will the concerned neighbors have future / additional opportunity to express their concerns and have the broader committee address them? Who approves the authorization to allow one home (on a different road) to access / create a front entry to this new home - on an existing private road? As a private road, who manages the maintenance in the future once the extensions are complete? Will the county then manage future repairs / maintenance? WIll it then no longer be considered a private road? As property owners, there are many more questions and concerns that need to be addressed. Given the tight time frame, please advise as soon as possible. Thank you. Barbara Spruck / Ryan Kish, Norris Rd homeowners barbspruck@gmail.com 415-845-9992 From:Daniel Schoenberg To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:Concerns Regarding Address :2216 Blackwood Drive 2- Lot Subdivision (County File #MS19-0007) Date:Saturday, October 24, 2020 8:16:21 AM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, My wife Kelly and I have just become aware of the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). Although we live across the street from the proposed project, We did not receive any notice regarding it's proposal. After reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration shown to us via our neighbors, I would also like to understand my rights as a Norris Rd .property owner .   This project would disrupt myself along with the other Norris Rd. neighbors in a major way. The purpose of this letter is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please put me on the group email/mailing list so that I can receive all info on the proposal so that I can legally respond and protect my rights as a highly affected property owner Regards,   Dan and Kelly Schoenberg dan@sewingmachineshop.com 2158 Norris Rd Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dan 925-899-4110 Kelly 925-899-4111 From:Daniel Sanom To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Kori Sanom; Barb Spruck; darcywallace5@gmail.com Subject:2216 Blackwood Drive Subdivision Date:Saturday, October 24, 2020 10:08:46 AM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a property owner (2175 Norris Rd) in the neighborhood.   This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved.   Thank you.   Daniel Sanom dgsanom@yahoo.com 510-858-6676 From:Kimberly Rotticci To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Barb Spruck; Darcy Wallace Subject:2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek, CA Mitigated Negative Declaration Date:Saturday, October 24, 2020 11:37:33 AM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, I am writing to express my concerns and opposition with and to the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a long term property tennant/occupant at 2154 Norris Road, Walnut Creek, CA (in the neighborhood).   This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved.   Thank you.   Kimberly J Rotticci 2154 Norris Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 415-307-5108 krotticci@yahoo.com   From:Jon A. Jones To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:darcywallace5@gmail.com; barbspruck@gmail.com; JJ Subject:2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007 Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 11:22:49 AM To: Margaret Mitchell Email: Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us   Hello Margaret / CCC Dept. of Conservation Development: I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007. After reviewing the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I am sending this email to make you and the Planning Board / County Zoning Administrator aware that I strongly oppose the project as outlined. This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways, and my property in particular, and should be scrutinized at all levels. I would like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood, can you please advise how the process will work and what you need from me. I have many more questions that will need to be answered before this plan and/or subsequent plan requests are allowed to move forward. Please confirm receipt of this email, I want to make sure I have the opportunity to make my voice heard before the Public Comment Period expires on 10/29/20 before 5:00pm. Thank you. Jon A. Jones jjonespsiw@yahoo.com (510) 575-5769 2244 Blackwood Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 From:Jon A. Jones To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Allison Kenney; JJ Subject:Re: 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007 Date:Thursday, October 29, 2020 7:29:49 AM Attachments:2244 Blackwood Dr Response to 2216 Blackwood Dr 2-Lot Subdivision CF MS19-0007 28Oct2020.pdf Good morning Margaret, We appreciate very much you getting back to us and for providing the information on how the process will work. In the attached .pdf file, please find our initial Environmental Concerns response to MS19- 0007: This project proposes the removal of Siberian Elms #58 and #59 which will negatively impact our property in two ways. This component of the project should be denied and taken out of the development plan. I have included photos which I hope will assist you and the Planning Board / County Zoning Administrator understand why these (2) trees specifically are very important to our property, and should not be destroyed. Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information, and please do advise when the next public hearing will take place. If you would also please confirm receipt of the attached, that would be great. Thank you Margaret, Jon Jones and Allison Kenney 2244 Blackwood Dr Walnut Creek CA 94596 On Monday, October 26, 2020, 11:35:10 AM PDT, Margaret Mitchell <margaret.mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> wrote: Hello Jon, This is to acknowledge receipt of your comments sent via email on October 24, 2020 regarding MS19- 0007. In response to your question below, there will be a public hearing for this project before the Zoning Administrator, conducted via Zoom. Comments may be submitted prior to or during the hearing, and there will be opportunity to provide testimony at the hearing. A hearing notice will be sent to a 300-foot radius around the subject property at least 10 days prior to the hearing date, which will include the link for the Zoom meeting and instructions on how to submit comments. You may also submit additional comments and questions to me via email during this comment period, which will then be addressed in the staff report prepared for the Zoning Administrator hearing. Thank you, Margaret From: Jon A. Jones <jjonespsiw@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2020 11:23 AM To: Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> Cc: darcywallace5@gmail.com; barbspruck@gmail.com; JJ <jjonespsiw@yahoo.com> Subject: 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007 To: Margaret Mitchell Email: Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us Hello Margaret / CCC Dept. of Conservation Development: I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007. After reviewing the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I am sending this email to make you and the Planning Board / County Zoning Administrator aware that I strongly oppose the project as outlined. This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways, and my property in particular, and should be scrutinized at all levels. I would like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood, can you please advise how the process will work and what you need from me. I have many more questions that will need to be answered before this plan and/or subsequent plan requests are allowed to move forward. Please confirm receipt of this email, I want to make sure I have the opportunity to make my voice heard before the Public Comment Period expires on 10/29/20 before 5:00pm. Thank you. Jon A. Jones jjonespsiw@yahoo.com (510) 575-5769 2244 Blackwood Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 To: Margaret Mitchell, CCC Dept. of Conservation Development Fr: Jon A. Jones and Allison J. Kenney, 2244 Blackwood Dr, Walnut Creek CA 94596 Re: Proposed 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project (County File #MS19-0007) Dt: 10/28/2020 Hello Margaret / CCC Dept. of Conservation Development: We are writing to express our concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007. After reviewing the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, we are sending our response to make you and the Planning Board / County Zoning Administrator aware that we strongly oppose the project as outlined. The proposed removal of Siberian Elms #58 and #59 negatively impacts our property in two ways. We feel the following Environmental Factors support this opposition: Section 1: AESTHETICS C. Degradation of existing visual character – these trees provide exceptional privacy from the street and if removed will damage the esthetics of our property. D. Light – Although this section seems to refer to man-made light, Siberian Elm #58 and #59 sit due west from the middle of our property. If removed, we will lose the current natural shading that develops in the afternoon and we will be in the direct line of sight for the setting sun. During the summer months, our energy expense will increase drastically due to the additional (5) hours of glaring sunlight and this will be unacceptable. Please see the below photos where I have clearly outlined the trees that are planned to be removed: Please confirm receipt of this letter and advise us of when the next Public Hearing will take place regarding this project. Thank you very much, Jon A. Jones jjonespsiw@yahoo.com Allison J. Kenney Ajkenney80@gmail.com 2244 Blackwood Dr. Walnut Creek CA 94596 From:Darcy Wallace To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Barb Spruck Subject:Neighborhood Development Project Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 7:30:49 PM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood.   This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved.   Thank you, Darcy Wallace darcywallace5@gmail.com (510) 375-4500 2167 Norris Rd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Please confirm receipt of this email. From:Ryan Kish To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Barb Spruck; darcywallace5@gmail.com Subject:Re: 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007) Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 8:20:03 PM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood.   This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved.   Thank you. Ryan Kish Norris Road homeowner EcoRemodeler@gmail.com 480-206-5057 From:Allison Kenney To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:2216 Blackwood Drive 2 -Lot Subdivision project -County File # MS19-0007 Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 9:08:57 PM Hello Margaret / CCC Dept. of Conservation Development: I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision Project - County File Number #MS19-0007. After reviewing the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I am sending this email to make you and the Planning Board / County Zoning Administrator aware that I strongly oppose the project as outlined. This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways, and my property in particular, and should be scrutinized at all levels. I would like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood, can you please advise how the process will work and what you need from me. I have many more questions that will need to be answered before this plan and/or subsequent plan requests are allowed to move forward. Please confirm receipt of this email, I want to make sure I have the opportunity to make my voice heard before the Public Comment Period expires on 10/29/20 before 5:00pm. Thank you, Allison Kenney ajkenney80@gmail.com (925) 817-8875 2244 Blackwood Dr, Walnut Creek, CA From:Gary Wallace To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:BarbSpruck@gmail.com Subject:Neighborhood Development Project - 2216 Blackwood Drive 2 Lot Subdivision Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 9:21:11 PM Dear Margaret, I am writing to confirm our upcoming phone conversation on Monday 10/26/2020 AM (before 10:00) per the previous email on 10/23/2020, to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2 - Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood. I will be attaching photos representing the disruption to yards and trees that will be lost in a subsequent email, for your reference. This project is to add one home to an existing property - and significantly disrupts no fewer than 3 areas of the neighborhood. At a minimum, my concerns include (but ar not limited to): * The disturbance of 3 areas of the neighborhood: -The widening / disruption of a privately maintained road (Norris Road) -The expansion of pavement / road into existing property yards -The ability for this home - located on Blackwood Drive - to create a front entrance to the new home which would be located on a PRIVATE road (ie., Norris Road) -The widening / disturbance of Blackwood Lane -The removal of a minimum of 25 trees (which are NOT unhealthy) *The disturbance of wildlife (as outlined) *Increased traffic to the quiet neighborhood As follow-up to this letter, can you please address and clarify some other concerns associated with this project: -Please clearly outline the process for reviewing this proposal? Is it reviewed at only one meeting and a final decision will be made? -Will the concerned neighbors have future / additional opportunity to express their concerns and have the broader committee address them? -Who approves the authorization to allow one home (on a different road) to access / create a front entry to this new home - on an existing private road? As a private road, who manages the maintenance in the future if extensions are approved and completed? Will the county then manage future repairs / maintenance? Will it then no longer be considered a private road? -Given the proposal will affect several existing property landscaping / yards/ trees / how is this managed? Will new landscaping / trees / and costs be provided if such is approved? -Given the fact that some of the homes and yards of those homes being affected have been in their existing configuration since at least the early 1930's, disruption of these properties should not be allowed. - There are many factors that impact Norris Rd (a private road) which is currently maintained by the 5 current property owners.(ie., Increased traffic, damage to the private road during construction, parking during construction (which would be on private property, ie., the current owners property which extends to the centerline of the private road), changing the look of the current Norris Rd layout by adding curbs. Given the expansive impact to our property and the property of our neighbors on the private road portion of Norris Rd, we strongly oppose the approval of this project. Looking forward to our conversation on Monday, 10/26/2020, before 10:00AM. Thank you, Gary Wallace gwallaceelectric@gmail.com (510) 375-4400 2167 Norris Rd, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Please confirm receipt of this email. From:Gary Wallace To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:Re: 2216 Blackwood drive 2 lot subdivision Date:Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:56:52 PM Attachments:2020-10-29_ Norris rd letter.pdf Hi Margaret Attached is a personal letter opposing the proposed lot split. I have also attached a petition signed by the neighbors surrounding the project. Thank You Gary Wallace From:Daniel Schoenberg To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:Concerns re; #MS19-0007 Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 7:59:26 AM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, My husband Dan and I have just become aware of the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). Although we live across the street from the proposed project, We did not receive any notice regarding it's proposal. After reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration shown to us via our neighbors, I would also like to understand my rights as a Norris Rd .property owner .   This project would disrupt myself along with the other Norris Rd. neighbors in a major way. The purpose of this letter is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please put me on the group email/mailing list so that I can receive all info on the proposal so that I can legally respond and protect my rights as a highly affected property owner. Regards, Kelly Schoenberg 2158 Norris Road Walnut Creek Sent from my iPad From:sheath100@comcast.net To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:barbspruck@gmail.com Subject:Neighborhood Development Project Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 11:30:43 AM   Hi Margaret / County Planning Office,   I am writing to express my concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007). After reviewing the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would also like to understand my rights as a property owner in the neighborhood. This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined. Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved. Thank you,   Sharon Heath Dauer (510) 375-1827 2167 Norris Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596   Please confirm receipt of this email.   From:Yevgeny German To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Valentina German Subject:2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007) Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 4:19:55 PM Hi Margaret / County Planning Office, We are writing to express our concerns with the 2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision project (county file #MS19-0007).   This project disrupts the neighborhood in many ways. This is to make sure you and the planning board know that I strongly oppose the project as outlined.   Can you please let me know how the process will work since many of our neighbors are concerned? We need to make sure there will be opportunity to make our voices heard - and have many more questions that we need answered before this plan is approved.   Thank you.   Valentina and Yevgeny German @ 2171 Norris Rd, Walnut Creek yevgeny.german@gmail.com -- Sincerely, Yevgeny German (847) 877-8058 cell yevgeny.german@gmail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The message below and any attachments may contain privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. Any disclosure, distribution, copying or use of the information by others is strictly prohibited. From:Charles Wickman To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:#MS19-0007 (2216 Blackwood Dr. 2-Lot Subdivision) Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2020 4:11:27 PM Hi Margaret, I am writing to you regarding #MS19-0007 (project title: 2216 Blackwood Dr. 2-Lot Subdivision). I have reviewed the "NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION" document and have some concerns regarding the negative environmental impact that the project will have on the surrounding area. Since this is not something I commonly do I am not sure how to exactly express my concerns I will bullet them below: Tree Removal Sunlight/Exposure: The reduction in trees on the property would increase the surface temperature of adjacent property during dry summer months. Recorded trunk diameter size reported: Many of the trees on the property look to have a MUCH wider trunk than reported in the reference document. Note: The impact to heat/exposure would be greater than anticipated. Wildlife: We have had many birds (especially raptors/hawks) that have spent significant time on the property. Generic Wildlife: Deer/Coyotes/etc have been using this property as a 'highway' and use it to access other parts of the neighborhood. While I am very concerned about this development and have many other opinions I would like to express. Would I have an opportunity to work with the county/developer to find a suitable plan that works well for them and the neighborhood? Thanks, Charles From:T. Eric Sun To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:COMMENT on Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for 2216 Blackwood Dr. Subdivision - Cty File#MS19-0007 Date:Wednesday, October 28, 2020 6:35:38 PM Attachments:imagef54614.PNG Importance:High Dear Ms. Mitchell: Please consider this my written comment on the proposed subdivision referenced above. I am the owner of the property located at 2203 San Miguel Dr., Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The back of my property is directly across from Lot B of the proposed subdivision, separated by an unpaved section of Norris Road. (See annotated image of partial Vicinity Map (Attachment 1 to your 57-page CEQA Environmental Checklist Form, dated 10/1/2020, downloaded from your website.) I am concerned that the proposed tree removal might include approximately 10 trees (mostly oaks, I believe) that are located on the unpaved section of Norris Road, within our property lines and subject to the Norris Road public easement. As you can see from the 2nd annotated image, showing a view toward the unpaved Norris Rd, bearing northwest, these trees (on the left) line our backyard fence, beyond the chain that restricts access to Norris. Having read the entire document, including maps and tables, I am still unable to definitively determine whether said trees are part of the proposed tree removal. If these trees are subject of removal under the Proposed Subdivision, please let this be written notice of my objection and request for mitigation. The last 3 attached pictures show how these trees constitute the entirety of our backyard view and shading from the sun. The same trees also provide nesting ground for turkey vultures and owls. The removal of the trees implicates, among other criteria, Environmental Checklist #1 Aesthetics, sub-parts (a), (b), and (d); #4 Biological Resources sub-parts (a), (d), and (e). If these trees are NOT affected by the Proposed Subdivision, please provide written clarification with an explanation /illustration of how these trees are outside the scope of the Proposed Subdivision, for my record and future reference. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Very truly yours, T. Eric Sun T. Eric Sun | Partner | T: 510-590-9500 | F: 510-590-9595 2185 N. California Blvd, Suite 575 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | foleymansfield.com Chicago | Denver | Detroit | Edwardsville | Indianapolis | Kansas City | Los Angeles | Miami Minneapolis | New Orleans | New York | Portland | St. Louis | Seattle | Tampa Bay | Walnut Creek NOTICE: Important disclaimers and limitations apply to this email. Please click HERE to view these disclaimers and limitations. From:James Atencio To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:Fw: 2216 Blackwood Drive project Date:Monday, November 2, 2020 1:18:27 PM Here are my comments - please let me know if you get this one. Thanks! Thank you for taking the time to speak with my yesterday regarding the project. I am writing to express my concern with respect to the following aspects of the project: 1. The MND does not provide an adequate analysis regarding the effect of the tree removal on the property, specifically the loss of shade and the subsequent need for increase use of air conditioner, etc. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship that allows them to receive the setback variance requested on the property for the new dwelling. 3. The effect that the changes to the driveway and widening of Blackwood would have on surrounding properties. Finally, it seems the applicant would be best served to reach out to the surrounding property owners to discuss the issue raised prior to moving forward with the ZA hearing, in order to address the numerous issues raised with their proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. James Atencio 2196 Hadden Rd. From:Pam Kessler To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:comments on Blackwood Drive project in Walnut Creek Date:Friday, October 30, 2020 7:53:50 PM Hi Margaret I missed the public comments. My husband has been in the hospital for over a month. Is it possible to submit comments about tree removal on the Blackwood Drive property? The plan calls for an excessive amount of tree removal that will impact our natural environment. The beauty that surrounds us is the reason we live here. I have photographs to submit if possible, let me know. I am in agreement with the comments submitted by my neighbors Alison & Jon Jones. Thank you Pam Kessler 2245 Blackwood Drive Walnut Creek CA 94596 (925) 212-5146 photo Pam Kessler Publisher, Walnut Creek Magazine O (925) 212-5146 W walnutcreekmagazine.com From:James Campos To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Valerie Miranda; Jenna Fujitsubo; Jon Vizcay; Jennifer Cruz Subject:Re: MS19-0007 Draft Initial Study Date:Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:27:23 AM Margret, I accept mitigation measures. Please confirm receipt. James M. Campos Campos Development 1555 Botelho Dr. Suite, 421 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.997.4529 Cell www.CamposDevelopment.com On Sep 21, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Margaret Mitchell <Margaret.Mitchell@dcd.cccounty.us> wrote:  Hi James, Please find attached the draft Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for MS19-0007. Please review the documents and then submit to me in writing your acceptance of the Mitigation Measures. Once you accept the Mitigation Measures, I will then be able to post the document for public comment. Thank you, Margaret Mitchell, Planner II Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation and Development Community Development Division <MS19-0007_InitialStudy_draft.pdf> <MS19-0007_MMRP_draft.pdf> 1 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Two-Lot Minor Subdivision County File #MS19-0007 Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Mitchell, Project Planner (925) 674-7804 Project Location: 2216 Blackwood Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Assessor’s Parcel Number: 183-172-001 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Campos Development, LLC (Applicant and Property Owner) 1555 Bothelho Drive #421 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 General Plan Designation: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential, Low-Density (SL) General Plan land use designation. Zoning: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-20) Zoning District. Description of Project: The applicant requests approval of a tentative map for a minor subdivision that proposes to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into two parcels (Parcel A: 20,536 square-feet; Parcel B: 22,772 square-feet). Parcel A will have a depth of 180.98 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet, and Parcel B will have a depth of 184.85 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet. This subdivision includes a request for approval of a Tree Permit to remove 25 code-protected trees to allow for the construction of a new residence on Parcel B, for the widening of Blackwood Drive, and due to the poor health of some of the trees. The subdivision also requests approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The existing residence on Parcel A is to remain, with no proposed modifications. The existing 12.1- foot minimum side yard of the existing residence is at variance, as a minimum side yard of 15 feet is required. Future development of one new single-family residence on Parcel B would be the result of approval of this subdivision, and the new residence would be able to meet all required setbacks. The pavement of Blackwood Drive will be widened to 36 feet within the existing 50- foot right of way. Frontage improvements that will be required include pavement widening, curb and sidewalk to be constructed along the frontage, with the face of the curb to be located 18 feet from the centerline of the right of way. The project includes an exception to the sidewalk requirement as there are no other sidewalks in this neighborhood. The existing driveway will be redesigned, due to the widening of Blackwood Drive and the steepness of the existing driveway. The Norris Road easement and pavement will be widened to match other portions of Norris Road, and a curb will be constructed at the frontage. A paved turnaround will be added at the termination of the paved portion of Norris Road, which will also provide access to Parcel B. The project also 2 includes an exception to the requirement that overhead utilities shall be relocated underground for Parcel A. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is within an established neighborhood that is primarily within the R-20 Residential Zoning District, with a small portion of the properties in an R-15 Zoning District to the east and a small portion of properties within a P-1 Zoning District to the southwest. Interstate 680 is located approximately 0.6 miles to the west, the City of Walnut Creek is approximately 570 feet to the northeast and 1,700 feet to the southwest. The subject property is a gently sloped lot located between Blackwood Drive and Norris Road in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek, with Parcel A fronting Blackwood Drive, a public road, and Parcel B fronting Norris Road, a private road. The property slopes more steeply from the existing residence located on Parcel A down to Blackwood Drive. Blackwood Drive has a pavement width of approximately 23 feet within a 50-foot right of way. Norris Road provides access to Mountain View Boulevard to the southeast and has a right of way of approximately 30 feet. The pavement ends at the subject property where the easement is chained off. The pavement resumes 800 feet to the northwest, where Norris Road provides access to San Miguel Drive. Portions of the Norris Road private road easement were widened as part of MS05-0046, where the pavement was also widened and curbs were constructed along the frontage. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement: • Contra Costa County Public Works Department • Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division • Contra Costa Fire Protection District • Central Contra Costa Sanitary District • East Bay Municipal Utility District Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was sent on April 9, 2020 to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), there is a 30-day time period for the Wilton Rancheria to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. Staff has not received a request for consultation to date. 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Margaret Mitchell Date Planner II Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development 10/1/2020 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4 1. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The Open Space Element (Figure 9-1) of the County General Plan identifies scenic ridges and waterways in the County. According to this map, there are no scenic ridges or waterways in the area of the project site. Thus, as the proposed project is not visible from, and will not substantially change the visual character of the neighborhood in relation to scenic vistas, it is not expected to result in any substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) The Transportation and Circulation Element (Figure 5-4) of the County General Plan identifies scenic routes in the County, including both State Scenic Highways and County designated Scenic Routes. According to the map, Interstate 680 is classified as a scenic route in the project vicinity. However, given that the anticipated new residence would be over a half mile away from 680, and multiple existing structures would obscure the view, no impact on a scenic resource is expected. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5 from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than Significant Impact) The project site is located within an urbanized area. The Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering and Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 shows the proposed location for the one new residence on Parcel B to meet all required setbacks for the R-20 Zoning District. The proposed parcels are in the same configuration as the existing subject property. Parcel A has an existing residence that fronts Blackwood Drive, a public road, and Parcel B is oriented to have the front yard setback measured from the Norris Road private road easement. Although Parcel A has an existing minimum side yard of 12.1 feet (where 15 feet is required), Parcel B would have a minimum side yard of 15-feet when measured from either the East or the West property line. The opposite side yard is required to meet an aggregate of 35-feet. Both parcels would also have their rear yards measured off the center property line that divides the two properties. Parcel A will maintain the orientation and distance of the existing subject property’s setbacks. Thus, the setbacks when measured off shared property lines with adjacent properties is not changed. The existing visual character of the project site would change with the additional residential development, but not significantly altered. This type of visual change is consistent with the R-20 Zoning District, as a single-family residence is permitted by-right for each new lot. Therefore, the subdivision of the subject property resulting in the development of one new residence is considered a less than significant impact on the visual character to the project site and surrounding area. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than Significant Impact) The project site is located within an urbanized area. Expected daytime views after construction of the new residence is completed would be similar to views of other development in the neighborhood. The façade of the expected residence (with texture, color, and quality of building materials consistent with surrounding residences) would not create substantial glare. The change in ambient nighttime light levels on the project site, and the extent to which project lighting would spill off the project site and affect adjacent light-sensitive areas, would determine whether the project could adversely affect nighttime views in the area. After construction, lighting of the expected new single-family residence and associated improvements would introduce more light and glare in the area than the existing lot. However, the project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by other residences that also produce ambient light, and the project site is screened by existing trees. Therefore, the project would have a less that significant impact on day or nighttime views in the area due to glare or light. Sources of Information • Site visit conducted by CDD staff, August 15, 2019. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6 • Tentative Map MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Open Space Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? SUMMARY: a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The project site is listed as being Urban and Built-Up Land by the 2016 Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map. No prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance will be affected due to this project. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) According to County records, the subject property is not in a Williamson Act contract. The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential. The subdivision of the subject property resulting in the development of one new residence is consistent with the R-20 Zoning District. Therefore, the project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 51104(g) or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? (No Impact) The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential. The subdivision of the subject property resulting in the development of one new residence is consistent with the R-20 Zoning District. Each of the contiguous parcels is developed with other single-family residences. Therefore, no forest land or timberland as defined by the California Public Resources code will be affected by the future residential development as a result of the subdivision of the subject property. d) Would the project involve or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The project site is listed as being Urban and Built-Up Land by the 2016 Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map. The subject property is not in a Williamson Act contract. The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential. The subdivision of the subject property resulting in the development of one new residence is consistent with the R-20 Zoning District. Therefore, the project will not involve or result in the loss of forest land to non-forest use. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The project site is listed as being Urban and Built-Up Land by the 2016 Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map. No prime, unique or farmland of statewide importance will be affected due to this project. According to County records, the subject property is not in a Williamson Act contract. The project site is zoned Single-Family Residential. The subdivision of the subject property resulting in the development of one new residence is consistent with the R-20 Zoning District. Each of the contiguous parcels is developed with other single-family residences. Therefore, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County 2016 Important Farmland Map. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant Impact) Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay air basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) pursuant to the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to bring the air basin into compliance with the requirements of Federal and State air quality standards. BAAQMD has prepared CEQA Guidelines to assist lead agencies in air quality analysis, as well as to promote sustainable development in the region. The CEQA Guidelines support lead agencies in analyzing air quality impacts. If, after proper analysis, the proposed project’s air quality impacts are found to be below the significance thresholds, then the air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. The Air District developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. The proposed project would result in the future construction of one single-family residence and associated development on the project site. This would be well below the BAAQMD screening criteria threshold of 56 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project would not be in conflict with the Clean Air Plan or obstruct its implementation. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant Impact) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 The region is in nonattainment for the federal and state ozone standards, the state PM10 standards, and the federal and state PM2.5 standards. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants during the construction period or during project operation. Although the proposed project would contribute small increments to the level of criteria air pollutants in the atmosphere, the project would have a less than significant adverse environmental impact on the level of any criteria pollutant, because it is below the screening threshold. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) Subdivision of the subject property, and future occupancy of the expected one additional single- family residence would not be expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors (e.g., nearby residences, schools) to unhealthy long-term air pollutant levels. Construction activities, however, would result in localized emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that could result in temporary impacts to nearby single-family residences. Construction and grading activities would produce combustion emissions from various sources, including heavy equipment engines, paving, and motor vehicles used by the construction workers. Dust would be generated during site clearing, grading, and construction activities, with the most dust occurring during grading activities. The amount of dust generated would be highly variable and would be dependent on the size of the area disturbed, amount of activity, soil conditions, and meteorological conditions. Although grading and construction activities would be temporary, such activities could have a potentially significant adverse impact during construction. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures, which the BAAQMD recommends to reduce construction dust and exhaust impacts. Impact AIR-1: During grading and construction activities, the project could temporarily expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and diesel-powered vehicles and equipment used on the site during grading and construction could temporarily create localized objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 3. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact on the sensitive receptors during construction to a less than significant level. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) The project would not produce any major sources of odor and is not located in an area with existing issues (e.g. landfills, treatment plants). Therefore, the development that would be the result of the proposed subdivision would have a less than significant impact in terms of odors. During construction and grading, diesel powered vehicles and equipment used on the site could create localized odors. These odors would be temporary; however, there could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact during project construction due to the creation of objectionable odors. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1 above. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the impact from the creation of objectionable odors to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Air Quality Guidelines. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant Impact) According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Public Access Lands map, the project site is not located in or adjacent to an area identified as a wildlife or ecological reserve by the CDFW. According to the Significant Ecological Areas and Selected Locations of Protected Wildlife and Plant Species Areas map (Figure 8-1) within the Conservation Element of the County General Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 Plan, the project site is not located in or adjacent to a significant ecological area. The site is already partially disturbed due to an existing single-family residence on Parcel A and some prior grading of the site, but there will be further grading and future construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B. Thus, the project having an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, of any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than Significant Impact) According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Public Access Lands map, the project site is not located in or adjacent to an area identified as a wildlife or ecological reserve by the CDFW. According to the Significant Ecological Areas and Selected Locations of Protected Wildlife and Plant Species Areas map (Figure 8-1) within the Conservation Element of the County General Plan, the project site is not located in or adjacent to, a significant ecological area. The project site is partially disturbed through the development of a single-family residence on Parcel A and some prior grading of the site, but there will be further grading and future construction of a single-family residence on Parcel B. Thus, the proposed project having a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is less than significant. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act uses the Army Corps of Engineers definition of wetlands, which are defined as, “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” There are no isolated wetlands on the project site. Therefore, no substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands are expected. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project is not expected to interfere with migratory fish, as the project site does not contain any wetlands or navigable waterways. The project site is not located on or near a wildlife Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 nursery site. The project does include the removal of 25 code-protected trees which may result in temporary or permanent disruption to movement of wildlife species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects nesting raptors and their eggs. There are no known occurrences of sensitive or special status bird species occurring on the subject property; however, the project site provides suitable habitat for raptor species. Any construction activity within 300 feet of nesting birds, including the removal of trees, has the potential to disturb nesting raptors. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the project interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites is reduced to less than significant. Impact BIO-1: Removal of trees, grading, and construction on the project site has the potential to impact nesting birds. If grading or construction would occur during the nesting season, February 1 through August 31, nesting birds could be disturbed. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction that would occur on- site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the applicant shall have a preconstruction nesting survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Nesting surveys must be completed during springtime of the year during which construction will occur in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. An established buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone for raptors and 50-foot zone for common passerines until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by July 15th, but sometimes not until into August. Any qualified biologist hired to conduct nesting surveys or that monitors any active nests shall have the authority to shut the job down if this is necessary to protect the nesting birds. At the time the ornithologist determines that the young have fledged the nest and that the young are no longer dependent upon the nesting tree, the project may resume without any restrictions for nesting birds. Once the young fledge and the nest is no longer in use, as determined by the ornithologist, any tree that must be removed to accommodate the project may be removed without further requirements for nesting birds. Until such nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence, impacts to this hawk from reasonably anticipated future development on the remainder parcel are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than Significant Impact) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 The proposed minor subdivision includes a request of approval of a Tree Permit to remove 25 code- protected trees (13 valley oak, one apricot, six Siberian elm, one California black walnut, one magnolia, two honey locusts, and one black locust). The majority of the trees are to be removed for the future construction of the new single-family residence, some are to be removed due to the required widening of Blackwood Drive, and some are to be removed due to the poor health of the trees. An arborist report prepared by certified arborist Jennifer Tso (#WE-10270A) of Traverso Tree Service dated September 23, 2019 and revised December 23, 2019, assessed the current condition of the trees within the project site. The arborist recommends removal of 25 trees due to proposed future construction as well as the poor health of some of the trees. Removal of these trees is already part of the scope of this subdivision. Although there is no proposed grading or trenching within the dripline of code-protected trees, the tree permit will require protective fencing around code-protected trees located near areas of grading and trenching per the arborist’s recommendations. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) There is one adopted habitat conservation plan in Contra Costa County, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). The plan was approved in May 2007 by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, comprised of the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County. The HCP/NCCP establishes a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the incidental take of endangered species in East Contra Costa County. The plan lists Covered activities that fall into three distinct categories: (1) all activities and projects associated with urban growth within the urban development area (UDA); (2) activities and projects that occur inside the HCP/NCCP preserves; and (3) specific projects and activities outside the UDA. As the proposed project does not fall into any of these categories and is not located within the HCP boundaries, the project is not covered by, or in conflict with the adopted HCP. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Conservation Element. • http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/. Accessed May 14, 2020. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy homepage. • https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/section-404-clean-water-act-how-wetlands-are-defined-and-identified. Accessed May 14, 2020. United Stated Environmental Protection Agency – Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Habitat-Conservation-Plans/es_hcp.htm. Accessed May 14, 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office - Habitat Conservation Plans. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Chapter 816-6 – Tree Protection and Preservation, Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 • Arborist Report prepared by certified arborist Jennifer Tso (#WE-10270A) of Traverso Tree Service dated September 23, 2019 and revised December 18, 2019. • Tentative Map MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SUMMARY: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (No Impact) Historical resources are defined in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5 as a resource that: • Is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historic Resources Commission; • Is included in a local register of historic resources, and identified as significant in a historical resource survey that has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; or • Has been determined to be historically or culturally significant by a lead agency. The subject property, nor the existing buildings or structures are listed in the National or Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the County’s Historic resources Inventory. The existing residence does not meet the criteria to be eligible for listing to one of these historical resources inventories. The building is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's, or the County’s, history and cultural heritage. They are not associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Not the architecture nor the construction method embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. Lastly, the buildings/structures have not yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The existing residence is proposed to remain and will be undisturbed by this project. Therefore, the subdivision of this property would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 Figure 9-2 of the Open Space Element of the County General Plan identifies archaeologically sensitive areas in the County. According to this map, the project site is located within a largely urbanized area. However, the construction activities that will result from the subdivision of the subject property will create ground disturbance. This future ground disturbance has the possibility for disturbing underground cultural resources that may not have been identified to date. Impact CUL-1: The project has the potential for disturbing underground cultural resources or human remains that may not have been identified to date. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following Best Management Practices shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans: 1. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. It is recommended that such deposits be avoided by further ground disturbance activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they should be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If eligible, deposits will need to be avoided by impacts or such impacts must be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, a report should be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa County agencies. 2. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment by an archaeologist, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. As a result, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact on an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) There is a possibility that human remains could be present and accidental discovery could occur. If during project construction, subsurface construction activities damaged previously unidentified human remains, there could be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 above would reduce the reduce the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/9bce7d9c2f90474c9d8f3512e55da64d?page=1&view =list. Accessed May 14, 2020. National Park Service – National Register of Historic Places. • http://ohp.park.s.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=7. Accessed May 14, 2020. Office of Historic Preservation – Listed California Historical Resources. • Contra Costa County Historic Resources Inventory (October 2016 Draft). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5 Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Open Space Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 6. ENERGY – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than Significant Impact) b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less than Significant Impact) In response to subsections a-b of Section 6 Energy, the project is to subdivide the subject property into two new lots which will allow for one new residential living unit. Construction of new residential development is subject to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. According to the California Green Building Code, residential buildings must be designed to include the green building measures specified as mandatory in the application checklists contained in this code. Therefore, this project is not expected to result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and is not expected to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Sources of Information • 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? SUMMARY: a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Less than Significant Impact) The California Geological Survey (CGS) has delineated Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Earthquake Fault Zones along the known active faults in California. The nearest fault considered active by CGS Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 is the Concord fault, which is mapped approximately 2 ½ miles northeast of the project site. Additionally, a northwest-trending thrust fault is mapped just northeast of the site. This fault in the flanks of Mt. Diablo are associated with regional folding and on-going uplift of the Mount Diablo region. They are not considered active, but geologic studies suggest the Mount Diablo thrust fault could be capable of producing an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 6.7 Surface rupture is considered unlikely, as this fault is considered a “blind” thrust fault in which displacement do not reach the surface. Nevertheless, the blind thrust faults on the flanks of Mount Diablo are a potential source of strong ground shaking in the site vicinity. Because the site is not within the A-P zone, the risk of fault rupture is generally regarded as very low. Therefore, the potential impact form surface fault rupture would be considered less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant Impact) The Safety Element (Figure 10-4 Estimated Seismic Ground Response) of the County General Plan identifies the project site to be in an area rated “moderately low” damage susceptibility. This designation is applied relatively weak bedrock that is chiefly of Pliocene age. The legend of this General Plan map states that sound structures sited on bedrock typically perform satisfactorily if foundation materials and critical slopes are stable. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the California Building Code and the County grading Ordinance. The building code requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineer to design buildings to be based on soil profile types and proximity of faults deemed capable of generating strong/violent earthquake shaking. Quality construction, conservative design and compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally acceptable limits. For these reasons, the environmental impact from seismic ground shaking would be considered to be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact) The Safety Element (Figure 10-5 Estimated Liquefaction Potential) of the County General Plan divides lands within the County into three liquefaction potential categories: generally high, generally moderate to low, and generally low. It is used as a “screening criteria” during the processing of land development applications, on a project-by-project basis. By intent, the map is conservative on the side of safety. The project site is entirely or chiefly in an area of classified as generally low liquefaction potential. Therefore, the potential impact of liquefaction would be considered less than significant. iv) Landslides? (Less than Significant Impact) In 1975 the US Geological Survey (USGS) issued photo interpretive maps of Contra Costa County showing the distribution landslide and other surficial deposits. The USGS mapping is Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 presented in Figure 10-6 of the Safety Element of the County General Plan. This map indicates no evidence of landslide deposits on or near the project site. Therefore, the potential impact of landslides would be considered less than significant. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant Impact) According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, the soil mapped on the project site is Diablo clay (DdD and DdE). Diablo clay is a well-drained soil underlain by bedrock. According to the Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020, there is minimal grading necessary for the future development of the two new lots. Parcel A would require grading for the expansion of Blackwood Drive and the reconfiguration of the driveway, and Parcel B would require minimal grading for the foundation of the future residence, for a total of 83 cubic yards of grading combined. Therefore, the erosion hazard can be considered to be less than significant. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed in section a(iii) and a(iv) above, the risk of ground failure is considered to be a less than significant impact. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than Significant Impact) With regard to its engineering properties, the underlying Diablo clay soil is moderately expansive. The expansion and contraction of soils could cause cracking, tilting, and eventual collapse of structures. However, building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. Thus, the environmental impact from a moderately expansive soil would be considered to be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) The subject property is within an area served by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. There will not be installation of a septic system as a result of this project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact) The subject property as a whole is relatively flat, with a slope that increases down towards Blackwood Drive. According to the Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020, there is minimal grading necessary for the future development of the two new lots. Parcel A would require grading for the expansion of Blackwood Drive and the reconfiguration of the driveway, and Parcel B would require minimal grading for the foundation of the future residence, for a total of 83 cubic yards of grading combined. There are no unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features that will be flattened for the future development of the project site, only minimal grading. Sources of Information • https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/ accessed July 2, 2020. Geologic Hazards, California Department of Conservation, Geospatial Data and Web Maps. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Safety Element. • 2016 California Building Code. • Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance. • https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx accessed July 2, 2020. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey Map. • Tentative Map MS19-0007 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SUMMARY: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency responsible for maintaining federal and state air quality standards within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Updated, 2017) provide screening criteria with which agencies can derive a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If the screening criteria are met by the proposed project, then the project will not exceed greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) thresholds of significance, and the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. According to BAAQMD guidelines, the screening level size for operational GHG for a single-family land use is 56 dwelling units. The project proposes to subdivide the property into two residential lots. Thus, the future development of a residence would produce operational emissions that are well below a significant level. The screening level size for the construction-related criteria pollutant, reactive organic gases (ROG), is 114 dwelling units. Here too, the project resulting in one new residence would produce construction-related emissions that are well below a significant level. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant Impact) BAAQMD guidelines also considers a project less than significant if it is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The County Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in December 2015, contains a GHG Reduction Strategy to achieve the state-recommended reduction target of 15% below baseline levels by 2020. The project does not conflict with any of the land use and planning policies in the CAP. Sources of Information • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Air Quality Guidelines. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8. Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 • Contra Costa County, 2008. Municipal Climate Action Plan. Contra Costa County, 2015. Climate Action Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? SUMMARY: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant Impact) Subsequent to approval of the tentative map, it is expected that one single-family residence will be constructed (the existing residence to remain), along with the widening of Blackwood Drive and Norris Road, and overall road improvements. There would be associated use of fuels and lubricants, paints, and other construction materials during the construction period. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 requirements. With compliance with existing regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact from construction. Project operation would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in very small quantities as they relate to household use. Contra Costa County regulates household hazard disposal, and the home’s occupants would be responsible for proper handling and disposal of household materials. Because any hazardous materials used for household operations would be in small quantities, long‐term impacts associated with handling, storing, and dispensing of hazardous materials from project operation would be considered less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) The residential use of the project site would not involve handling, use, or storage of substances that are acutely hazardous. The subject property historically has been used for residential purposes. No evidence reviewed by staff suggests that the project would include foreseeable conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. With compliance with existing regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less than Significant Impact) Murwood Elementary School is located within one-third mile west of the subject property. Due to the nature of the development that will result from this project, impacts on the school due to hazardous substances at the project site during project operation would be less than significant. The use of construction-related fuels and lubricants, paints, and other construction materials during the construction period would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. Therefore, the project potentially emitting any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of the school is considered to be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) The subject property is not identified as hazardous materials site, according to Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The subject property is not located within an area covered by the Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport - Buchanan Airport is approximately seven miles north of the property, public use airport, or private airstrip. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property is located between the private road Norris Road and the public road Blackwood Drive. Norris Road connects to Mountain View Boulevard, which then connects to San Miguel Drive and Blackwood Drive connects directly to San Miguel Drive. Either Rudgear Road or South Main Street would then connect to Interstate 680. These roads would be used in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation of the area. The project would only add one new residence to the area, not significantly increasing vehicular trips for the area, and therefore not significantly interfering with emergency evacuation. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant Impact) Residential construction is required to follow the California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure), California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Nterface Fire Areas), and Title 24 of the California Building Code. As a result, the potential fire-related risks of the project would be considered less than significant. Sources of Information • California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA). • http://www.recyclemore.com/content/local-hazardous-waste-collection-facility. Accessed May 14, 2020. Hazardous Waste Disposal. • http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed May 14, 2020. Hazardous Waste and Substances sites. • Contra Costa County, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure). Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 • California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Nterface Fire Areas). • 2019 California Building Code - Title 24. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than Significant Impact) The project must comply with applicable Contra Costa County C.3 requirements. Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and 16 incorporated cities in the county have formed the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. In October 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit for the Program, which regulates discharges from municipal storm drains. Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit places requirements on site design to minimize creation of impervious Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 surfaces and control stormwater runoff. The County has the authority to enforce compliance with its Municipal Regional Permit through the County’s adopted C.3 requirements. The C.3 requirements stipulate that projects creating and/or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface shall treat stormwater runoff with permanent stormwater management facilities, along with measures to control runoff rates and volumes. The project estimates 8,235 square feet of new impervious surface area will result from the subdivision of the subject property. Therefore, the project violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrading surface or ground water quality is less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property currently receives water service from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Since any future water service will be provided by EBMUD, no groundwater wells will be required. The project would therefore have no effect on groundwater supplies. The Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 shows a catch basin is feasible for both new lots, which would facilitate groundwater recharge. The catch basin’s design will be reviewed prior to permission of construction to ensure compliancy with the County’s adopted C.3 requirements. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than Significant Impact) The drainage for the new residence and existing residence will continue to drain into the storm drain that traverses the east property line of this subdivision. The vast majority of the project site will discharge to this facility. Some minor runoff will be intercepted by the ditch and culvert system along the Blackwood Drive. In summary, the project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential construction. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less than Significant Impact) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 The drainage for the new residence and existing residence will continue to drain into the storm drain that traverses the east property line of this subdivision. The vast majority of the project site will discharge to this facility. Some minor runoff will be intercepted by the ditch and culvert system along the Blackwood Drive. In summary, the project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential construction. There, the project substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site is less than significant. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than Significant Impact) The drainage for the new residence and existing residence will continue to drain into the storm drain that traverses the east property line of this subdivision. The vast majority of the project site will discharge to this facility. Some minor runoff will be intercepted by the ditch and culvert system along the Blackwood Drive. In summary, the project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential construction. The bioretention basins would filter stormwater and reduce the level of pollutants in the runoff, and the potential for redirection of flood flows. Therefore, the project creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial addition sources of polluted runoff is less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than Significant Impact) The drainage for the new residence and existing residence will continue to drain into the storm drain that traverses the east property line of this subdivision. The vast majority of the project site will discharge to this facility. Some minor runoff will be intercepted by the ditch and culvert system along the Blackwood Drive. In summary, the project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential construction. The bioretention basins would filter stormwater and reduce the level of pollutants in the runoff, and the potential for redirection of flood flows. Therefore, the project impeding or redirecting flood flows is less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less than Significant Impact) The project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 construction. The bioretention basins would filter stormwater and reduce the level of pollutants in the runoff, and the potential for redirection of flood flows. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area. Therefore, the project releasing pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones is less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than Significant Impact) A Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is required for applications to subdivide land where the resulting project may result in a total amount of impervious surface area exceeding 10,000 square feet. If at least 10,000 square feet of area can be identified for development, a SWCP will be prepared and submitted for the review and approval of the Public Works Department, in compliance with the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014), and the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. With implementation of the County’s adopted C.3 requirements, the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. Sources of Information • Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 Staff Report & Conditions of Approval prepared by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department dated March 31, 2020. • Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? SUMMARY: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The subject property is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, east, south, and west. Thus, the project would not divide an established community. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property is located within the R-20 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the Single-Family Low-Density General Plan Land Use Designation. Parcel A will be 20,536 square-feet in area and Parcel B will be 22,772 square-feet in area. Parcel A will have a depth of 180.98 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet, and Parcel B will have a depth of 184.85 feet and an average width of 110.8 feet. The subdivision requests approval of a variance to allow an average width of 110.8 feet for each lot (where 120 feet is required). The use of the two new parcels will remain residential. The existing residence is to remain on Parcel A with no modifications, and a future residence may be constructed on Parcel B. The Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020 shows that a residence constructed on Parcel B would meet the setback requirements of the R-20 Zoning District. The existing residence on Parcel A is a single-story residence that meets the required setbacks with the exception of the minimum side yard setback which is 12.1 feet (where 15 feet is required). This subdivision also includes a request for approval of a Tree Permit to remove 25 code-protected trees to allow for the construction of a new residence on Parcel B, for the widening of Blackwood Drive, and due to the poor health of some of the trees. Thus, the project causing a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is less than significant. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Conservation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 • Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 12. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact) The Mineral Resource Areas map (Figure 8-4) of the County General Plan Conservation Element does not identify the subject property being located within County-designated mineral resource area. There is no indication that known mineral resources would be affected by the proposal. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) The Mineral Resource Areas map (Figure 8-4) of the County General Plan Conservation Element does not identify the subject property being located within County-designated mineral resource area. There is no indication that known mineral resources would be affected by the proposal. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Conservation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 13. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant) Activities at the future two-lot subdivision are not expected to expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of the Community Noise Exposure Levels shown on Figure 11-6 of the General Plan Noise Element. Figure 11-6 shows that levels of 60 dB or less are normally acceptable and noise levels between 60 dB to 70 dB are conditionally acceptable in residential areas. Types and levels of noise generated from the residential uses associated with the future residence would be similar to noise levels from the existing residential developments in the area. The project would result in the construction of one residence, and the widening of two roads, and overall frontage improvements. The construction is temporary and will be limited to hours of construction. Thus, project noise impacts to the existing surrounding land uses would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant Impact) The project would result in the construction of one residence, and the widening of two roads, and overall frontage improvements. The construction is temporary and will be limited to hours of construction. Overall, the project will not result in substantial exposure of persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 39 the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The subject property is not located within an area covered by the Contra Costa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, nor is it located within two miles of a public airport - Buchanan Airport is approximately seven miles north of the property, public use airport, or private airstrip. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 40 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SUMMARY: a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less than Significant Impact) The project is to subdivide the subject property into two developable properties, creating one additional residence. One new single-family residence is not considered a substantial population growth in the area that would create a substantial environmental impact. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project is to subdivide the subject property into two developable properties, creating one additional residential living unit. The project will provide opportunity to increase the housing stock for the area, not decrease it. Therefore, the project will not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 41 15. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? SUMMARY: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property is located within the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The Fire District conducted a preliminary review of the project and has detailed design elements that shall be incorporated as part of the project (i.e. roadway widths, water supply tanks) in order to meet minimum fire and safety standards. The applicant has included those elements in the project, and this study finds that they will not cause a significant impact to the environment. The Fire District has also advised that the future development of the new properties will be subject to further review from their staff. There has been no indication from the Fire District that the project would require physical alteration or the construction of new fire protection facilities. Based on the Fire District’s ability to accommodate the project as proposed and the requirement for their review prior to any future development on any of the lot, the potential for substantial adverse impacts associated with fire protection is less than significant. b) Police Protection? (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed in Section 14 Population and Housing of this Initial Study, the project will not result in a significant population increase in the County. If there is no significant population increase, the proposed project will not impact the County’s ability to maintain the standard of having 155 square feet of sheriff facility station area per one thousand members of the population. Additionally, the applicant for the future residence would be required to pay the County-mandated police services fee, compensating for impacts on police protection services. Therefore, the minimal population increase that may be caused by the project is not enough to cause a need for construction of new or expanded police protection facilities as a result of the project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 42 c) Schools? (Less than Significant Impact) The applicant will be required to pay the state-mandated school impact fees for the new residential dwelling unit prior to issuance of building permits. Payment of the fees pursuant to State regulations for school services would reduce school impacts to less than significant levels. d) Parks? (Less than Significant Impact) The new residents of the new dwelling unit would be expected to increase use of the parks; however, one additional residence would result in minimal impact on the park facilities. Additionally, the applicant for the future residence would be required to pay the County-mandated park dedication and impact fee, compensating for impacts on park facilities. e) Other public facilities? (Less than Significant Impact) Impacts to other public facilities, such as hospitals and libraries are usually caused by substantial increases in population. Implementation of the project is not anticipated to induce population growth since only one new residence would result from the project approval. The project is not anticipated to create substantial additional service demands besides those which have been preliminarily reviewed by various agencies of Contra Costa County or result in adverse physical impacts associated with the delivery of fire, police, schools, parks, or other public services. Therefore, the impact to hospitals, libraries or other public facilities is less than significant. Sources of Information • Letter prepared by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District dated August 28, 2019. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 43 16. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SUMMARY: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less than Significant Impact) The deterioration, daily use, and demand for neighborhood parks are largely dependent on the number of people that reside in the surrounding area. Pursuant to the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan, the standard is to have a minimum of 3 acres of neighborhood parks for every 1,000 members of the population. If the proposed subdivision is granted, one new dwelling unit could be constructed. The potential increase in population as a result of the new dwelling unit would not be significant enough to warrant the need for a new park, or substantially accelerate the deterioration of any existing parks. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) Pursuant to Chapter 920-4 (Requirements) of the County ordinance, the subdivision would require that land be dedicated for parks or recreational purposes, or that a park dedication fee be paid when a tentative map is approved. Seeing as no land has been dedicated for park or recreational purposes as part of the proposed project, submittal of a park dedication and park impact fee would be required prior to issuance of a building permit for a dwelling on any of the new properties. The combination of the fact that the project does not require the construction of new recreational facilities/parks due to the lack of a significant population increase, and the existence of an option to pay an in lieu fee for dedicating lands ensures that the potential for the environment to be impacted by a new or expanded recreational facility is less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 44 Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Growth Management Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 45 17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Less than Significant Impact) The Transportation and Circulation Element of the County General Plan contains several policies that support the provision and use of alternate modes of transportation. The portions of Norris Road and Blackwood Drive that the subject property is located do not have sidewalks or bicycles lanes; however, these portions of the local residential streets do not have a significant impact on pedestrian and bicycle activity in the vicinity. Residents of the future residences may incrementally increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclists in the vicinity, but impacts resulting from the incremental increase would be less than significant. Lastly, the nearest public transit route is on Creekside Drive, approximately 0.5 miles away. Given the distance between the subject property and Creekside, the project would not significantly affect this public transit route. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? (Less than Significant Impact) The applicable CEQA Guidelines provide guidelines for analyzing transportation impacts relating to vehicle miles travelled (VMT) resulting from the project. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has provided the following guidance on evaluating such impacts for small projects: “Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact”. According to ITE trip generation rates for detached single family residential development, the project would result in 1.75 peak trips per day (0.75 daily AM trips, 1 daily PM trip) when a residence is constructed on Parcel B. Since there is no reasonable expectation that a project of this scale could exceed 110 daily trips, the project is assumed to have a less than Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 46 significant impact on traffic. Therefore, the project does not conflict with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3(b). c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less than Significant Impact) The portions of Norris Road and Blackwood Drive that front the subject property will be widened and improved upon per the standards of the County Public Works Department. There will be one new driveway to provide access to Parcel B, which will also contain a new turnaround where the pavement of Norris Road ends. Sight distance at the intersection of the private driveways and Norris Road and Blackwood Drive are required to be in accordance with County Code Chapter 82-18 Sight Obstructions at Intersections. There are no proposed structures that would be in conflict with this ordinance. The development is widening of both roads and residential development of one new residence. The residential development is compatible with the area. Therefore, the project substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) is less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than Significant Impact) The project has been reviewed by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and recommendations were made for the project to ensure adequate emergency access. The District’s approval will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. • Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 Staff Report & Conditions of Approval prepared by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department dated March 31, 2020. • County Code Chapter 82-18 Sight Obstructions at Intersections. • Letter prepared by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District dated August 28, 2019. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 47 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? SUMMARY: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) Pertaining to the significance of tribal cultural resources, there are no onsite historical resources, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) that are included in a local register of historic resources. Nevertheless, the expected construction and grading could cause ground disturbance which may impact heretofore undocumented cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact on archeological resources during project related work to a level that would be considered less than significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 48 It is not likely that the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Nevertheless, the expected construction and grading could cause ground disturbance which may impact heretofore undocumented cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact on archeological resources during project related work to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/SearchResults/9bce7d9c2f90474c9d8f3512e55da64d?page=1&view =list. Accessed January 14, 2019. National Park Service – National Register of Historic Places. • http://ohp.park.s.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=7. Accessed January 14, 2019. Office of Historic Preservation – Listed California Historical Resources. • Contra Costa County Historic Resources Inventory (October 2016 Draft). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5 Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 49 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SUMMARY: a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant Impact) There is currently water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, and other commonly utilized residential utilities available as there is a residence on the subject property and it is an established residential neighborhood. The area is serviced by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The sanitary district provided a letter dated August 12, 2019, stating the project is not expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system. The project will be reviewed by the sanitary district and will be approved prior to issuance of a building permit from the County Building Inspection Division. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 50 The area receives water services from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). EBMUD provided a letter dated August 16, 2019 stating that separate meters for each lot will be required and an extension of the water main will be required to the proposed development. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property currently receives water supplies from EBMUD. EBMUD requires all applicable water efficiency measures described under Section 31 of EBMUD’s Water Service Regulations installed prior to providing water service. Therefore, one additional residence for the area is expected to have sufficient water supply. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed in Section A, the area is serviced by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The sanitary district provided a letter dated August 12, 2019 stating the project is not expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than Significant Impact) The existing residence and the addition of one new residence is not expected to significantly increase the amount of solid waste over what is currently generated by the residential neighborhood in the vicinity. The project is not expected to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less than Significant Impact) The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), as amended in Contra Costa County Code, requires that at least 65% by weight of job site debris generated by most types of building project types be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal. This requirement applies to demolition projects and most new construction, as well as the majority of building additions or alterations. CalGreen requires submission of plans and reports with verifiable post-project documentation to demonstrate that at least 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated on the job site are salvaged for reuse, recycled or otherwise diverted. The Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 51 construction of one new residence and overall development of the project site will also be subject to these requirements and will be enforced at time of building permits. Therefore, the project is expected to conform with the same federal, state or local solid waste regulations which apply to the entire residential neighborhood. Sources of Information • Letter prepared by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District dated August 12, 2019. • Letter prepared by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) dated August 16, 2019. • 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen). Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 52 20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SUMMARY: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property is located between the private road Norris Road and the public road Blackwood Drive. Norris Road connects to Mountain View Boulevard, which then connects to San Miguel Drive and Blackwood Drive connects directly to San Miguel Drive. Either Rudgear Road or South Main Street would then connect to Interstate 680. These roads would be used in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation of the area. The project would only add one new residence to the area, not significantly increasing vehicular trips for the area, and therefore not significantly interfering with emergency evacuation. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property as a whole is gently sloped until it slopes more steeply from the existing residence down to Blackwood Drive. According to the Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 53 Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020, the existing residence on Parcel A is to remain and there is minimal grading necessary for the future development of Parcel B. Due to very little slope being present on most of the site, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, is not expected to significantly expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) The subject property is located within an established residential neighborhood. As such, no additional infrastructure is required to be installed. The project is also required to have all new utility distribution facility services installed underground, however the project is requesting an exception to this requirement to allow the existing utility lines for the existing residence on Parcel A to remain above ground. Therefore, exacerbation of fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment is at a less than significant level. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than Significant Impact) As discussed in Section 10 Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation, or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The drainage for the one new residence will drain into the existing storm drain that traverses the west side of Parcel A down to Blackwood Drive. The vast majority of the project site will discharge to this facility. Some minor runoff will be intercepted by the ditch and culvert system along Blackwood Drive. In summary, the project would be required to construct C.3-compliant stormwater control facilities, as a condition of approval. The stormwater facilities would be installed concurrent or prior to residential construction. The bioretention basins would filter stormwater and reduce the level of runoff, minimizing flooding. Therefore, people or structures being exposed to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, is considered to be at a less than significant level with compliancy with the County’s adopted C.3 requirements. Sources of Information • Tentative Map prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated February 25, 2020. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 54 • Minor Subdivision MS19-0007 Staff Report & Conditions of Approval prepared by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department dated March 31, 2020. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation) As discussed in individual sections of this Initial Study, the project to create two parcels from the site may impact the quality of the environment (Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources) but the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with the adoption of the mitigation measures that are specified in the respective sections of this Initial Study. The project is not expected to threaten any wildlife population, impact endangered plants or animals, or affect state cultural resources with the already identified mitigation measures. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 55 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less than Significant Impact) The project would not create substantial cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with its Single- Family Residential (R-20) zoning district, and single-family residential, low-density (SL) general plan land use designation. The project would also be considered consistent with the existing surrounding single-family residential development. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than Significant Impact) This Initial Study has disclosed impacts that would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. All identified mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for this minor subdivision project, and the applicant will be responsible for implementation of the measures. As a result, there would not be any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 57 REFERENCES In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the various references (which are available for review at the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez, CA 94553) are listed after each respective section. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Parcel Map for County File #MS19-0007 Contra Costa County -DOIT GIS Legend 1:4,514 Notes0.10.07 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0.1 0 Miles WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 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. Vicinity Map Streets Assessment Parcels World Imagery Low Resolution 15m Imagery High Resolution 60cm Imagery High Resolution 30cm Imagery Citations Campos Development, LLC (Applicant and Owner) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program County File #MS19-0007 2216 Blackwood Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 October 2020 Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Condition of Approval (COA) MS19-0007 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 2 of 5 SECTION 3: AIR QUALITY Impact AIR-1: Grading and construction activities could have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact by exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and diesel- powered vehicles and equipment used on the site during grading and construction could temporarily create localized objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The following Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implementing Action: COA Timing Verification: Prior to CDD issuance of a grading or building permit, all construction plan sets shall include Basic Construction measures. Responsible Department or Agency: Project proponent and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD Plan Check review of plans prior to issuance of building or grading permit, and field verification by the Building Inspection Division. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Condition of Approval (COA) MS19-0007 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 3 of 5 SECTION 4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Removal of trees, grading, and construction on the project site has the potential to impact nesting birds. If grading or construction would occur during the nesting season, February 1 through August 31, nesting birds could be disturbed. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction that would occur on-site during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the applicant shall have a preconstruction nesting survey conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Nesting surveys must be completed during springtime of the year during which construction will occur in order to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. An established buffer shall be fenced with orange construction fencing. A qualified biologist shall periodically monitor the nest site(s) to determine if grading activities occurring outside the buffer zone disturbs the birds, and if the buffer zone should be increased to prevent nest abandonment. No disturbance shall occur within the minimum 300-foot buffer zone for raptors and 50-foot zone for common passerines until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones, typically by July 15th, but sometimes not until into August. Any qualified biologist hired to conduct nesting surveys or that monitors any active nests shall have the authority to shut the job down if this is necessary to protect the nesting birds. At the time the ornithologist determines that the young have fledged the nest and that the young are no longer dependent upon the nesting tree, the project may resume without any restrictions for nesting birds. Once the young fledge and the nest is no longer in use, as determined by the ornithologist, any tree that must be removed to accommodate the project may be removed without further requirements for nesting birds. Until such nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence, impacts to this hawk from reasonably anticipated future development on the remainder parcel are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to any earth-moving activity or construction Responsible Department, Agency, or Party: Project proponent and CDD. Compliance Verification: Include on plan sets during plan check and submittal of nesting bird survey report in the event of a find, for CDD review. SECTION 5: CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: The project has the potential for disturbing underground cultural resources or human remains that may not have been identified to date. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during project- related ground disturbance, and shall be included on all construction plans: 1. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and a qualified Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Condition of Approval (COA) MS19-0007 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 4 of 5 archaeologist contacted to evaluate the finds and make recommendations. It is recommended that such deposits be avoided by further ground disturbance activities. If such deposits cannot be avoided, they should be evaluated for their significance in accordance with the California Register of Historical resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If eligible, deposits will need to be avoided by impacts or such impacts must be mitigated. Upon completion of the archaeological assessment, a report should be prepared documenting the methods, results, and recommendations. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa County agencies. 2. If human remains are encountered, work within 50 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to assess the situation. If the human remains are of a Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the property and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Upon completion of the assessment by an archaeologist, the archaeologist should prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the Northwest Information Center and appropriate Contra Costa agencies. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: During initial review of construction plan sets and throughout project. Responsible Department, Agency, or Party: Project proponent and CDD. Compliance Verification: Include on plan sets during plan check and submittal of archaeologist report in the event of a find, for CDD review. SECTION 9: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES See Impact CUL-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impact on tribal cultural resources during project related work. SECTION 10: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potential Impact: As discussed in individual sections of the Initial Study, the project to create two parcels from the site may impact the quality of the environment (Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources). Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Condition of Approval (COA) MS19-0007 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 5 of 5 Mitigation Measures: The impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with the adoption of the recommended Mitigation Measures that are specified in the respective sections of the Initial Study. 4080 Cabrilho Drive, Martinez, CA 94553  Telephone (925) 930-7901  Fax (925) 723-2442 September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) James Campos Campos Development 1555 Botelho Drive. Suite 421 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.997.4529 | james@ironoakdevelopment.com Re: Revised Arborist Report for 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Dear James, This revised arborist report addresses the proposed project at 2216 Blackwood Drive. Per the Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance Chapter 816-6 for developed property, the scope of work includes:  Tag, identify and measure all trees with diameters 6.5” or larger within 50’ of proposed improvements.  Note protected trees, defined as: o Any tree that is adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area, or part of a stand of 4 or more trees, and measures 6.5” in diameter or more, and is of one of the f ollowing species: Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Box elder (Acer negundo), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), White alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii), California juniper (Juniperus californica), Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflora), Knobcone pine (Pinus attentuata), Digger pine (Pinus sabiniana), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Blue oak (Q. douglasii), California black oak (Q. kellogii), Valley oak (Q. lobata), Interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), Yellow willow (Salix lasiandra), Red willow (Salix laevigata), Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), Coast red elderberry (Sambucus callicarpa), Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California bay (Umbellularia californica). o Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map, development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of approval. o Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree. o Identify dripline locations and tree numbers on site plan.  Assess individual tree health and structural condition.  Assess proposed improvements for potential encroachment.  Based on proposed encroachment, tree health, structure, and species susceptibility, make recommendations for preservation. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 2 Project Summary The south half of the property is currently developed with a single-family home and an aging driveway. The north half of the property is still undeveloped, though it appears to have been graded many years ago. The proposed project will subdivide the property and construct a new home on the north parcel (“B”), served by a driveway off Norris Road. Proposed work on the south parcel (“A”) includes driveway repair, a new curb & gutter, and grading of the slope above the curb. I included fifty-nine (59) trees in my tree inventory, thirty-five (35) of which are California natives. Nineteen (19) valley oaks meet the County criteria for protected trees. Many young oaks have repopulated the graded building pad and will need to be removed for the proposed home (Figure 1). The proposed tree removals will either be directly impacted by proposed construction or are in poor condition and not worthy of retention. It is my opinion that twenty-five (25) trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed project; seven are considered protected trees. The remaining thirty-four (34) trees can be retained given that the protection measures within this report are followed. The remaining trees maintain a high level of screening between the two parcels and a moderate level of screening from the properties to the north and west. The complete tree inventory table is included at the end of this report. Assumptions & Limitations This report is based on my site visit on 6/19/19. I reviewed the survey and preliminary grading, drainage & utility plans by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying (dated 12/13/19). It was assumed that the proposed improvements and trees were accurately surveyed. The health and structure of the trees were assessed visually from ground level. No drilling, root excavation, or aerial inspections were performed. Internal or non-detectable defects may exist and could lead to part or whole tree failures. Due to the dynamic nature of trees and their environment, it is not possible for arborists to guarantee that trees will not fail in the future. Figure 1. Many volunteer oaks have grown within the graded building pad, and will need to be removed to construct the proposed home. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 3 Discussion The proposed tree removals cannot be avoided, since many volunteer oaks are growing within the graded building pad and utility easement. Additionally, all trees in the front yard of Parcel A will be directly affected by proposed grading, and will also need to be removed. Currently, the existing trees are in serious competition with one another, with resulting asymmetrical canopies and reduced growth. The proposed removals will effectively thin the groves such that the remaining trees can reach their mature size. Several sets of trees (walnuts, Siberian elms, oaks) will maintain screening between the two parcels. The remaining trees can be protected with temporary fencing. 6’ chain-link fencing is ideal, but I am comfortable with the use of wire or heavy-duty plastic fencing as long as the fencing is firmly attached to stakes no more than 4’ apart. (When posts are further apart, fencing tends to sag and is rarely fixed.) Threading wire or rope through the top of the fencing will also help to maintain its integrity. Recommendations (to be printed on site plans) Pre-construction  Remove trees #1-8, 10, 20, 24-31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 58 & 59 (25 trees).  Mulch from tree removals may be spread out under the driplines of trees that will be retained, keeping at least 12” away from the trunks.  Prior to construction or grading, contractor shall install fencing to construct a temporary Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around each tree or grove of trees as indicated on the tree protection plan. 6’ chain-link fencing is ideal; however wire or heavy-duty orange poly fencing may be used if it is securely attached to metal stakes, spaced no further than 4’ apart. Wire or rope shall be threaded through the mesh at the top of the fence to prevent sagging.  TPZ fencing shall remain in an upright sturdy manner from the start of grading until the completion of construction. Fencing shall not be adjusted or removed without consulting the project arborist. Demolition Phase  Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) fencing may be adjusted to provide access to demolish the existing fence by trees #34 & 35. Existing fence shall be demolished by hand. (Figure 2) Foundation, Grading, and Construction Phase  If roots > 2” diameter are encountered during drainage excavation by tree #41, they shall be cleanly pruned, immediately covered, and kept moist till backfilled.  If needed, pruning shall be performed by personnel certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). All pruning shall adhere to ISA and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards and Best Management Practices. Figure 2. Temporary protection fencing around tree #35 can be moved for demolition of the existing fence. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 4  Should TPZ encroachment be necessary, the contractor shall contact the project arborist for consultation and recommendations.  Contractor shall keep TPZs free of all construction-related materials, debris, fill soil, equipment, etc. The only acceptable material is mulch spread out beneath the trees.  Should any damage to the trees occur, the contractor shall promptly notify the project arborist to appropriately mitigate the damage. Landscaping Phase (if applicable)  Contractor shall avoid trenching and grade changes within oak driplines.  All planting and irrigation shall be kept a minimum of 10’ away from native oaks. All irrigation within the driplines shall be targeted at specific plants, such as drip emitters or bubblers. No overhead irrigation shall occur within the driplines of native oaks.  All planting within oak driplines shall be compatible with oaks, consisting of plant material that requires little to no water after two years’ establishment. A list of oak- compatible plants can be found in a publication from the California Oak Foundation, available at: http://californiaoaks.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/CompatiblePlantsUnderAroundOaks.pdf Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report, and please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or concerns. Please see attached tree protection plan. Sincerely, Jennifer Tso Certified Arborist #WE-10270A Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 5 Tree Inventory & Assessment Table #s: Each tree was given a numerical tag from #1-59. Their locations are given in the tree protection plan. DBH (Diameter at Breast Height): Trunk diameters in inches were calculated from the circumference measured at 4.5’ above average grade. Health & Structural Condition Rating Dead: Dead or declining past chance of recovery. Poor (P): Stunted or declining canopy, poor foliar color, possible disease or insect issues. Severe structural defects that may or may not be correctable. Usually not a reliable specimen for preservation. Fair (F): Fair to moderate vigor. Minor structural defects that can be corrected. More susceptible to construction impacts than a tree in good condition. Good (G): Good vigor and color, with no obvious problems or defects. Generally more resilient to impacts. Very Good (VG): Exceptional specimen with excellent vigor and structure. Unusually nice. Dripline: Canopy radius was visually estimated in each cardinal direction. Age Young (Y): Within the first 20% of expected life span. High resiliency to encroachment. Mature (M): Between 20% - 80% of expected life span. Moderate resiliency to encroachment. Overmature (OM): In >80% of expected life span. Low resiliency to encroachment. DE: Dripline Encroachment (X indicates encroachment) CI: Anticipated Construction Impact (L = Low, M = Moderate, H = High) Tree impact summary  Trees that will need to be removed due to encroachment: 1-8, 10, 20, 24-31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 58, 59 (25 trees) o 7 trees are considered protected (#20, 27-31, 33) and are highlighted in the inventory table with bold typeface. o Tree #10 is proposed for removal based on poor condition.  Trees to be saved that will be subjected to dripline encroachment: 19, 21-23, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42 (9 trees)  Trees to be saved that will not be encroached: 9, 11-18, 38, 43-57 (25 trees) Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 6 # Species DBH Health Structure Dripline N E S W Age DE CI Comments Action 1 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 9, 4 G-F F 6 0 10 10 Y X H Growing under power lines, canopy over street. Small secondary trunk. Sprouting from wood. In proposed parking. Remove. 2 Valley oak 7.5 G-F F 0 0 6 8 Y X H Growing away from power lines; epicormic sprouting. In proposed parking. Remove. 3 Valley oak 7, 8 G F 10 0 12 15 M X H Co-dominant stems at 2' above grade. Growing away from lines over street. In proposed parking. Remove. 4 Apricot (Prunus sp.) 8.5 G P 15NW -W M X H Other stems and trunks failed; top heavy canopy growing through lower lines. More top heavy. Base on trunk on N side with decay cavity (stem failure). In proposed grading. Remove. 5 Valley oak 6.5 G G 0 0 8 8 Y X H Under power lines. Likely to be topped in future. In proposed parking. Remove. 6 Valley oak 6.5 G G-F 8 0 0 8 Y X H Under power lines. Likely to be topped in the future. In proposed curb. Remove. 7 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) 26.5 F-P F-P 12 12 12 12 M X H Minor chlorosis in upper crown. Large diameter dieback with epicormic sprouting. Co-dominant stems at 6', poor structure above. In proposed grading. Remove. 8 Siberian elm 8, 3, 2 P P 6 6 6 6 M X H Top of main stem dead, epicormic sprouts. 10" trunk or root fractured next to driveway (old wound). 6’ from proposed sewer lateral; encroachment may be lower but condition is poor. In proposed grading. Remove. 9 English walnut (Juglans regia) 27.5 G-F G-F 20 20 20 20 M L Co-dominant stems at 4.5, pruning wounds in scaffold branches with decay. Minor dieback in inner crown but otherwise very healthy. Nice specimen. Clear of construction. None. 10 California black walnut (Juglans hindsii) 15.5 VP P 6 6 6 6 OM X H Nearly dead with some sprouts. Mistletoe. Remove based on condition. 11 Valley oak 9, 4 G G-F 8 0 8 10 Y L Second trunk suppressed. Clear of construction. None Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 7 # Species DBH Health Structure Dripline N E S W Age DE CI Comments Action 12 Valley oak 14.5 G G 15 15 15 15 M L Clear of construction. None. 13 Siberian elm 12 G-F F 20 15 0 15 M L Board screwed to trunk, DBH estimated Phototropic lean to N. Clear of construction. None. 14 Siberian elm 20.5 F F-P 15 18 15 20 M L Previous limb failure. Co-dominant stems at 6'. Dieback in top. Elongated scaffold branches. Clear of construction. None. 15 Valley oak 13.5, 15 G G-F 20 20 20 20 M L Co-dominant stems at 2', 5' & 10'. Clear of construction. None. 16 Valley oak 8 G G 8 8 8 8 Y L Protected tree. 13’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 17 Valley oak 7 G G-F 0 0 8 8 Y L Protected tree. Minor phototropic lean to S. 16’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 18 Valley oak 10.5 G F 10 0 8 15 M L Protected tree. 11’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 19 Valley oak 11 G-F G 15 12 12 0 M X L Protected tree. Minor branch dieback. 9’ from proposed drainage; 8’ from proposed area drain. Install temporary protection fencing. 20 Valley oak 6.5 G G 3 3 3 10 Y X H Protected tree. 3’ from proposed drainage. Remove. 21 Valley oak 8.5, 9 G-F F 8 15 10 8 M X L Protected tree. Co-dominant stems at 3' with included bark. Stunted sprouts from wood throughout tree. 6’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 22 Valley oak 9, 6.5 F F 0 6 10 15 M X L Protected tree. Co-dominant stems at 4'. Stunted growth with branch dieback. Unknown bark / wounding / sap on lower trunk. 9’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 23 Valley oak 7 G G 0 3 12 3 Y X L Protected tree. Sprouting along trunk. 10’ from proposed house. Install temporary protection fencing. 24 Valley oak 10, 8 G-F F 6 15 15 8 M X H Co-dominant stems at 1'. Sprouting on lower trunk. In proposed house. Remove. 25 Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) 8 P F-P 15 6 3 12 OM X H Co-dominant stem removed. Narrow attachment at 8'. Major dieback. In proposed house. Remove. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 8 # Species DBH Health Structure Dripline N E S W Age DE CI Comments Action 26 Honey locust 6.5, 5.5, 5 VP P 6 6 6 6 OM X H Co-dominant stems at 2'. Major branch dieback. Not likely to recover. In proposed house. Remove. 27 Valley oak 9 G G-F 10 10 15 0 Y X H Protected tree. Co-dominant stems at 9'. In proposed house. Remove. 28 Valley oak 9 G-F F 0 0 18 12 Y X H Protected tree. Multiple trunk cankers. Epicormic sprouting from wood. In proposed house. Remove. 29 Valley oak 7, 13.5 G-F F 15 18 10 8 M X H Protected tree. Co-dominant stems at 3'. Sprouting from lower stems. In proposed house. Remove. 30 Valley oak 10 F G 10 18 0 8 Y X H Protected tree. Sparse canopy but good growth. Multiple closed trunk cankers. Sprouting from wood. In proposed house. Remove. 31 Valley oak 6.5 G G 8 0 0 8 Y X M- H Protected tree. 3’ from proposed drainage. Remove. 32 Valley oak 9 G G 12 0 12 10 Y X M- H Protected tree. 4’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 33 Valley oak 8, 5 G G-F 8 10 10 0 Y X H Protected tree. 2’ from proposed drainage. Remove. 34 Valley oak 13 G-F F 15 15 0 15 M X L Co-dominant stems at 7'. Stunted sprouts in lower scaffolds. 18’ from proposed area drain; existing fence to be demolished within dripline. Install temporary protection fencing. 35 Valley oak 12 G F 10 10 15 15 M X L Multiple stems at 9'. Epicormic sprouts. No high voltage line on adjacent pole. >25’ from proposed house and driveway; existing fence to be demolished within dripline. Install temporary protection fencing; OK to adjust for demo access. Demo existing fence by hand. 36 Siberian elm 9.5, 11, 7, 6 G-F F-P 10 20 20 20 M X H Multiple trunks, some old sprouts. Moderate twig dieback. Major sapsucker damage on all stems. In proposed driveway. Remove. 37 Siberian elm 15, 9 G-F P 15 15 18 18 M X H Co-dominant trunks at 1.5' with narrow attachment; splits again at greater height. In proposed house. Remove. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 9 # Species DBH Health Structure Dripline N E S W Age DE CI Comments Action 38 Gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) 11 G F-P 8 0 10 12 M L Off-site tree, DBH estimated. Within 6” of (E) fence. 15° lean to W with poor taper, lean corrects at 20' above grade. Co-dominant stems at top. 10’ from proposed area drain. Install temporary protection fencing. 39 Valley oak 7 G G-F 0 6 10 8 Y X H Lopsided canopy due to removed stem. In proposed house. Remove. 40 Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) 5, 4, 5 F F-P 8 8 8 8 M X H Multiple stems, base of trunk on E side damaged. 4’ from proposed house. Remove. 41 Valley oak 13.5 G G 15 15 15 15 M X L- M Pushing out base of chain link fence. 8’ from proposed drainage & 14’ from proposed house. . Install temporary protection fencing. Cleanly prune roots > 2” diameter if encountered. 42 Mulberry (Morus alba) 12 F F 15 15 15 15 M X L Off site, no tag, DBH estimated. Sparse, drought stressed stunted canopy. Formerly pollarded. 3’ of other side of fence. 13’ from proposed drainage. Install temporary protection fencing. 43 Valley oak 7.5 G F 0 18 0 0 Y L Protected tree. Phototropic lean to E. Clear of construction; could be encroached by staging. Install temporary protection fencing. 44 Valley oak 8.5 G F 18 0 0 8 Y L Protected tree. Phototropic lean to N. Clear of construction; could be encroached by staging. Install temporary protection fencing. 45 Valley oak 10.5 G G-F 0 10 15 10 M L Protected tree. Crowded by adjacent oak but otherwise healthy. None. 46 Valley oak 10. 5, 12.5 G G-F 15 15 15 15 M L Protected tree. Co-dominant stems at 1’ with large inclusion / reaction wood. Crossing branches in upper canopy. None. 47 Catalina cherry (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii) 6, 6, 6, 6 G F 10 10 10 10 M L Off-site tree; DBH estimated; no tag. 4' from (E) fence. Multiple trunks. None. 48 Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) 14 G F 10 10 10 10 M L Trunk flare buried. Twisting trunk. None. Revised Arborist Report, 2216 Blackwood Drive September 23, 2019 (revised 12/18/19) Jennifer Tso, Certified Arborist 10 # Species DBH Health Structure Dripline N E S W Age DE CI Comments Action 49 Ponderosa pine 14.5 G F 8 8 8 8 M L Twisting trunks, co-dominant stems at 10'. Trunk flare buried. None. 50 Valley oak 6.5 G G-F 15 3 0 3 Y L Lower trunk curving due to shade but corrected at top. None. 51 Siberian elm 15 G F-P 0 15 15 6 M L No tag, DBH estimated, off site. Phototropic lean to S. None. 52 Siberian elm 24 G-F F-P 25 20 15 10 M L Large elongated scaffold to N. Minor. Dieback at top. Co-dominant stems at 5'. None. 53 Siberian elm 22 F F 15 15 15 10 M L None. 54 Siberian elm 21 G-F F-P 15 6 15 20 M L Co-dominant stems at 5'. Previous failures. Precious top with some dieback. None. 55 English walnut 28.5 G G-F 20 20 20 20 M L Spreading canopy with co-dominant stems at 4. 5'. Elongated scaffolds, decent taper. Nice specimen. None. 56 Siberian elm 19 F F-P 18 10 15 15 M L Co-dominant stems at 7'. Previous failures, epicormic sprouts. No flare. Trunk flare buried. Clear of construction. None. 57 Siberian elm 21.5 F P 10 10 15 0 M L All stems failed. Sprouting reaction growth. Trunk flare buried. 16’ from proposed limit of grading. Install temporary protection fencing. 58 Siberian elm 25 F P 15 12 20 8 M X H Multiple stems at 1', 3.5', etc. DBH taken at base. Trunk flare buried. 6’ from proposed limit of grading. Remove. 59 Siberian elm 30.5 F P 15 0 15 15 M X H Trunk flare buried. Co-dominant stems at multiple levels, DBH taken at base. Previous failures. Sparse at top. In proposed grading. Remove. Employ measures necessary to ensure no creation or maintenance of a public nuisance as defined by California Health and Safety Code §2002. Maintaining a nuisance may lead to abatement by the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control Ditrict maintain vectors or other nuisances. aspect of the project or property produce, harbor, or and civil penalties pursuant to California Health and Safety Code §2060-2067. At no time should any Jeremy Shannon 925-685-9301 8/8/2019 ~0 EASTBAY <._/_:> MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT October 26, 2020 Margaret Mitchell, Planner II Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94 5 5 3 Re: Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration -2216 Blackwood Drive 2-Lot Subdivision (#MS 19-0007), Contra Costa County Dear Ms. Mitchell: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the two-lot subdivision located at 2216 Blackwood Drive in the City of Walnut Creek of Unincorporated Contra Costa County (County). EBMUD has the following comments . WATER SERVICE EBMUD's Leland Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 50 and 2 50 fe et, serves the existing house located at 2216 Blackwood Drive (Parcel A). EBMU D 's Danville Pre ssure Zone , with a service elevation range between 250 and 450 feet, will serv e Parcel B of the proposed development located off of Norris Road. Once the property is subdivided, separate meters for each lot will be required. A main extension, at the project sponsor's expense, will be required to serve the proposed development. When the development plans are finalized, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD 's New Business Office and request a water s ervice estimate to determine costs and conditions for prov iding water service to the proposed development. Engineering and installation of water mains and services require substantial lead time, which should be provided for in the project sponsor 's development schedule. A minimum 20-foot wide right-of-way is required for installation of new and replacement water mains. Utilities to be installed in the right-of-way with the water mains must be located such that the new water mains meet the minimum horizontal and vertica l separation distances with other utilities as set forth in the California (Waterworks Standards) Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64572 (Water Main Separation) and EBMUD requirements for placement of water mains within a right-of-way. These minimum horizontal separation distance requirements include, but are not limit ed to , 10 feet between the water main and sewer, 5 feet between the water main and storm drain , 7 feet from the face of curb , and 5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. In addition, water mains must be vertically located a minimum of one foot above sewers and storm drains . 375 ELEVENTH STREET • OAKLAND • CA 94 607·4240 • TOLL FREE 1·866·40·EBMUD Margaret Mitchell, Planner II October 26, 2020 Page 2 WATER CONSERVATION The proj ect presents an opportunity to incorporate water conservation measures. EBMUD requests that the County include in its conditions of approval a requirement that the project sponsor comply with Assembly Bill 325, "Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ," (Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations , Chapter 2.7 , Sections 490 through 495). The project spo nsor should be aware that Section 31 ofEBMUD 's Water Service Regulations requires that water service shall not be furni shed for new or expanded service unless all the applicable water-efficiency measures described in the regulation are installed at the project sponsor's expense. If you have any questions concerning this response, ple ase contact Timothy R. McGowan, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Facilities Planning Section at (510 ) 287-1981. Sincerely, ,.D c,~l vj'/L Lv v aw-'- David J. Rehnstrom Manager of Water Distribution Planning DJR:VDC:btf s b20 _ 223.doc cc: Campos Development, LLC 1555 Bothelho Drive,# 421 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 From:Joe Smithonic To:Margaret Mitchell Cc:Teri Rie Subject:MS19-0007 - 2216 Blackwood Dr, Walnut Creek Date:Monday, August 26, 2019 2:51:00 PM Attachments:2019-0826 - Agency Comment Request from Flood Control - MS19-0007.pdf Hello Ms. Mitchell, Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans on MS19-0007 (2216 Blackwood Dr, Walnut Creek) for regional drainage matters. The project is located in the unformed Drainage Area 49, so no drainage fees are due. The Flood Control District does not have any comments on MS19-0007 at this time. Attached is the “Agency Comment Request” form for your files. Thank you, Joe Smithonic Flood Control 925.313.2348 Joe.Smithonic@pw.cccounty.us From:Russ Leavitt To:Margaret Mitchell Subject:MS19-0007; two-lot subdivision (one new house), 2216 Blackwood Drive, uninc. Walnut Creek Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:46:31 AM Attachments:RUSSELL B LEAVITT.vcf According to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) records, the project site is within Central San’s service area and is currently receiving sanitary sewer service. The new proposed unit would not be expected to produce an unmanageable added capacity demand on the wastewater system, nor interfere with existing facilities. The tentative map provides for an easement for Parcel “B” through Parcel “A” to access the six-inch diameter public main sewer in Blackwood Drive.The applicant must submit full-size improvement plans for Central San Permit staff to review and pay all appropriate fees. For more information, the applicant should contact the Central San Permit Section at (925) 229-7371. Thanks!   TWO -LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION APPEAL COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Contra Costa County Planning Commission Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:30 P.M. 2 3 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve: •A two-lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lot into twoparcels(Parcel A:20,536 square-feet ;Parcel B:22,772 square-feet). •Removal of 13 code-protected trees on Parcel A and within the BlackwoodDrivepublicright-of-way. •Variance to allow an average width of 110 .8 feet for each lot (where 120 feetisrequired). •Exceptions to Title 9 –Subdivision Requirements: •Sidewalk requirements;and •Underground existing overhead utility lines for Parcel A. •The development of a residence is not proposed as a part of this project. 5 Tentative Map 6 BACKGROUND ■A Minor Subdivision application was submitted on August 2,2019 . ■A Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9,2020.The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29,2020,during which 15 public comment letters were received. ■The project was scheduled at the December 7,2020 Zoning Administrator hearing, however,the project description in the notice did not include the requested exception to the underground utility requirement from Title 9 for Parcel A .The project was then re- noticed and continued to the December 21 ,2020 Zoning Administrator hearing.The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item,public comments were heard,and the Zoning Administrator approved the item with changes to Condition of Approval (COA)#5,11,and 12 and the addition of COA #39. ■Staff received one letter on December 30,2020,appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission. 7 SUMMARY OF APPEAL POINTS Several neighbors will be adversely impacted by the additional property entrance on Norris Road,which is a privately maintained road for the following reasons: •Appeal Point #1:No zoning maps show an address at this location and is not available on any public record. •Appeal Point #2:Understand the road access and variances given this is a privately maintained road. •Appeal Point #3:Clarity on the property owner’s responsibility for future maintenance (in conjunction with the existing neighbors). 8 9 Legal Description of Property PORTION OF LOT 4, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "RN BURGESS COMPANY'S MAP NO 1, NORRIS ADDITION TO WALNUT HEIGHTS, A PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 22, 1912 IN VOLUME 7 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 174, CONTAINING ONE ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING IN THE CENTER LINE OF NORRIS ROAD, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 58°54' WEST 166.5 FEET FROM THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 1.5 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM OAKLAND AND ANTIOCH LAND CO. TO WILLIAM F. WHITEMAN DATED JANUARY 20, 1917 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 287 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 398, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 58°54' WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 111 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE 0.50 OF AN ACRE PORTION OF LOT 4, DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM WESTERN GROUP SECURITIES COMPANY TO GUY L PUTNAM, ET AL, DATED MARCH 27, 1925 AND RECORDED APRIL 2, 1925 INVOLUME 484 OF DEEDS, ATPAGE 370, THENCE SOUTH 31°06'WESTALONG SAIDLINE 392.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 4, THENCE SOUTH 58 54' EAST ALONG SAID LINE 111 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE SAID WHITMAN PARCEL (287 D 396) THENCE NORTH 31°06' EAST ALONG SAID LINE 39228 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #MS19-0007. 11 QUESTIONS? M E M o LAW TO: JAMES CAMPOS FROM: JEFF ROONEY DATE: FEBRUARY 5,2021 CLIENT: CAMPOS DEVELOPMENT LLC SUBJECT: NORRIS ROAD ACCESS & MAINTENANCE Page 1 of2 At the request of Campos Development, LLC .(CDL), Vantage Point Law, Inc. has been requested to review, research and provide findings regarding CDL rights of access over the private Norris Road and its obligations, if any , for maintenance of Norris Road. CDL owns the real property legally described on the Exhibit 1 attached ("Property") and abuts both Norris Road and Blackwood Drive. I. The Property was created from a portion of lot No.4 of the R. N. Burgess Company's Map No.1 recorded on July 22, 1912. That 1912 subdivision and map depicted not only individual lots but also private roads, including Norris Road and Sharp Road. The Property includes a 15' strip of Norris Road within its borders and the lot lines in the subdivision run to the centerlines of Norris Road or Sharp Road. No separate written easement for ingress or egress were, to the best of my investigation, ever created or recorded as part of the subdivision. The Property 'abuts' Norris Road. By the time of the creation of the subdivision "It is a thoroughly established proposition in this state that, when one lays out a tract of land into lots and streets and sells the lots by reference to a map which exhibits the lots and streets as they lie with relation to each other, the purchasers of such lots have a private easement in the streets opposite their respective lots, for ingress and egress and for any use proper to a private way, and that this private easement is entirely independent of the fact of dedication to public use, and is a private appurtenance to the lots, of which the owners cannot be divested except by due process of law. Kittle v. Pfeiffer) 22 Cal. 490; Petitpierre v. Maguire) 155 Cal. 250) 100 Pac. 690; Prescott v: Edwards) 117 Cal. 304, 49 Pac. 478) 59 Am. St. Rep. 186)' Schaufele v. Doyle) 86 Cal. 109) 24 Pac. 834,' Eachus v. Los Angeles) etc.) Co.) 103 Cal. 617) 37 Pac. 750) 42 Am. St. Rep. 149)' Cushing-Wetmore Co. v. Gray) 152 Cal. 122) 92 Pac. 70) 125 Am. St. Rep. 47)' . Williams v. Los Angeles) etc.) Co.) 150 Cal. 594, 89 Pac. 330)' *690 King v. Dugan) 150 Cal. 263) 88 Pac. 925)' Archer v. Salines) 93 Cal. 49) 28 Pac. 839) 16 L. R. A. 145)' Grogan v. Haywards (C. C.) 4 Fed. 163)' Gormley v. Clark) 134 U S. 350) 10 Sup. Ct. 554, 33 L Ed. 909". Danielson v. Sykes) 157 Cal. 686) 689-90) 109 P. 87) 88 (1910). Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Property, along with those other owners of lots created by the 1912 map have private easements for 'ingress, egress, and any use proper to a private way' as both abutting parcels and parcles created by the subdivision map. As a point of reference I obtained and reviewed a copy of the legal description of the property owned by the appellant, Barbara Spruck , which is attached as Exhibit 2. Vantage Point Law, Inc. A California Professional COIporation Attorney Work Product Declaration This document is meant for intemal use and dissemination between attomey, client, and authorized legal staff, only. Any information found herein merely reflect the impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research, and/or theories of the attomey and/or legal staff in preparation for litigation. This document and its contents are is not discoverable under any circumstances, and is protected under the Califomia Civil Attomey Work Product Statue (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §20J8.030(a)) and the Federal Rule o/C ivil Procedure 2 6(b)(3) M E M o LAW The Spruck parcel was created out of what was originally Lot No.7 of the same R. N. Burgess Company's Map No.1 recorded on July 22, 1912 and also has its property line running to the middle of Norris Road, but from the opposite side as the CDL Property. In the Spruck legal description, there is no separate written easement for ingress and egress over Norris Road, yet that is the access route used by the Spruck property. The Spruck property, the CDL property and the other abutting property owners' rights to access Norris Road all arose from the recordation on July 22, 1912 of the R .N. Burgess Company's subdivision map. II. A review of the public record and the preliminary title report issued to CDL at the time of its acquisition of the Property revealed no written private road maintenance agreement. I further inquired of Mr. Campos and he confirmed he was not provided any disclosure of the existence of a private road maintenance agreement. I therefore assume that no such private road maintenance agreement exists or affects the Property. Notwithstanding the lack of such a written agreement (which if one existed, would govern), California has specific statutory provisions to address duties and obligations of multiple property owners accessing a private road. California Civil Code §845 (a) and (b) which read: § 845. Easements; maintenance; failure to pay owner's share of costs; snow removal (a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair. (b) If the easement is owned by more than one person, or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership, the cost of maintaining it in repair shall be shared by each owner of the easement or the owners of the parcels of land, as the case may be, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by the parties for that purpose. In the absence of an agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionately to the use made of the easement by each owner. The language of Civil Code §845 (b) is quite clear that CDL, along with other parcel owners using Norris Road would share the cost of maintenance proportionally. The fact that CDL has only intermittently used Norris Road to date would suggest that its 'proportional share' would be extremely small. However, upon construction of a home on the newly created CDL parcel, the CDL (or the new homeowner) 'proportion' would increase to that of the others who regularly access Norris Road. Vantage Point Law, Inc. A California Professional Corporation Attorney Work Product Declaration This document is meant for internal use and dissemination between attorney, client, and authorized legal staff, only. Any information found herein merely reflect the impressions, conclusions , opinions, legal research, and/or theories of the attorney and/or legal staff in preparation for litigation . This document and its contents are is not discoverable under any circumstances, and is protected under the California Civil Attorney Work Product Statue (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §20JB.030(a)) and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) RECORDING REQUESTED BY: Fidelity National Title Company When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statement To: Campos Development, LLC 1555 Botelho Drive #421 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Escrow Order No.: FCHC~5011900826 Property Address: 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN/ParceIID(s): 183-172~001 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) J 1078 .. SIMPLIFILE Fidelity National Friday, MAY 24, 2019 12:46:59 SB2 $O.OOIMOD $3.00IREC $13.00 FTC $2.00IRED $1.00IERD $1.00 SUR $10.00ICCC$1,314.501 Ttl Pd $1,344.50 Nbr-0003475898 LlL/RC/1 .. 3 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Exempt from fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); recorded in connection with a transfer subject to the imposition of documentary transfer tax. GRANT DEED o This transfer is exempt from the documentary transfer tax. o The documentary transfer tax is $1,314.50 and is computed on: o the full value of the interest or property conveyed. o the full value less the liens or encumbrances remaining thereon at the time of sale. The property is located in 0 an Unincorporated area. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Elizabeth Ann Todoroff, a single woman , hereby GRANT(S) to Campos Development, LLC, a California limited liability company the following described real property in the Unincorporated Area of the County of Contra Costa, State of California: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF " Date'd: I May! 3, 2019 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this document on the date(s) set forth below. jt:~./ ~ /,J If __ J/ Elizab~h Ann Todoroff ~ r(r MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE Grant Deed SCA0000129.doc I Updated: 11.20.17 Printed: 05.13.19 @02:51 PM CA·FT-FCHC-01500.081501-FCHC-5011900826 (continued) APN/ParceIID(s): 183-172-001 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the Individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. On M ~ 15, ;Z!:l 19. before me, 1<0 V" I jJfL iIi:1. :a col , Notary Public, i (here insert ne and title of the officer) personally appeared t:. t"\ ~ beth AnQ Tadoroff " J who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. W ITN ESS my hand and official seal. lten (; t dJruyj d cd Signature Grant Deed SCA0000129.doc I Updated: 11.20.17 KORAL HAGGARD NOTARY PUBLIC for the State of Montana Residing at Polson, Montana My Commission Expires December 22,2021 Printed: 05.13.19 @02:51 PM CA-FT -FCHC-01500.081501-FCHC·5011900826 Legal Description For APN/ParceIID(s): 183 .. 172 .. 001 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF LOT 4, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "R N BURGESS COMPANY'S MAP NO 1, NORRIS ADDITION TO WALNUT HEIGHTS, A PORTION OF THE RANCHO SAN MIGUEL, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ON JULY 22, 1912 IN VOLUME 7 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 174, CONTAINING ONE ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING IN THE CENTER LINE OF NORRIS ROAD, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 58° 54' WEST 166.5 FEET FROM THE LINE BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE 1.5 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM OAKLAND AND ANTIOCH LAND CO. TO WILLIAM F. WHITEMAN DATED JANUARY 20, 1917 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 287 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 396, THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 58° 54' WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE 111 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF THE 0.50 OF AN ACRE PORTION OF LOT 4, DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM WESTERN GROUP SECURITIES COMPANY TO GUY L. PUTNAM, ET AL, DATED MARCH 27,1925 AND RECORDED APRIL 2, 1925 IN VOLUME 484 OF DEEDS, AT PAGE 370, THENCE SOUTH 31 Q 06' WEST ALONG SAID LINE 392.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF LOT 4, THENCE SOUTH 58° 54' EAST ALONG SAID LINE 111 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST LINE OF THE SAID WHITMAN PARCEL (287 D 396) THENCE NORTH 31° 06' EAST ALONG SAID LINE 392.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Grant Deed SCA0000129.doc I Updated: 11.20.17 Printed: 05.13.19 @ 02:52 PM CA-FT-FCHC-01500.0B1501-FCHC-5011900B26 .I ~ CORDING BY: lII~mllillfllll flfillllll"II~ll ,IIHlII II Fidelity National Title Company Escrow No.: 05-612591-B5 Locate No.: CAFNT0907 -0907 -0006-0000612591 Title No.: OS-612591-MK When Recorded Mail Document and Tax: Statement To: Ms. Barbara Spruck 2154 Norris Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 APN: 183-171-004 CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office STEPHEN L, WEIR~Clerk~Recorder DOC-2000 ..... 0373501 Acct 4-Fidelity National Title F 'dsy SEP 30 2005 08:00:00 1"''' ... , • 0 MIt $1 00 tee $946.00 SUR $10.0 1'00 MOD $2.00 REC $6.00 TCF $. Ttl Pd $966 00 Nbr-0002924445 I MNH/R2/1-2 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT DEED The undersigned grantor(s) dedare(s) Documentary transfer tax is $946.00 [ X ] computed on full value of property conveyed, or [ ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, [ X ] Unincorporated Area City of FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, California F.L, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company hereby GRANT(S) to Barbara Spruck, an unmarried woman and Ryan Kish, an unmarried man, as Joint Tenants the following described real property in the County of Contra Costa, State of California: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF DATED: September 21, 2005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF _A_l=am=eda=...,.=--_________ _ ON September 22. 2005 the undersigned Notary Public Wilson Young before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s-) whose name~) is/ate subscribed to the' within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sAc/tAey executed the same in his/~ir authorized capacity(ies-), and that by his/~eir signature~ on the instrument the person(oS), or the entity upon behalf of which the person~ acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand a California F.I., LLC, A california Limited Liability Company by JF Steward, LLC, a California Limited Liability By:/' ~-L Company, Manager Wilson Youn~ager MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE FD-213 (Rev 7/96) (grant)(08-0S) GRANT DEED No,: 05-612591-B5 Locate No.: CAFNT0907-0907-0006-0000612591 Title No.: OS-612S91-MK THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UN-INCORPORATED AREA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CAUFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Portion of Lot 7, Map of 'Norris Addition, filed July 22, 1912, Map Book 7, page 174, Contra Costa County Records, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 7, distant thereof South 58° 54' East 116.22 feet from the most Northerly corner of Lot 7 as said lot is delineated and so designated on that certain map entitled JlR.N. Burgess Company's Map No.1, Norris Addition to Walnut Heights, a portion of The Rancho San Miguel, Contra Costa County Records; thence South 31 0 06' West 374.80 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 7; thence along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 7, South 58° 54" East 116.22 feet; thence North 31 0 06' East 374.80 feet to a pOint on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 7; thence 580 54' West 116.22 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: All that portion thereof conveyed in the deed to Audrie E. Brown, recorded October 11, 1966, Book 5222 Official Records, page 231. ~ND OF OOCUMEMrr Initials: TWO -LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION APPEAL COUNTY FILE #MS19-0007 2216 Blackwood Drive, Walnut Creek Board of Supervisors Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:30 a.m. 2 3 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision todenyanappealandupholdthedecisionoftheZoningAdministrator’s decision to approve : •A two -lot minor subdivision to subdivide a 42,350-square-foot lotintotwoparcels(Parcel A:20,536 square-feet ;Parcel B:22,772square-feet). •Removal of 13 code-protected trees on Parcel A and within theBlackwoodDrivepublicright-of-way. •Variance to allow an average width of 110 .8 feet for each lot (where120feetisrequired). •Exceptions to Title 9 –Subdivision Requirements: •Sidewalk requirements;and •Underground existing overhead utility lines for Parcel A. 5 Tentative Map 6 BACKGROUND ■A Minor Subdivision application was submitted on August 2,2019 . ■A Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding documents were posted for public review on October 9,2020.The public comment period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extended to October 29,2020,during which 15 public comment letters were received. ■The project was scheduled at the December 7,2020 Zoning Administrator hearing,however,the project description in the notice did not include the requested exception to the underground utility requirement from Title 9 for Parcel A.The project was then re-noticed and continued to the December 21 ,2020 Zoning Administrator hearing.The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing for this item,public comments were heard,and the Zoning Administrator approved the item with changes to Condition of Approval (COA)#5,12,and 13 and the addition of COA #40. ■Staff received one letter on December 30,2020,appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the County Planning Commission.At the February 10 ,2021 County Planning Commission hearing,the Commission upheld the County Zoning Administrator’s decision and denied the appeal.The motion was passed by the Commission with a unanimous vote. ■One appeal has been filed on the matter by Daniel Schoenberg,a neighbor at 2158 Norris Road. 7 SUMMARY OF APPEAL POINTS Appeal Point #1:The appellant questions the County’s authority to grantaccessandnewaddressrightstoaprimaryresidenceonNorrisRoadandwouldlikefortheCountytoshowwheretwoprimaryaccessrightsexist. Appeal Point #2:The appellant requests that both Parcel A and Parcel BbeaccessedfromBlackwoodDrive,or that the applicant produce afeasibilitystudywhysuchaccessisnotfeasible. Appeal Point #3:The 1912 parcel map provided does not specify therightstohavetwoprimaryaddressaccesspointsforoneproperty. Appeal Point #4:Several questions raised at the County PlanningCommissionhearingcouldnotbeconfirmed. Appeal Point #5:At the February 10 ,2021 hearing,only the undergroundutilityrequirementforParcelAwasdiscussedandanexceptionforParcelAwasapproved.The appellant wants the underground utility requirementforParcelBtobeupheldtoeliminatefireriskduetodownedorexposedpowerlines. 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors DENY the appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to deny an appeal and UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #MS19-0007. 9 QUESTIONS? RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of a land use permit to establish a warehouse at 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point Area (LP16-2031), RECEIVE public testimony, and CLOSE the hearing. 2. DENY the appeal of DeNova Homes, Inc. 3 FIND that the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project (MND SCH #2017022002), which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of establishing a 98,460 square foot warehouse at the subject location, adequately analyses the Project’s environmental impacts; that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 4. ADOPT the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project (MND SCH #2017022002). 5. ADOPT the mitigation monitoring program for the project. 6. APPROVE Land Use Permit LP16-2031 to allow the establishment of a 98,460 square foot warehouse at 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point Area. 7. APPROVE the findings in support of the project. 8. APPROVE the project conditions of approval. 9. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Willow Pass Business Park has a total development capacity of 357,500 square feet; that a total of 204,090 square feet have been developed or pending; and that the Park has a remaining development capacity of 153,410 square feet. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: 925-655-2876 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D .3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve Land Use Permit LP16-2031 RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 10. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 11. SPECIFY that the Department of Conservation and Development, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Board of Supervisors is based. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the initial deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover any and all additional costs associated with processing the application. BACKGROUND: A. Project Description The Applicant (Ware Malcomb) and Owner (CP Logistics Willow Pass, LLC) have applied for a land use permit to establish a warehouse at 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point area. The project site is two adjoining, vacant parcels (APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027) located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road. The project site is within the Light Industrial (L-I) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (LI). A warehouse may be established in an L-I zoning district with a land use permit. At the request of the Applicant, the project before the Board is a 98,460 square-foot warehouse rather than the 225,950 square-foot warehouse approved by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) and County Planning Commission (CPC). As described further below, the Applicant has requested approval of a reduced-size warehouse in an effort to respond to the appeal by DeNova Homes, Inc. The Applicant submitted a conceptual site plan for the 98,460 square-foot warehouse on May 13, 2020 that reduces the originally proposed warehouse by 56 percent. The proposed reduced 98,460 square foot warehouse project includes the following site improvements: a driveway that wraps around the warehouse; parking along the east and north elevations of the building that provide 140 parking spaces (where 99 parking spaces are required); 18 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building; trailer storage stalls to the west and south of the warehouse; 7 long-term bicycle spaces; exterior lighting consisting of building-mounted lights and lighting poles; perimeter and parking lot bio-retention basins and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to existing onsite drainage swales and an offsite detention basin; and landscape plantings along the edges of the project site. The proposed warehouse would be of a contemporary modern architectural style with exterior walls of painted concrete panels interspersed with vision glass and tinted glass. Vertical design elements are incorporated along the (primary) north and east elevations. The “working” south elevation is characterized by its row of truck loading bays. B. CEQA Environmental Review of the 98,460 Square-Foot Warehouse B. CEQA Environmental Review of the 98,460 Square-Foot Warehouse A new 2021 Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for the reduced 98,460 square-foot warehouse project. The 2021 MND is based, in part, on the prior 2017 MND prepared for the 225,950 square-foot warehouse as many of the potential impacts for the two project versions are similar. The new 2021 MND also incorporates an updated transportation impact analysis. TJKM Transportation Consultants, the consultant on a retainer contract with the Department, submitted a transportation impact analysis (TIA) on the 98,460 square-foot warehouse on November 3, 2020. The TIA is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) that requires analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for a proposed project, in place of a traffic level of service (LOS) analysis. The TIA found that the proposed 98,460 square-foot warehouse would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. The 2021 MND constitutes the CEQA environmental review for the 98,460 square-foot warehouse. C. Procedural History The following is a summary of actions taken with respect to the project and the Appellant’s (DeNova Homes, Inc.) appeal of the project: August 7, 2017: The LP16-2031 application for a 225,950 square-foot warehouse on Evora Road was heard by the ZA. The ZA approved the land use permit and adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the project. August 17, 2017: DeNova Homes appealed the ZA decision approving LP16-2031. The August 2017 appeal and staff responses to the appeal comments are in the November 2017 CPC staff report. November 8, 2017: The CPC denied the appeal and upheld the ZA decision. November 20, 2017: DeNova Homes appealed the CPC decision on behalf of DeNova Homes. The November 2017 DeNova Homes appeal incorporates by reference the August 2017 appeal to the CPC and comments made by the Appellant's representative at the November 2017 CPC Meeting. County staff and the Applicant have had numerous discussions with the Appellant regarding the appeal and Appellant’s concerns with the project. As a result, the Applicant has significantly modified the project by reducing the proposed warehouse square footage in response to the appeal. Staff believes the smaller warehouse and revised, recirculated MND address all of the concerns raised in the appeal. D. DeNova Homes Appeal In its appeal of the project and in discussions with staff since the appeal was filed, Appellant contends that the proposed warehouse at the project site is too large, the proposed warehouse will impact existing traffic deficiencies and safety hazards at the Willow Pass / Evora intersection, and the MND prepared for the proposed 225,960 square-foot warehouse is inadequate. Each of the Appellant’s appeal points, and staff’s analysis and response, are below. The Proposed Warehouse is Too Large for the Project Site.1. The Appellant contends that the proposed warehouse is too large for the project site, but relies on the Willow Pass Business Park CC&Rs and alleged impacts to the Willow Pass Business Park’s development capacity—neither of which is a basis to deny the requested land use permit. Willow Pass Business Park CC&Rs. The Willow Pass Business Park is adjacent to the project site. The Appellant alleges that the Willow Pass Business Park CC&Rs, which is not a County document, limit development of the project site to 100,000 square feet due to water supply concerns. Due, in part, to the appeal, the Applicant is now proposing a warehouse that is 98,460 square-feet in size. Willow Pass Business Park Development Capacity. The Appellant has stated that it believes that approval of the proposed warehouse would restrict development of the Willow Pass Business Park. Approval of the proposed warehouse has no effect on the remaining development capacity of the Willow Pass Business Park. The M-10 Willow Pass Business Park Mixed-Use designation in the General Plan Land Use Element, and Development Plan DP04-3096 for the Willow Pass Business Park, permits 357,500 square feet of development at the Willow Pass Business Park. The General Plan specifically states that the M-10 designation and the associated development allowance does not apply to the Applicant's project site. A total of 106,092 square feet of the allowed 357,500 square feet of development has been built as the Willow Pass Business Park, with an additional 90,000 square feet under construction and 7,998 square feet pending land use permit approval. Including this new and pending construction, 204,090 square feet have been developed or pending, resulting in a remaining development capacity of 153,410 square feet at the Willow Pass Business Park. The Appellant has asked the County to acknowledge this accounting of remaining development capacity at Willow Pass Business Park. Staff has tabulated the existing development and remaining development capacity at the Willow Pass Business Park in Attachment 7 (Willow Pass Business Park Development Capacity). Staff has identified no basis for determining that the originally proposed project is too large for the project site. The project is consistent with the General Plan, including the LI Light Industry General Plan land use designation, and the L-I Light Industrial zoning district. Nevertheless, the Applicant has attempted to resolve the appeal by proposing a 98,460 square-foot warehouse in place of the 225,950 square-foot warehouse. As described previously, the 98,460 square-foot warehouse reduces the originally proposed warehouse by 56 percent. The Applicant proposes this smaller warehouse as the project to be constructed. 2. The Project will Impact Existing Traffic Congestion and Safety Hazards at the Willow Pass / Evora Intersection. The Appellant contends that the project will worsen existing traffic congestion, and pose a safety hazard, because there would be truck accidents due to the insufficient turning radius at the Willow Pass / Evora Road intersection. However, both the Appellant's consultant, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and the Applicant's consultant, Abrams Associates, determined that trucks could make the turn at the Willow Pass /Evora intersection and found the turning radius to be acceptable. County staff has determined this turning radius to be acceptable. The 2020 TJKM TIA analyzes VMT, rather than LOS, as required under the current CEQA Guidelines. Applying the General Plan Growth Management Performance Standards for traffic, the 98,460 square-foot warehouse project is projected to generate 17 AM peak period and 19 PM peak period vehicle trips and will not significantly increase traffic levels in the area. Nevertheless, the Applicant will be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority/Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation and Bay Point Areas of Benefit (AOB) and make a fair-share AOB fee contribution. 3. 2017 MND is Inadequate. The project has been revised due, in part, to the appeal, and a new MND was prepared. The new 2021 MND was circulated to the public, and the Appellant did not provide additional comments. Several of the appellant’s comments on the 2017 MND have been addressed in the 2021 MND or are no longer relevant due to changes in the regulatory requirements of CEQA. Appellant comments on the 2017 MND that might also apply to the new 2021 MND are addressed below. a. Transportation. Hexagon Peer Review: The appeal includes the November 17, 2017 peer review prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants of the Abrams TIA on the proposed warehouse. The Hexagon peer review determined that the Abrams TIA was inadequate and required revisions. Rather than revising the Abrams TIA, staff directed TJKM to prepare a new TIA to address the Hexagon comments. The resulting November 2018 TJKM TIA corroborated the findings of the Abrams TIA and responded to all of the Hexagon comments. Subsequently, the November 2020 TJKM TIA evaluated the 98,460 square-foot warehouse. The original 225,960 square-foot warehouse would generate 393 daily trips including 38 AM peak period trips and 43 PM peak period trips. In contrast, the reduced 98,460 square-foot warehouse would generate 171 daily trips including 17 AM peak period trips and 19 PM peak period trips. Given that the daily and peak period trips would be substantially lower for the reduced warehouse, there would not be any new significant adverse traffic impact with the 98,460 square-foot warehouse. Criteria for Significant Impact at LOS E and LOS F Intersections: The appeal states that the three percent threshold used for the LOS analysis in the existing plus project scenario is not correct. Current CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to evaluate VMT and not LOS. Thus, the 2020 TJKM TIA and 2021 MND include assessment of transportation impacts based on VMT and conclude that the proposed 98,460 square-foot warehouse would not have any significant adverse transportation impact. Number of Project Truck Trips: The appeal states that the 2017 MND did not include information on the number of truck trips generated by the project, and that the MND did not state when those trips will occur despite mitigation measure Noise 1 limiting large trucks to the hours of 9:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. The 2021 MND analyzes truck trips based on an Institute of Transportation Engineers metric that truck trips account for 20 percent of the weekday traffic. Noise 1 addresses noise reduction during project construction, including a restriction on large trucks. Noise 1 is included as Condition of Approval #49. Regarding when project trips will occur, the Applicant has not identified a tenant for the warehouse, and therefore, does not know specific operational characteristics of a future warehouse tenant. Roadway Wear and Tear : The appeal states that the MND should evaluate roadway wear and tear due to project truck trips. Typically, the County requires a project to address construction wear and tear by documenting the condition of the roadways with video in the area prior to construction. After construction is complete, the applicant is required to repair any areas where there is a degradation of pavement condition. In addition, the construction haul route is subject to County review and approval. Regarding the proposed project, future trucks will travel on County roadways for a very short segment between the project site and Highway 4. This potential impact is considered to be less than significant. b. Project Description: The Appellant states in its appeal that the project description is inadequate, but cites examples of inadequate project descriptions that are distinguishable from the current project. In contrast to the cited examples, the proposed warehouse project is consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use designation. The proposed project is permitted in the L-I Light Industrial zoning district with a land use permit. The project does not involve a General Plan amendment, rezoning, or subdivision. The project does not involve water rights, annexation, or reuse of sites with potentially hazardous materials. The project would conform to applicable air quality regulations. Accordingly, the information required of the projects in the examples cited in the appeal is not required for the proposed warehouse project. Unknown Details: The Appellant contends that the project description should include detail of the intended use of the warehouse, its hours of operation, the types of trucks, truck hours, the construction period, and the method of construction. The Applicant has not identified a tenant for the warehouse, and, therefore, does not know the exact use of the warehouse, its hours of operation, the types of trucks, or truck hours. Accordingly, inclusion of unknown information in the MND is not appropriate. Staff has determined that the project description satisfies the requirements of CEQA and includes the information necessary to complete the environmental assessments in the initial study. c. Other Environmental Topics: Lighting: The appeal states that the project is not analyzed against a threshold of significance for lighting. The County requires projects to have lighting directed downward and away from adjacent areas, with minimal light spillover. Adherence to these County requirements prevent potential lighting impacts. Moreover, the 2021 MND reports that the proposed project lighting would be consistent with industry standards for lighting required for safety of commercial/industrial building exterior areas and would be comparable to lighting of previously approved projects in the vicinity such as at the Willow Pass Business Park. Operation Noise: The appeal states that the MND does not analyze noise associated with project trucks along hauling routes or how that project trips combine with other future traffic. The 2021 MND discusses project trucks and that the associated noise would be generally below 80 dB, and generally below 74 dB at approximately 150 feet, the approximate distance to the currently developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park. Construction Noise: The appeal states that the MND does not include a significance threshold for construction noise, or information on the types of construction equipment or the period for project construction. The 2021 MND states, based on the General Plan Noise Element, that noise levels of 75 dB are acceptable and noise levels of 80 dB are conditionally acceptable on industrial land. Thus, construction noise was identified as a significant impact as noise levels could be as high as 91 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Mitigation measure Noise 1 was included to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Construction-Related GHG Emissions : The appeal states that construction-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions were not analyzed. The 2021 MND GHG section analyzes construction-related GHG emissions. Operation-Related GHG Emissions: The appeal states that operation-related GHG emissions were incorrectly analyzed and should use the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) "brightline" threshold of 1,100 MTC02e per year. The BAAQMD GHG emissions threshold is any of the following: compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy or 1,100 MTC02e per year or 4.6 MTC02e per service population per year for commercial and industrial development projects. The 2021 MND, and the January 2017 Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Analysis by Rainey Planning and Management referenced in the MND, addresses project GHG emissions in relation to the December 2015 Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan, which is a qualified GHG reduction strategy. Mitigation measure Greenhouse Gas 2 directly addresses operation-related GHG emissions. Greenhouse Gas 2 is Condition of Approval #48. Fire and Sheriff Response Times: The appeal states that the MND does not include significance thresholds for fire and sheriff response times and does not include information on service calls generated by the project. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District reviewed the proposed project and did not identify any issues related to providing fire protection service to the project. As reported in the 2021 MND, the nearest stations include Fire Station 86 located approximately 3.3 miles to the northeast in Bay Point and Fire Station 6 located approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest in Concord. Using an average travel speed of 35 miles per hour, an engine responding from Station 86 would take 6 minutes to reach the project site, and an engine from Station 6 would take 7 minutes to reach the project site. Both response times are considered acceptable. As reported in the MND, police services are provided by the Office of the Sheriff via patrol service to the Bay Point area. The area of the project site and adjacent Willow Pass Business Park is not considered a high crime area. During the November 1, 2018 to November l, 2019 time period, there were nine reported crimes in the area, in contrast to 85 reported crimes in the 94565 (Bay Point/Pittsburg) zip code area. CONCLUSION County staff has analyzed and responded to Appellant’s appeal. Additional analysis was conducted to address the Appellant’s concerns. Moreover, the Applicant has redesigned the project with a reduced-size warehouse proposal in response to the appeal. The proposed 98,460 square-foot warehouse is a 56 percent reduction in size from the original 225,950 square-foot warehouse. Staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal of DeNova Homes, Inc., and approve LP16-2031. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the appeal is granted, or if the land use permit is not approved, the subject property will remain in the L-I Light Industrial District as an undeveloped site and the project will not be constructed. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The project involves construction of a 98,460 square-foot warehouse on a site in the L-I Light Industrial District pursuant to Land Use Permit LP16-2031. Pursuant to Condition of Approval #5, the project is required to comply with the requirements of the Child Care Ordinance. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Dana, General Counsel, Denova Homes; Tim, CP Logistics Willow Pass. ATTACHMENTS Parcel Page General Plan Map Zoning Map Photographs of Project Site July 2016 Plans May 2020 Site Plan W PBP Development Capacity DeNova Homes Appeal ZA Staff Report 080717 CPC Staff Report 110817 Findings and Conditions 2021 Draft MND SCH #2017022002 2021 Final MND SCH #2017022002 MMP for MND SCH #2017022002 PowerPoint Presentation Project Site General Plan – LO Light Industry Source: Accela, accessed November 26, 2019 Zoning – L-I Light Industrial District Source: Accela, accessed November 26, 2019 Aerial photo of project site and vicinity. Source: Google Maps, accessed 112619 Project Site Access to Evora Court and project site from Evora Road. Source: Google Maps, accessed 112619 View of project site from Highway 4 westbound. Source: Google Maps, accessed 112619 Project Site lo co N PROPOSED BUILDING 98,460SF 0 scheme: 21 "'-! ' ,. OFfiC 1 / " Conceptual Site Plan Concord, Evora Road Concord, California 94520 PROJECT DATA: SITE AREA: GROSS: BUILDING FOOTPRINT: BUILDING USE: WAREHOUSE OFFICE COVERAGE: GROSS: PARKING PROVIDED: AUTO: REQ. ACCESSIBLE TRAILER: TRUCK DOCKS: .A DOCK-HIGH DOORS 0 GRADE-LEVEL DOORS @6% 15.42 AC b71,8S.3 SF 98,4b0 SF 92,790 SF s 670 SF 15% 140 STALLS @1.42/1000 SF 5 STALLS 0 STALLS 18 RECEIVED CONTR...<\. COST A COUNTY MAY 1 3 2020 DeptorConst!"fation & Developmeo.t .... 0 \ ~ :....J<~ rr;j;;~~;~~d;~~~~s-~~~p~;;;~~;i~;;;;i:;~--1 1" =50' : @ntitiM'Ifnl l~tJf-nt:sa.tl!! tnumrl!rifi~ and p<mibly i : ineomplelesiteoardJarbuildill'ilinfQrrnaU_en,lJ'Idisintendtd ) (_:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~J~~~~9-~~-d~·~~~~~ 0 25 WARE MALCOMB SNR16-0046-00 05_13_2020 ~ NORTH SHEET 1 Development in Willow Pass Business Park revised 04/21/2021 Lot Owner Notes Developed square footage (per building permits) Allowed square footage per DP04-3096 Additional square footage developed (developed minus allowed) 1 Hillside Business Center 1 building (commercial condo)29,032 28,827 205 2 Meadow Creek Group (David Sanson)1 building 7,395 5,200 2,195 3 Fre 601 1 building 10,488 8,200 2,288 4 Rice-Lake Weighing Systems 1 building 6,500 5,200 1,300 5 Trecon Properties (David Sanson)1 building 10,400 10,460 -60 6 Briones Vista 1 building 10,400 10,460 -60 7 Stephen Alderson 1 building 4,800 8,400 -3,600 8 Sierra Pacific Properties 1 building on lots 8 and 9 13,206 4,400 2,406 9 Sierra Pacific Properties 1 building on lots 8 and 9 -----6,400 10*Sierra Pacific Properties vacant lot 10,818 11*Sierra Pacific Properties vacant lot 14,554 12 Max Hanson & Son Jack in the Box building 2,491 6,416 -3,925 13 JA and AJ Chevron Taco Bell and Chevron (2 buildings)11,380 5,892 5,488 14**Evora Enterprises 3 take-out food restaurants proposed 7,998 30,808 -22,810 15 Willow View Association warehouse 90,000 19,200 54,605 16 Willow View Association warehouse 16,195 17*Thomas DeNova vacant lot 13,520 18*Thomas DeNova vacant lot 17,660 Total Developed 204,090 Flexible sq. ft.Thomas DeNova 38,032 134,890 -96,858 Total Allowed 357,500 Remaining square footage to be developed (total allowed - total developed)153,410 Remaining flexible square footage to be developed (flexible square footage - additional square footage developed)96,858 * Lots 10, 11, 17, and 18 can be developed per approved permit DP04-3096 with a Compliance review (CV) with no additional analysis. ** Lot 14 - Approved for a gas station; application LP20-2031 submitted for three take-out food restaurants with drive-throughs Per DP12-3008 Condition of Approval #2, the developer is required to submit a trip generation study, and as necessary, a traffic analysis. Lot 1 Developed 29,032 sq. ft. Lot 2 Developed 7,395 sq. ft. Lot 3 Developed 10,488 sq. ft. Lot 4 Developed 6,500 sq. ft. Lot 5 Developed 10,400 sq. ft. Lot 6 Developed 10,400 sq. ft. Lot 7 Developed 4,800 sq. ft. Lots 8 and 9 Developed 13,206 sq. ft. Lot 10 Vacant 10,818 sq. ft. allocation Lot 11 Vacant 14,554 sq. ft. allocation Lot 12 Developed 2,491 sq. ft. Lot 13 Developed 11,380 sq. ft. Lot 14 Pending 7,998 sq. ft. Lots 15 and 16 Developed 90,000 sq. ft. Lot 17 Vacant 13,520 sq. ft. allocation Lot 18 Vacant 17,660 sq. ft. allocation Map of Development in Willow Pass Business Park 204,090 sq. ft. developed and pending 56,552 sq. ft. remaining allocation 96,858 sq. ft. flexible allocation* 357,500 sq. ft. total development capacity * flexible allocation can be used on any lot Department of Conservation and Development County Zoning Administrator Monday, August 7, 2017 – 1:30 P.M. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Land Use Permit for a 225,950 square foot warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels. County File(s): LP16-2031 Applicant/Owner: Ware Malcomb (Applicant) – CP Logistics Willow Pass, LLC (Owner) Zoning/General Plan: Light Industrial (L-I) / Light Industry (LI) Site Address/Location: 4000 Evora Road (approximate address) in the unincorporated Bay Point area of Contra Costa County (APN: 099-160-026, 099-160-027) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2017022002 Project Planner: Stan Muraoka, AICP, Senior Planner (925) 674-7781 Staff Recommendation: Approve (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a Land Use Permit for a 225,950 square foot warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road. The proposed project includes a 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse with a driveway that wraps around the building, loading bays along the southern elevation of the building, and parking along the east, north, and west sides of the warehouse. The project also includes landscape plantings in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 2 of 43 II. RECOMMENDATION Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: (1) ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND), consisting of the revised draft MND and the Final MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this application; and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. (2) APPROVE the Land Use Permit for the warehouse, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. (3) DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Light Industry (LI) B. Zoning: Light Industrial (L-I) C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was prepared and published for the application. The public review period for the draft MND started on January 31, 2017 and ended on March 2, 2017. Subsequently, a revised draft MND was prepared and published. The public review period for the revised draft MND started on May 10, 2017 and ended on June 9, 2017. The revised draft MND is included herein as Attachment 4. Four comment letters and one comment email were received during the public review period for the draft MND, and two comment letters were received during the public review period for the revised draft MND. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the comment letters and email received on the draft MND and revised draft MND, comment summaries, responses to the comments received, and five staff-initiated text changes. The Final MND is included herein as Attachment 5. A related Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in Attachment 6 herein. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 3 of 43 D. Previous Applications: 13-85-CO: This General Plan Amendment application was to change the General Plan land use designation of a 78-acre site that includes the project site from Open Space (OS) to Light Industry (LI) to accommodate a newspaper printing facility. The application was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1988. RZ2773: This Rezone application, processed concurrently with 13-85-CO, was to rezone the 78-acre site from General Agricultural (A-2) to Light Industrial (L-I). The application was approved by the Board in 1988. TP01-0038: This Tree Permit application was to remove 18 pepper trees on Assessor’s Parcels 099-160-021 and 099-160-022. The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator on August 16, 2001. LL01-0001: This Lot Line Adjustment application was to reconfigure Assessor’s Parcels 099-150-010, 099-160-019, 099-160-021, 099-160-022, and 099-160- 023. The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator on August 28, 2001. The two parcels that comprise the project site, Assessor’s Parcels 099-160- 026 and 099-160-027, were portions of Assessor’s Parcels 099-160-021 and 099- 160-022, and were a result of this Lot Line Adjustment. LP01-2108: This Land Use Permit application was to allow a one-story 98,404 square foot Frito Lay distribution center on the project site. The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator on March 24, 2003. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The 15.42-acre project site is comprised of an 8.49-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-026) and an adjoining 6.93-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-027). The site is 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet (0.28 mile) southwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The site is relatively flat, with a slope of two percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above sea level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. The project site is not part of the Willow Pass Business Park. Hilly, deed-restricted open space land is located to the north. A vacant, terraced portion of the Willow Pass Business Park is located to the south, as is Highway 4. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 4 of 43 A previous proposal for a 98,404 square foot Frito-Lay distribution center on the project site was approved in March 2003; however, the distribution center has not been built. The County issued a grading permit to DeNova Homes, prior to the approval of the distribution center, for grading of the project site and adjacent land in the Willow Pass Business Park following annexation of the area to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. In addition to grading that occurred in 2002, drainage swales were installed along the perimeter of the project site. Runoff collecting in the swales is directed to a detention basin located northwest of the site. The Willow Pass Business Park is uphill to the east of the project site, at an average elevation of 190 feet above sea level. The Business Park is characterized by its cluster of eight buildings within an area that is approximately 860 feet long by 500 feet wide on a level terrace facing Highway 4 to the south. Landscaping in the Business Park is relatively sparse, and therefore, the buildings in the Business Park are visible in northward views from Highway 4. Open space land is uphill north of the site and north of the Willow Pass Business Park. A 750,000-gallon water storage tank that serves the Business Park is located in the open space. This storage tank is 1,015 feet east of the project site and 500 feet northeast of the Business Park. At an elevation of 310 feet abov e sea level, the tank is visible above the Business Park. A portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station is located downhill to the west of the project site, at an average elevation of 80 feet above sea level. The Concord Naval Weapons Station was decommissioned in 2005 and is currently a major reuse project of the City of Concord. The site is separated from the bulk of the Naval Weapons Station property to the south by Highway 4. A portion of the 48 - mile Contra Costa Canal, at an average elevation of 110 feet above sea level, also lies south and west of the project site. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 225,950 square foot, 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse structure on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road (approximate address 4000 Evora Road). Evora Court continues onto the project site as an unpaved road and provides access to the ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 5 of 43 warehouse and access through the eastern portion of the site to an offsite water storage tank located northeast of the site. The warehouse would be of a contemporary modern architectural style with exterior walls of painted concrete panels interspersed with vision glass and tinted glass. Vertical design elements are incorporated along the (primary) north and east elevations. The “working” south elevation is characterized by its row of truck loading bays. The proposed project would include the following site improvements: a driveway that wraps around the warehouse, parking along the east, north, and west sides of the building that provide 238 parking spaces, 44 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building, 11 trailer storage stalls along the southern edge of the driveway, 16 long term and 12 short term bicycle parking spaces, and exterior lighting consisting of 13 building-mounted lights and 33 lighting poles along the perimeter and in the parking lot. The project includes eight new bio-retention basins along the perimeter and in the parking lot and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to the existing onsite drainage swales and the existing offsite detention basin. The project also includes substantial landscape plantings in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. The project driveway would be improved to Contra Costa County private street standards. The driveway would connect to Evora Court, a paved private street that provides access to Evora Road. Evora Road is a paved County-maintained street. VI. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Contra Costa Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division : The Environmental Health Division submitted a letter on July 29, 2016, stating that a permit was required for any well or soil boring, and that abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under a permit from the Division. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is responsible for contacting the Environmental Health division regarding its requirements and permits. B. Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division: On August 12, 2016, the Building Inspection Division returned the Agency Comments ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 6 of 43 Request form with one comment: that compliance with current building codes will be required. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is required to submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and to comply with Division requirements. C. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: On August 18, 2016, the Fire Protection District submitted a letter stating that access roadways consistent with District requirements, an adequate and reliable water supply, fire hydrants, and a fire sprinkler system were required. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant is required to submit building plans to the Fire Protection District and comply with District requirements. D. Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council: The Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council submitted an email on December 14, 2016 with two comments: that there was a concern about traffic affecting the intersection of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road, and that the County should test for traffic flow at that intersection. Traffic conditions with the proposed project, including traffic at the intersection of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road, were evaluated by Abrams Associates, the project transportation consultant, in a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted on September 29, 2016. The MND includes information from the TIA, and concludes that the proposed project would have less than significant environmental impacts. As discussed in the MND, the existing Level of Service (LOS) is at LOS F in the AM peak period and LOS D in the PM peak period at the Willow Pass Road/Highway 4 Westbound Ramps, which may affect traffic at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. The Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection is at LOS C in the AM peak period and LOS B in the PM peak period. The proposed project would not change any of these levels of service. E. Contra Costa Water District: The Water District submitted a letter on December 27, 2016, with a number of comments related to the proposed project, including provision of water service per an agreement with the Willow Pass Business Park, concerns about site drainage that may cause problems for the District and the U.S. Navy, and replacement of the invasive plant species included in the proposed landscaping plant list. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 7 of 43 On February 3, 2017, the Water District submitted an email, reporting that District engineers met with the project engineers and found the site drainage to be performing adequately. The District stated that the applicant should contact the Navy regarding drainage, that the applicant should ensure that the onsite drainage system and offsite drainage facilities can handle 100-year storm events, that existing bioswales should remain, and that the proposed invasive plant species should not be used. Project drainage has been evaluated by the Public Works Department, which has found the drainage facilities to be adequate, with conditions included in the Conditions of Approval. Use of invasive plant species was addressed in the MND and a condition to eliminate such species from project landscaping is included in the Conditions of Approval. Advisory Notes are included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the applicant must comply with the requirements of the Water District, and with applicable requirements of the U.S. Navy. F. Department of Public Works, Engineering Services Division: The Engineering Services Division submitted a detailed letter on January 5, 2017, describing the regulatory programs that applied to the project site, found the project application submittal to be incomplete, and requested the applicant to submit revised drainage information and an adequate preliminary stormwater control plan. In February 2017, the applicant submitted revised drainage information and a revised preliminary stormwater control plan. On March 28, 2017, the Engineering Services Division submitted a detailed letter, describing the regulatory programs that applied to the project site and included a number of conditions of approval and advisory notes to be applied to the proposed project. The March 28, 2017 Engineering Services Division conditions of approval and advisory notes are incorporated into the Public Works Conditions of Approval and the Advisory Notes. G. Department of Conservation and Development, Transportation Planning Division: On January 20, 2017, the Transportation Planning Division submitted a letter with ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 8 of 43 two comments: that the applicant should consider reducing the number of parking spaces to be closer to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand rate of 0.51 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and that the applicant is required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program. The Division also requested some corrections and clarifications of the September 29, 2016 TIA prepared by Abrams Associates. Pursuant to the Off-Street Parking requirements of the County Code, 226 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. Using the suggested ITE parking demand rate, 115 parking spaces would need to be provided; however, provision of fewer parking spaces than required by Code would necessitate a variance from County off street parking requirements. The applicant has not requested a variance from the parking requirements, and therefore, the application does not include a parking variance. Participation in the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program is included in the Conditions of Approval, whereby if the project will employ 50 or more full-time employees, it be required to incorporate measures, including, but not limited to, providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, or providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. Regarding the Abrams Associates TIA, CDD staff requested that the applicant revise the TIA per the Transportation Planning Division’s comments. Abrams Associates submitted an updated TIA on February 24, 2017 that included revisions based on the Transportation Planning Division comments. Abrams Associates submitted another updated TIA on July 10, 2017 that included analysis of conditions on Highway 4 in the vicinity Willow Pass Road in response to comments in the California Department of Transportation’s June 2017 comment letter on the revised draft MND. Subsequently, Abrams Associates submitted a further updated TIA on July 12, 2017 that included a correction to the description of the delay index formula in the discussion of Highway 4 traffic congestion. This correction does not affect any of the calculations in the TIA. CDD staff prepared the MND using relevant information from the September 29, 2016 TIA. Correction of the TIA in February 2017 per the Transportation Planning ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 9 of 43 Division’s comments does not result in any changes to the proposed project or the MND. Information from the July 10, 2017 TIA update is included in the Final MND in the response to the California Department of Transportation comments on Highway 4 traffic conditions; however, the response does not result in any new significant adverse environmental impact and does not alter any findings in the Transportation/Traffic section of the MND. H. City of Concord: The project application was routed to the City of Concord on July 18, 2016. To date, no comments from the city have been received. I. Delta Diablo Sanitary District: The project application was routed to the Delta Diablo Sanitary District on December 14, 2016. To date, no comments from the Sanitary District have been received. An Advisory Note is included in the Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes whereby the building plans must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Sanitary District. VII. COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE PARTIES DeNova Homes: DeNova Homes has submitted five letters related to the proposed project, including:  A comment letter on the draft MND on March 2, 2017;  A comment letter on the proposed project on March 8, 2017;  A request for notification on March 20, 2017;  A letter on the Zoning Administrator meeting on March 20, 2017; and  A comment letter on the revised draft MND on June 9, 2017. The Final MND includes responses to the March 2, 2017 comment letter on the draft MND and the June 9, 2017 comment letter on the revised draft MND. Staff sent a letter to DeNova Homes on March 31, 2017, responding to the March 20, 2017 request for notification for applications or “any land use related inquiries of any nature whatsoever” for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 099-160-026, 099-160-027, 099-160-032, 099-210-016, 099-210-017, and 099-210-018. Staff stated that notice would be provided for a one year time period for any discretionary permit, but that notice could not be provided for non-discretionary items. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 10 of 43 Staff sent a letter to DeNova Homes on March 31, 2017, responding to the March 20, 2017 letter on the Zoning Administrator meeting. Staff noted that the January 31, 2017 Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that: The tentative hearing date before the County Zoning Administrator for the project and for adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is Monday, March 20, 2017. The hearing will be held at 30 Muir Road, Martinez. Hearing notices will be sent out prior to the finalized hearing date. Staff clarified that the March 20, 2017 date was tentative and was not a set date, and stated that DeNova Homes would receive a notice once a date was set for the Zoning Administrator hearing. In its March 8, 2017 letter, DeNova Homes refers to the development restrictions for the Willow Pass Business Park, the inadequacy of the notice provided to it, and the inadequacy of the MND that it had noted in its March 2, 2017 comment letter on the draft MND. Responses to these comments are included in the Final MND. DeNova Homes specifically lists two objections to the proposed project itself in its March 8, 2017 letter, including: (A) the extensive loading docks, and (B) the height of the warehouse structure. These two objections are discussed below. A. Extensive Loading Docks: DeNova Homes states that: “In addition to the land uses allowed under Chapter 84-63 (entitled Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material and which appears to be irrelevant here), the permitted uses include ‘industrial uses which do not necessarily require or use…extensive loading docks or similar facilities for the receiving or shipment of raw materials or semi-finished or finished products...’ “ “The proposed Project includes 44 truck loading bays. Even under the most generous reading of County Ordinance Code section 84-58.402, the applicant and the County cannot reasonably say that 44 truck loading bays are not ‘extensive loading docks or similar facilities.’ Perhaps a few loading bays would be permissible under the County Ordinance Code, but 44 truck loading bays can only be described as an extensive use of docks or similar facilities.” ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 11 of 43 As discussed in Section IX.B (Consistency with Zoning), if the warehouse were to be considered an industrial use, the 44 truck loading bays would not be permitted by right, but would require approval of a land use permit; i.e., the LP16-2031 land use permit application. B. Height of the Warehouse Structure: DeNova Homes states that: “In addition, under County Ordinance Code section 84 -58.802, ‘[n]o building or structure or part of it shall be more than three stories high above the highest point of ground elevation on the lot on which the building is erected.’“ “Further, a 42.5-foot structure exceeds the County Ordinance Code’s height requirement that precludes construction of a building that is more than three stories high. Even assuming that each story is 12 feet high – a generous measurement by any standards – this building exceeds the height of a three story building by at least an additional half-story.” As discussed in Section IX.A (Consistency with the General Plan), a maximum building height of 50 feet is allowed in the LI General Plan land use designation, and therefore, the proposed warehouse structure meets this General Plan development standard. As shown on the project plans, submitted on July 14, 2016, the proposed warehouse is a single-story structure. As discussed in Section IX.B (Consistency with Zoning), the one story structure meets the L -I District development regulation for building height. The L-I District allows a three-story structure; however, the 50-foot maximum building height is not listed in the L-I District regulations but, instead, is listed in the LI General Plan development standards. The land use permit is specific to the plans submitted by the applicant. If the project is approved and the plans change from those submitted, such as a change from a one-story structure, the change will be subject to review and approval by the CDD and may require an amendment of the land use permit. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff conducted an Initial Study assessment of potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the proposed warehouse project. Staff determined that although the proposed project could have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts, with implementation of mitigation measures that have been agreed to by the applicant, the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Thus, a draft MND was prepared and published for the ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 12 of 43 proposed project. The public review period for the draft MND started on January 31, 2017 and ended on March 2, 2017. Subsequent to the close of the public review period, the County’s Peer Review Biologist conducted a site visit and reported potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project on biological resources that had not been included in the MND. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5, a revised draft MND was prepared and published for the proposed project. The revised draft MND adds information to Section 4 of the Environmental Checklist (Biological Resources) and findings and mitigation recommendations from the Peer Review Biologist, as well as information from prior biological assessments of the project site. The revised draft MND also adds information to the Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Section, and to Environmental Checklist Section 1 (Aesthetics), Section 3 (Air Quality), Section 5 (Cultural Resources), Section 6 (Geology and Soils), Section 9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and Section 16 (Transportation/Traffic); however, the addition of new language in these sections is not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, does not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the sections, and does not alter any findings in the sections. In addition, Section 18 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) has been updated to reflect the changes in Section 4. The public review period for the revised draft MND started on May 10, 2017 and ended on June 9, 2017. The revised draft MND is included herein as Attachment 4. Four comment letters and one comment email were received during the public review period for the draft MND, and two comment letters were received during the public review period for the revised draft MND. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the comment letters and email received on the draft MND and revised draft MND, comment summaries, responses to the comments received, and five staff- initiated corrections to the text of the MND. The Final MND is included herein as Attachment 5. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in Attachment 6 herein. IX. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Consistency with the General Plan: The project site is within the Light Industry (LI) General Plan land use designation, which allows distribution and warehousing ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 13 of 43 uses. The proposed project meets the LI General Plan development standards, including:  Site coverage of 34% where a maximum of 50% is allowed;  Building height of 42-feet six inches where a maximum of 50 feet is allowed;  Floor area ratio of 0.34 where a maximum of 0.67 is allowed; and  Employees per gross acre of 5.84 employees where a maximum of 60 employees per gross acre is allowed. The project site is located 890 feet north of Highway 4, which is a designated scenic highway between Interstate 80 and Willow Pass Road - Port Chicago Highway, as identified on Figure 5-4 (Scenic Routes Map) of the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. The site is visible from the scenic highway portion of Highway 4 as a level terrace below and west of the structures of the Willow Pass Business Park. Along with the Scenic Routes Map, the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures for scenic routes, such as Policy 5-49: scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible, and Implementation Measure 5- bh: develop and enforce guidelines for development along scenic routes to maintain the visual quality of those routes. The proposed project would include a 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse with a driveway that wraps around the structure. The project also includes a row of 35 Afghan pine trees, spaced 30 feet apart along the southern edge of the driveway to mask the warehouse in offsite views from the south, and a number of deciduous and evergreen trees to soften views of the site from the north and east. When mature, an Afghan pine tree is 30-50 feet tall and 25-30 feet wide. Thus, at maturity, the tree row would be visible from Highway 4 and much of the warehouse would be hidden from view by the trees. This view would be compatible with existing views of the Willow Pass Business Park. In order to ensure that the proposed landscaping will be fully implemented, the Conditions of Approval include requirements for submittal and implementation of a final landscaping and irrigation plan, and a security deposit fo ensure implementation of the plan. As conditioned, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan scenic route policies and implementation measures. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 14 of 43 Highway 4 is an existing freeway and Willow Pass Road is a designated arterial in the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan. As an arterial, the Willow Pass Road functions to move traffic through the Bay Point-Concord area of the County. The proposed project would not change the configuration of Highway 4, Willow Pass Road, Evora Road, or other local streets. Also, the MND prepared for the proposed project did not find any significant environmental transportation impact. Thus, development of the proposed warehouse would not be expected to have a substantial impact on traffic on Willow Pass Road or Highway 4, and the application would be consistent with General Plan transportation policies for roadways. If the proposed project is approved, the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority/Regional Development Impact Mitigation and Bay Point Areas of Benefit. Accordingly, a requirement to pay the area of benefit fees prior to issuance of building permits is included in the Public Works Conditions of Approval and the Advisory Notes. The applicant’s contribution will be applied towards transportation improvements in the Bay Point area. B. Consistency with Zoning: The project site is located in the L-I Light Industrial Unit District that was established with the approval of RZ 2773. The proposed project meets the L-I District development regulations, as listed below:  Lot area of 671,853 square feet where a minimum of 7,500 square feet is required;  Building height of one story where a maximum of three stories is allowed;  Side yard width of 46 feet where at least 10 feet is required; and  Setback width of 105 feet where a minimum of 10 feet is required. Warehouse space is generally considered to be storage, and therefore, warehousing is considered to be a commercial land use, which is allowed in the L-I District with a land use permit. Industrial space is typically used to manufacture, fabricate, or assemble products and may include warehouse space. If the proposed project were to be considered as an industrial use, it would still need a land use permit because the proposed 44 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building would be considered to be “extensive loading docks”, and therefore, would not be permitted by right in the L-I District. Findings ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 15 of 43 for the land use permit are included in the Findings and Conditions of Approval herein. The proposed project is also subject to the Off-Street Parking requirements. Pursuant to these requirements, a total of 226 parking spaces would be required of which seven would be accessible spaces and 14 would be electric vehicle charging stations. The project would provide 238 parking spaces, including 215 regular spaces, eight accessible spaces, and 15 electric vehicle charging stations. The project would provide 44 loading bays where the Code requirement is for 6 loading spaces. Also, the project would provide 16 long term bicycle stalls and 12 short term stalls, meeting the Code requirements for bicycle parking. C. Consistency with the Climate Action Plan: CDD staff required the preparation of a greenhouse gas analysis for the proposed project, because the warehouse exceeds the BAAQMD screening criteria of 64,000 square feet. The applicant submitted a greenhouse gas analysis prepared by Rainey Planning that found that the project could create a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions and could be in conflict with the Climate Action Plan because it does not comply with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measure LUT 4 (vehicle miles traveled reduction). Accordingly, the Conditions of Approval include requirements for meeting applicable standards of the 2016 California Building Standards Code, and additional measures, which may include, but not be limited to the following: • Exceed the energy efficiency measures of the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code or CALGreen; • Electrify loading docks and/or require idling-reduction systems for heavy- duty trucks; • Provide end of trip facilities such as showers and changing spaces to encourage community by bicycle; • Install and operate on-site renewable energy (such as solar panels); • Install low-flow water fixtures in exceedance of applicable local standards; • Incorporate measures from the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, such as providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 16 of 43 With the Conditions of Approval, the proposed project’s conflict with the Climate Action Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. D. Appropriateness of Use: The proposed project is compatible with its setting and with the adjacent Willow Pass Business Park. Except for size, the proposed 225,950 square foot warehouse is similar to the previous 98,404 square foot Frito Lay distribution center that was approved on the project site in LP01-2018. The increase in size of the warehouse would potentially result in visual impacts, particularly from Highway 4, which is General Plan-designated scenic route. The applicant has planned for landscaping along the edges of the project site, including a row of 35 Afghan pine trees along the southern edge of the driveway. With full implementation of the landscaping and as conditioned, visual impacts on Highway 4 would be reduced to less than significant levels. The previous Frito Lay distribution center included 30 delivery van loading docks on its 398-foot long eastern elevation, facing the Willow Pass Business Park, with sparse landscaping – four trees along the portion of the eastern perimeter of the site east of the building – to buffer this elevation in views from the east. In contrast, the proposed warehouse does not include loading docks on its 265- foot wide eastern elevation, but does propose extensive landscape plantings, including both deciduous trees such as Chinese pistache, Shumard oak, Valley oak, and purple robe tree, and evergreen trees such as Interior live oak and the Marina tree. The landscape plantings would soften views of the warehouse from private property to the north and east, such as from the Willow Pass Business Park. In addition, in views from the north and east, the proposed warehouse incorporates vertical design elements that break up the mass of the structure. Thus, as evaluated in the MND, the proposed project would have less than significant visual impacts for views from the north and east. As discussed in the Final MND, the size of the proposed warehouse has raised concerns about the adequacy of the onsite drainage system and offsite drainage facilities. The applicant has been in discussions with the Public Works Department Engineering Services Division and the Contra Costa Water District, and has demonstrated to the agencies that the drainage facilities related to the project would be adequate. Conditions of Approval and Advisory Notes are includ ed whereby the applicant would comply with Engineering Services Division and Water District requirements. ZA – August 7, 2017 Agenda Item #XX Page 17 of 43 As reported in the MND, the size of the project may also cause potentially significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, the MND includes greenhouse gas reduction measures listed in the previous Section IX.C that would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Conditions of Approval are included whereby the applicant would comply with greenhouse gas reduction measures and applicable BAAQMD Commuter Benefits Program requirements. X. CONCLUSION The proposed project, to construct and operate a warehouse on a site that had previously been approved for a Frito Lay distribution center, would replace a vacant lot that is outside of and adjacent to the Willow Pass Business Park with a warehouse structure in a LI General Plan land use designation and the L-I Light Industrial District. The new warehouse would be compatible with the neighboring Willow Pass Business Park. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan Land Use policies and development standards, with applicable General Plan Transportation and Circulation policies, and with the L-I District regulations, and would generally conform to the Climate Action Plan. Staff recommends approval of Land Use Permit LP16-2031, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. Department of Conservation and Development County Planning Commission Wednesday, November 8, 2017 – 7:00 P.M. (continued from September 27, 2017) STAFF REPORT Agenda Item #_____ Project Title: Land Use Permit for a 225,950 square foot warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels. County File(s): LP16-2031 Appellant: Bryan Wenter, AICP, on behalf of DeNova Homes, Inc. Applicant/Owner: Ware Malcomb (Applicant) – CP Logistics Willow Pass, LLC (Owner) Zoning/General Plan: Light Industrial (L-I) / Light Industry (LI) Site Address/Location: 4000 Evora Road (approximate address) in the unincorporated Bay Point area of Contra Costa County (APN: 099 -160-026, 099-160-027) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2017022002 Project Planner: Stan Muraoka, AICP, Senior Planner (925) 674-7781 Staff Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Zoning Administrator’s Decision (See Section II for Full Recommendation) I. PROJECT SUMMARY This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Land Use Permit for a 225,950 square foot warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road. The project includes a 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42-foot six- Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 2 of 43 inch tall warehouse with a driveway that wraps around the building , loading bays along the southern elevation of the building, and parking along the east, north, and west sides of the warehouse. The project also includes landscape plantings in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission: A. DENY the appeal. B. ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND), consisting of the revised draft MND and the Final MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for this application; and specify that the Department of Conservation and Development (located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA) is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. C. Uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #LP16-2031, based on the attached Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. III. GENERAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A. General Plan: Light Industry (LI) B. Zoning: Light Industrial (L-I) C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND), State Clearinghouse number SCH #2017022002, was prepared pursuant to applicable California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The draft MND was made available for a 30 -day public review period that started on January 31, 2017 and ended on March 2, 2017. Four letters and one email were received by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) in response to the publication of the draft MND. Subsequent to the close of the public review period, the County’s Peer Review Biologist conducted a site visit and reported potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project on biological resources that had not been included in the MND. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5, a revised draft Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 3 of 43 MND was prepared. The revised draft MND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on May 10, 2017 and ended on June 9, 2017. Two letters were received by DCD in response to the publication of the revised draft MND. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the comment letters and email received on the draft MND and revised draft MND, comment summaries, responses to the comments received, and five staff-initiated text changes. A related Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant impacts and mitigation measures in the Final MND. D. Zoning Administrator Decision: The application was heard by the Zoning Administrator on August 7, 2017, at which time the Zoning Administrator received testimony from three persons, including a representative of the property owner, an attorney for the property owner, and an attorney for DeNova Homes, Inc. The Zoning administrator closed the hearing, adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project, and approved the project with modifications to the Conditions of Approval to add a Child Care Condition and BMP (Best Management Practices) Air Quality Conditions. The Findings and modified Conditions of Approval are included herein as Exhibit 1. E. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Actions: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision was filed on August 17, 2017, within the 10-day appeal period by Bryan Wenter, AICP, of Miller Starr Regalia, on behalf of DeNova Homes. F. Request to Continue the Appeal: On September 20, 2017, staff received an email from the appellant, stating that he and the applicant’s counsel have been in contact with their respective clients and that collectively, they are requesting that consideration of the appeal be continued to the November 8, 2017 meeting. On September 27, 2017, the Commission continued consideration of this appeal as requested. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The 15.42-acre project site is comprised of two adjoining Assessor’s parcels located 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet (0.28 mile) southwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The site is relatively flat, with a slope of two percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above sea level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 4 of 43 former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. The project site is not part of the Willow Pass Business Park. Hilly, deed-restricted open space land is located to the north. A vacant, terraced portion of the Willow Pass Business Park is located to the south, as is Highway 4. A previous proposal for a 98,404 square foot Frito-Lay distribution center on the project site was approved in March 2003; however, the distribution center has not been built. The County issued a grading permit to DeNova Homes, prior to the approval of the distribution center, for grading of the project site and adjacent land in the Willow Pass Business Park following annexation of the area to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. In addition to grading that occurred in 2002, drainage swales were installed along the perimeter of the project site. Runoff collecting in the swales is directed to a detention basin located northwest of the site. The Willow Pass Business Park is uphill to the east of the project site, at an average elevation of 190 feet above sea level. The Business Park is characterized by its cluster of eight buildings within an area that is approximately 860 feet long by 500 feet wide on a level terrace facing Highway 4 to the south. Landscaping in the Business Park is relatively sparse, and therefore, the buildings in the Business Park are visible in northward views from Highway 4. Open space land is uphill north of the site and north of the Willow Pass Business Park. A 750,000-gallon water storage tank that serves the Business Park is located in the open space. This storage tank is 1,015 feet east of the project site and 500 feet northeast of the Business Park. At an elevation of 310 feet above sea level, the tank is visible above the Business Park. A portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station is located downhill to the west of the project site, at an average elevation of 80 feet above sea level. The Concord Naval Weapons Station was decommissioned in 2005 and is currently a major reuse project of the City of Concord. The site is separated from the bulk of the Naval Weapons Station property to the south by Highway 4. A portion of t he 48- mile Contra Costa Canal, at an average elevation of 110 feet above sea level, also lies south and west of the project site. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 225,950 square foot, 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse structure on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 5 of 43 terminus of Evora Road (approximate address 4000 Evora Road). Evora Court continues onto the project site as an unpaved road and provides access to the warehouse and access through the eastern portion of the site to an offsite water storage tank located northeast of the site. The warehouse would be of a contemporary modern architectural style with exterior walls of painted concrete panels interspersed with vision glass and tinted glass. Vertical design elements are incorporated along the (primary) north and east elevations. The “working” south elevation is characterized by its row of truck loading bays. The proposed project would include the following site improvements: a driveway that wraps around the warehouse, parking along the east, north, and west sides of the building that provide 238 parking spaces, 44 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building, 11 trailer storage stalls along the southern edge of the driveway, 16 long term and 12 short term bicycle parking spaces, and exterior lighting consisting of 13 building-mounted lights and 33 lighting poles along the perimeter and in the parking lot. The project includes eight new bio-retention basins along the perimeter and in the parking lot and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to the existing onsite drainage swales and the existing offsite detention basin. The project also includes substantial landscape plantings in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. The project driveway would be improved to Contra Costa County private street standards. The driveway would connect to Evora Court, a paved private street that provides access to Evora Road. Evora Road is a paved County-maintained street. VI. APPEAL An appeal letter from Bryan Wenter, AICP on behalf of DeNova Homes was received on August 17, 2017. Attached to and incorporated by reference to the letter were three letters that had previously been submitted to DCD by Denova Homes, including the March 2, 2017 letter commenting on the draft MND, the March 7, 2017 letter commenting on the project, and the June 9, 2017 letter commenting on the revised draft MND. Following are comment summaries and responses to the comments in the Wenter appeal letter, the March 2, 2017 DeNova Homes letter, the March 7, 2017 DeNova Homes letter, and the June 9, 2017 DeNova Homes letter. The letters are included in Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 6 of 43 Exhibit 2 as letters A, B, C, and D, respectively.  Section A below includes summaries of comments in the Wenter appeal letter (letter A) and staff responses to the comments in letter A.  Section B includes summaries of comments in the March 2, 2017 DeNova Homes letter (letter B) and the June 9, 2017 DeNova Homes letter (letter D), and staff responses to the comments in letters B and D. The letters are grouped together, because letter B was submitted as comments on the adequacy of the draft MND and letter D was submitted as comments on the adequacy of the revised draft MND, and except for one comment that is only in letter B, letter D includes comments that are the same as or similar to the comments in letter B.  Section C includes summaries of comments in the March 7, 2017 DeNova Homes letter and staff responses to the comments in letter C. A. Wenter Appeal Letter 1. General Plan Consistency – Scenic Views The appellant states that the proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element’s Scenic Route Policy 5 -49. According to the appellant, hiding much of the warehouse from view with trees does not conserve, enhance, and protect the scenic view to the extent possible. Response: As stated in Section IX.A of the Zoning Administrator staff report (Consistency with the General Plan): “The project site is located 890 feet north of Highway 4, which is a designated scenic highway between Interstate 80 and Willow Pass Road - Port Chicago Highway, as identified on Figure 5-4 (Scenic Routes Map) of the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. The site is visible from the scenic highway portion of Highway 4 as a level terrace below and west of the structures of the Willow Pass Business Park. Along with the Scenic Routes Map, the General Plan includes policies and implementation measures for scenic routes, such as Policy 5-49: scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible, and Implementation Measure 5-bh: develop and enforce guidelines for development along scenic routes to maintain the visual quality of those routes. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 7 of 43 ”The proposed project would include a 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265- foot wide, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse with a driveway that wraps around the structure. The project also includes a row of 35 Afghan pine trees, spaced 30 feet apart along the southern edge of the driveway to mask the warehouse in offsite views from the south , and a number of deciduous and evergreen trees to soften views of the site from the north and east. When mature, an Afghan pine tree is 30-50 feet tall and 25-30 feet wide. Thus, at maturity, the tree row would be visible from Highway 4 and much of the warehouse would be hidden from view by the trees. This view would be compatible with existing views of the Willow Pass Business Park. In order to ensure that the proposed land scaping will be fully implemented, the Conditions of Approval include requirements for submittal and implementation of a final landscaping and irrigation plan, and a security deposit to ensure implementation of the plan. As conditioned, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan scenic route policies and implementation measures.” Commercial-industrial development can occur on the project site, because the site has a General Plan land use designation of LI Light Industry, and is in the L-I Light Industrial District. However, development of site should balance the visual elements of visual character, congruence, and coherence in order to be consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element’s Scenic Route policies. As described in the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, a scenic route is a road through a scenic corridor, and a scenic corridor is the adjacent area that can be seen from the road. In assessing views from a scenic route, the components of existing views form the baseline, including visual character, congruence, and coherence. Visual Character: The physical features in the foreground, middle ground, and background of a scenic view form visual character. The overall visual character of the scenic corridor relative to the proposed project consists of views of existing commercial-industrial development and level developable terraces in front of grassland, open space slopes. This overall visual character consists of the following elements:  the grass-covered ridgeline and the grassland slopes leading up to the ridgeline, and the water tank above the Willow Pass Business Park, form the background; Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 8 of 43  a level terrace (project site) and the linear row of buildings of the Willow Pass Business Park form the middle ground; and,  the trees below the level terrace to the left of the Willow Pass Business Park and other level terraces visible below and in front of the Business Park form the foreground. Congruence: Congruence is the degree to which past actions have noticeably and unfavorably changed landscape features. Here, the past actions include the grading of terraces by DeNova Homes following the approval of the Frito-Lay distribution center on the project site in March 2003, and the development of the Willow Pass Business Park by Thomas DeNova on land adjacent to the project site, including the buildings in the middle ground and the water tank in the background. These features are encroaching elements in an otherwise intact view of a natural, grassland hillside. Coherence: The harmony of landscape features that have a discernable pattern or composition, form coherence. The distinctive landscape features include the grassland ridgeline and slopes leading up to the ridgeline in the background, and the trees that dominate the foreground to the left of the Willow Pass Business Park. These landscape features are in harmony and provide coherence to this scenic view. View of project site and Willow Pass Business Park from Highway 4 Source: Google Maps, accessed 082517. The proposed project would add landscape trees to the project site, which would alter the existing baseline scenic view by adding trees in the middle ground that would be above and in close proximity to the existing trees in the foreground to the left of the Willow Pass Business Park. Although Condition of Approval #34 (Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 1) in the Zoning Administrator staff report requires the planting of a minimum of 35 Afghan Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 9 of 43 pine trees of a minimum 24-inch box size, the trees would not reach their maximum size for a few years. Depending upon the actual growth of the trees, parts of the warehouse building would be visible between the trees. At the entrance to the project site at the end of Evora Court, more of the southeast corner of the warehouse and parts of the eastern elevation of the building would be visible because the placement of landscape trees would be constrained by the project driveway and parking areas, as shown in the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Thus at select locations near Evora Court, parts of the warehouse would be visible in the scenic view, would be similar to the congruence of the Willow Pass Business Park. Although the warehouse would be more screened than the Business Park, it would add to the encroaching elements of the Business Park that are visible in the middle ground. Nevertheless, the predominant element of the middle ground view of the project site would be of the landscape trees, which would be consistent with the existing trees to the left of the Business Park. In addition, the proposed project would not affect the background view, which would remain visible. Preliminary Landscape Plan Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 10 of 43 Due to the landscaping and the location of the warehouse in proximity to the existing tree features in the scenic view, the building would blend into the baseline scenic view to the extent possible. With implementation of the Conditions of Approval of the Zoning Administrator staff report, the effects of the warehouse building on visual character, congruence, and coherence would be consistent with Scenic Route Policy 5-49. The proposed project would also be consistent with Implementation Measure 5-bh by allowing development of land in the L-I Light Industrial District in a manner that would maintain the scenic qualities along this portion of Highway 4. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan. 2. Aesthetics 1 Mitigation Measure Time Limit The appellant states that the Aesthetics 1 mitigation measure only requires that trees be kept alive for the first two years, and that the project applicant would not be required to replace any trees that die in the third year or any other future year. The applicant states that the trees are needed to comply with Scenic Route Policy 5-49 and must be maintained throughout the life of the project. Response: Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 1, which is Condition of Approval #34 in the Zoning Administrator staff report, is as follows: Aesthetics 1: The following measures are intended to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscaping along the southern edge of the driveway south of the warehouse structure. 1. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). The plan shall provide for the planting of a minimum of 35 Afghan pine trees of a minimum 24-inch box size. Consideration shall be given to adequate screening of the future warehouse from offsite viewpoints. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County’s Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 11 of 43 Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall also include an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements (accounting for supply, delivery, and installation of trees and irrigation). The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. 2. Required Security to Assure Completion of Plan Improvements: A security deposit shall be required to ensure that the approved landscaping and irrigation plan is implemented and that the Afghan pines become established. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a security that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall be the amount of the approved cost estimate described in mitigation measure #1 above plus a 20% inflation surcharge. 3. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The applicant shall pay fees to cover all staff time and materials costs for processing the required security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial processing fee deposit of $100.00. 4. Duration of Security: When the landscaping and irrigation have been installed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD to be composed by the landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor, verifying that the installation has been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping and irrigation plan. The County may retain the security for up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. At 12 and 24 months following completion of implementation of the plan, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and to prepare a report on the trees’ health. The report shall be submitted for review by the CDD and shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the applicant. Any Afghan pine tree that dies within the first two years of being planted shall be replaced by another Afghan pine tree of the same size. This measure is a standard Condition of Approval for trees to be planted to ensure that planted trees become established. In general, trees become Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 12 of 43 established within two years with proper care as stipulated in the final landscaping and irrigation plan. On September 7, 2017, the project applicant submitted a letter of opinion from HortScience, Inc., a firm that has been retained by the County in the past to provide certified arborist services. In its letter, HortScience commented specifically on the Afghan pine trees proposed to be planted on the project site, and states the following: “When installed and cared for utilizing best management principles, Afghan Pines are expected to become established within 24 months of installing and continue [to] thrive for up to fifty or more years.” The time limit on maintaining the trees is set by the LP16 -2031 land use permit, which runs with the land. Following is Condition of Approval #1 in the Zoning Administrator staff report, which requires the project applicant to install and maintain the landscaping, including the trees. Condition of Approval #1: This Land Use Permit application is APPROVED for the construction and operation of a warehouse, consisting of the following elements:  A 225,950 square foot, 1,003-foot eight-inch long, 265-foot wide, 42 feet six-inch tall warehouse structure;  A driveway that wraps around the warehouse;  Parking along the east, north, and west sides of the building that provide 238 parking spaces, including eight accessible spaces and 15 electric vehicle charging stations;  44 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building;  11 trailer storage stalls along the southern edge of the driveway;  16 long term and 12 short term bicycle parking spaces;  Exterior lighting consisting of 13 building-mounted lights and 33 lighting poles;  Eight perimeter and parking lot bio-retention basins and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to existing onsite drainage swales and the existing offsite detention basin; and  Landscape plantings along in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 13 of 43 The landscape plantings along the edges of the project site, including along the property boundary facing Highway 4, must be installed and maintained as required by Condition of Approval #1, otherwise the project applicant will be in violation of the land use permit. Further, any change in the project from that approved in Condition of Approval #1, must be reviewed and approved by the CDD and may require modification of the LP16-2031 permit, pursuant to the following Condition of Approval #3. Condition of Approval #3: Any change from the approved plans shall require review and approval by the CDD and may require the filing of an application to modify this Land Use Permit. 3. MND Mitigation Measures The appellant states that the mitigation measures in the MND are “unenforceable, uncertain, and vague”, and would not reduce the potential significant impacts of the project. Response: The MND mitigation measures include:  one aesthetics measure related to the Afghan Pine trees;  five biology measures related to bird species, landscaping plant species, and the riparian habitat that has been allowed to grow in the grassy swale drainages;  six geology measures related to construction drawings for building permits, observation during construction, and certification of site preparation and construction;  two greenhouse gas measures to meet applicable building standards and greenhouse gas reduction measures; and,  one noise measure for noise during construction. Each mitigation measure states the actions that are required to be completed in order to reduce the potential significant impact to a less than significant level. Further, pursuant to CEQA Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring Program meeting that includes all of the MND mitigation measures was prepared by staff, and adopted by the Zoning Administrator at its August 7, 2017 meeting. The Mitigation Monitoring program includes identification of the actions required in each measure, the timing of implementation of each measure, the party responsible for implementing the each mitigation, and Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 14 of 43 verification of compliance with each mitigation requirement. Moreover, all of the MND mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval in the Zoning Administrator staff report, and are enforceable as part of the LP16- 2031 land use permit. 4. Aesthetics 1 Adequate Screening The appellant states that mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 is inadequate, because the mitigation needs to identify the screening that is required in order to reduce the potential impact, rather than just considering “adequate screening of the future warehouse from offsite viewpoints.” Response: The mitigation measure is included as Condition of Approval #34 in the Zoning Administrator staff report. The full text of the mitigation measure is included in Section A.2 above. As stated in the Zoning Administrator staff report for the August 7, 2017 meeting, staff recommended approval of the proposed project based, in part, on the landscape plantings along in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations as shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan. Mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 requires submittal of a final landscaping and irrigation plan even though the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Landscape Plan, because the preliminary plan does not include irrigation, which needs to comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The Preliminary Landscape Plan will also need to be modified as required by mitigation measure Biology 3, which is Condition of Approval #37 in the Zoning Administrator staff report, to replace plantings that have been identified as invasive plant species. In addition, the Preliminary Landscape Plan may need to be modified as required by mitigation measure Biology 4, which is Condition of Approval #38 in the Zoning Administrator staff report in order to protect and preserve the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales, including the established riparian trees. CDD staff will need to review the modifications that have been made to the landscaping that are necessary to comply with Biology 3 and Biology 4 and make sure that the landscaping will continue to adequately screen the warehouse in views from offsite locations. As written, mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 accommodates the addition of an irrigation plan that is compliant with the MWELO, and any changes to the landscaping that would be required in order to comply with the requirements of mitigation measures Biology 3 and Biology 4, while Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 15 of 43 continuing to adequately screen the warehouse. 5. Aesthetics 1 Mitigation Measure Time Limit The appellant states that mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 puts a two -year time limit on how long the applicant is required to maintain the Afghan Pine trees, but that the aesthetic impacts of the project will be there for the life of the project, and therefore, the mitigation measure is temporary and improper. Response: Mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 does not place a time limit on how long the applicant is required to maintain the landscaping, including the Afghan Pine trees. The full text of mitigation measure Aesthetics 1 is included in Section A.2 above. As stated in the mitigation measure, it is intended to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscaping along the southern edge of the driveway south of the warehouse structure. As discussed in Section A.2 above, this mitigation measure is a standard Condition of Approval for trees to be planted to ensure that planted trees become established, typically within a two year time period with proper care as stipulated in the final landscaping and irrigation plan. With implementation of this mitigation measure, CDD staff is assured that the warehouse development will be consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element’s Scenic Route policies. Regarding the time limit, as stated previously, the project applicant is required to maintain the trees for the duration of the LP16-2031 land use permit, which runs with the land. Pursuant to Condition of Approval #1 in the Zoning Administrator staff report, the applicant must install and maintain the landscaping, including the trees, otherwise the project applicant will be in violation of the land use permit. 6. Proposed Lighting Levels The appellant makes statements regarding the proposed project’s lighting, including a potential nuisance to future occupants of the commercial and residential portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, consistency of lighting levels with recommended levels of lighting for safety of exterior areas, and comparability of project lighting with that of the Willow Pass Business Park. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 16 of 43 Future occupants of the Concord Naval Weapons Station: The appellant has stated that project lighting would likely be considered a nuisance by persons would be living and/or working in the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. Response: The City of Concord is engaged in an ongoing, long -term process to reuse and develop the former Concord Naval Weapons Station that was declared surplus property by the U.S. Navy in 2007. The Concord City Council held a study session on the Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan on May 23, 2017, and the Concord Community Advisory Committee has held meetings on the proposed reuse project land use plan, including on September 19, 2017. At this point in time, the characteristics of the future development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station are uncertain, and therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15145, would be considered too speculative for environmental review. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station were to proceed in the near term future, there could be commercial retail development on the south side of Highway 4 west of Willow Pass Road, based on the August 21, 2009, Concord Community Reuse Plan Preferred Alternative Land Use Diagram. This area is 1,450 feet (0.27 mile) south of the project site. In addition, this part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station is physically separated from the project site by Highway 4. Due to the distance between this area and the project site and the intervening presence of Highway 4, project lighting would have a less than significant on future occupants of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Recommended levels of lighting for safety of exterior areas: The appellant has stated that no authority is cited in the revised draft MND for the recommended levels of lighting for safety of building exterior areas. Response: As discussed in the revised draft MND in the response to CEQA Environmental Checklist Question 1.d, the security lighting would have a maximum illuminance in the north parking lot of 1.02 fc, in the east parking lot of 1.00 fc, and in the truck loading area of 0.27 fc. The response also states that these lighting levels are consistent with recommended levels of lighting for safety of commercial/industrial building exterior areas. The revised draft MND cites the Footcandle Light Guide published by the Energy Trust of Oregon. This publication was selected by CDD staff Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 17 of 43 as it is a readily understandable table of recommenced lighting levels, including 0.5 – 2 footcandles of horizontal illumination for the safety of building exteriors. The illumination levels in the table for the safety of building exteriors are consistent with the illumination levels from other sources, such as the Outdoor Lighting packet published by the American Planning Association (Planning Advisory Service, PAS EIP-28, October 2010), the Exterior Lighting for Energy Savings, Security, and Safety publication published under contract for the U.S. Department of Energy by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL-18173, November 2009), and the California Outdoor Lighting Standards staff report published by the California Energy Commission (400-03-015 REV, March 2004). Thus, the cited source in the MND accurately shows the industry standard illumination levels for safety of building exteriors. Comparison with the Willow Pass Business Park: The appellant has stated that the statement in the revised draft MND that night views (with the project lighting) would be comparable to night views of the Willow Pass Business Park is not analyzed. Response: Exterior lighting plans and lighting illumination levels are required to be submitted with the construction drawings for a building permit application, as well as for a land use permit application such as the proposed project. CDD staff assessed the project’s security lighting based on the submitted exterior lighting plan, and found it to be consistent with lighting plans that are typically submitted for building permits; i.e., the illumination levels are similar to the illumination levels in the construction drawings for approved building permits. The Site Lighting Plan included in the construction drawings for approved building permit BI388148 for Building E of the Willow Pass Business Park located at 1500 Willow Pass Court (Sheet E2.1 of the construction drawings), has a designed minimum lighting level of approximately 1 footcandle. This illumination level is consistent with lighting levels in construction drawings submitted for other building permits, and is consistent with the lighting levels for the proposed project, as reported in the revised draft MND. Regarding the night views of the site and the Willow Pass Business Park, due to the security lighting, onsite lighting would be visible in views from offsite locations, including views from Highway 4; however, due to the Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 18 of 43 distance between project site and Willow Pass Business Park, the night lighting would have less than significant environmental impacts. As discussed above, since the illumination levels of the proposed project and the Willow Pass Business Park are similar, night views of the site would be comparable to night views of the Business Park. Due to the topography and the physical separation of land on the north side of Highway 4 from land on the south side of the highway, lighting in night views from locations south of Highway 4 would be less than significant and, if visible from any viewpoints, would serve as a backdrop to vehicle lights on Highway 4. 7. Construction Air Quality The appellant makes statements regarding the 0.25-mile distance from sensitive receptors, potential exposure of sensitive receptors located 0.9 mile from the project site, and potential effects on future occupants of the commercial and residential portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Quarter-mile standard: The appellant states that the air quality analysis is inadequate, because the revised draft MND uses 0.25 miles as a threshold or significance but does not cite the source for that standard. Response: The CEQA Environmental Checklist Question 3.d asks: would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The response to this question in the revised draft MND includes the following statement: Construction and occupancy of the warehouse would not be expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) to unhealthy long-term air pollutant levels, since there are no sensitive receptors within a quarter - mile of the project site. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Air Quality Guidelines (May 2010), cited in the revised draft MND, include a 1,000- foot (0.19 mile) zone of influence for air pollutant based risks and hazards. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective published by the California Air Resources Board (April 2005), recommends a 1,000-foot separation distance from distribution centers for new sensitive receptors. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 19 of 43 The one quarter-mile (1,320-foot) standard is used in CEQA Environmental Checklist Question 8.c: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Typically, hazardous emissions include air-based emissions, and therefore, staff uses the one-quarter mile standard for Question 3.d and Question 8.c for consistency across the CEQA Environmental Checklist questions, as well as to provide a conservative, worst-case assessment of a project’s air pollutant-based effects on sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors located 0.9-mile from project site: The appellant states that the MND does not explain how sensitive receptors located 0.9 mile from the project site would not be exposed to air pollutants from construction or increased project-related truck traffic. Response: The response to CEQA Environmental Checklist Question 3.d states: Construction and occupancy of the warehouse would not be expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) to unhealthy long-term air pollutant levels, since there are no sensitive receptors within a quarter-mile of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are homes in Clyde that are 0.9 miles west of the site. Thus, the project would have a less than significant adverse environmental impact on any sensitive receptor due to pollutant concentrations. The 0.9-mile separation distance is greater than the BAAQMD 1,000-foot zone of influence, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the recommended separation distance between distribution center and sensitive receptors. Future occupants of the Concord Naval Weapons Station: The appellant states that the MNS does not evaluate effects of project air pollutants on future occupants of the Concord Naval Weapons Station Response: As discussed in Section A.6 above, the City of Concord is engaged in an ongoing, long-term process to reuse and develop the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. At this point in time, the characteristics of the future development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station is uncertain, and therefore, pursuant to CEQA Section 15145, would be considered too speculative for environmental review. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 20 of 43 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station were to proceed in the near term future, there could be commercial retail development on the south side of Highway 4 west of Willow Pass Road 1,450 feet (0.27 mile) south of the project site. This distance is greater than the BAAQMD 1,000-foot zone of influence, and therefore, with development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, the proposed project would remain consistent with the recommended separation distance between distribution center and sensitive receptors. 8. Biology 2 Nesting Buffers The appellant contends that the MND biology mitigation measures are in error and states that mitigation measure Biology 2 must be corrected to require nesting buffers to remain to August 31 rather than to August 1. Response: The Biology 2 mitigation includes the following requirement: Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys shou ld prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This mitigation is appropriate and adequate in addressing potential impacts on the loggerhead shrike and horned lark, which are the special status bird species being protected by the Biology 2 mitigation, as explained below. In the MND response to CEQA Environmental Checklist Question 4.a, Donaldson Associates (Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. February 2002) determined that suitable habitat was present on the site for the loggerhead shrike and the horned lark. Also, as reported in the response, Monk & Associates (Peer Review Study for Contra Costa County’s SCH2017022002 MND, Proposed Warehouse at 4000 Evora Road (approximate address), Concord, California. March 2017) did not observe either species on the project site. Both of these reference documents are cited in the MND. The Delta Diablo Sanitation District Initial Study prepared by Donaldson Associates included the following mitigations for loggerhead shrikes and horned larks: Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 21 of 43 Loggerhead Shrikes. A qualified wildlife biologist will survey the site for nesting loggerhead shrikes no more than 30 days before ground disturbance between February 15 and July 30. Disruption of nesting shrikes and direct mortality of nestlings will be avoided by: 1. Avoiding nesting shrikes by establishing a no-construction buffer zone approximately 100 feet around all occupied nests until reproductive activity is completed, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. 2. Remove suitable shrike nesting structures outside the nesting season, which typically occurs between February 15 and July 1. Horned Larks. Direct horned lark mortality and disruption of nesting activity will be avoid by the following: 1. Site clearing and grading will be avoided during the horned lark nesting season, which generally runs from March 1 - July 31. 2. If site clearing is scheduled during the nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist will survey the site for nesting horned larks no more than 14 days before ground disturbance. a. If no nesting horned larks are recorded on the site, no additional mitigation measures will be implemented. b. If nesting horned larks are recorded on the site their nests will be avoided by establishing an exclusion zone around the nest at a radius recommended by a qualified wildlife biologist (approximately 75 feet). No disturbance will occur inside the exclusion zone until a qualified wildlife biologist reports that the construction activity will no longer affect horned lark reproductive behavior at the nest. The Loggerhead shrike and the horned lark are both passerine bird species and special-status bird species. Accordingly, the revised draft MND includes a more restrictive mitigation measure for the loggerhead shrike and horned lark based on the following mitigation recommendation for nesting passerine birds in the 2017 Monk & Associates Peer Review Study: If project site grading or construction would take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 22 of 43 project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). If common (that is, not special-status) birds for example, California towhee, western scrub jay, or western meadowlark or other common bird species are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet should be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer should be demarcated with orange construction fencing. Disturbance within the buffer should be postponed until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area or that the nesting cycle has otherwise completed. If special-status passerine birds are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence (for example, tricolored blackbirds or loggerhead shrike), the non-disturbance buffer zone shall be increased to 100 feet or as determined by a qualified biologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. Typically, most passerine birds in the region of the project site are expected to complete nesting by August 1st. However, many species can complete nesting by the end of June or in early to mid-July. Regardless, nesting buffers should be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1st, the qualified biologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the removal of buffers. This report should be submitted to Contra Costa County’s Department of Conservation and Development prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed if the date is before August 1st. In light of the foregoing, mitigation measure Biology 2 is correct as written. 9. Geology 2 Follow-up Geotechnical Report [Response from Darwin Myers] The appellant states that the MND geology mitigation measures include improper deferred mitigation, refers to the follow-up geotechnical report required in Geology 2, and contends that the mitigation measure does not provide any standards for evaluation of the report. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 23 of 43 Response: On August 23, 2016, Darwin Myers Associates (DMA), the County Peer Review Geologist, submitted a peer review letter (Geologic Peer Review, LP16-2031 (CP Logistics Willow Pass, Owner), 0 Evora Road, APN 099-160-026 & -027, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA project 3044.16) on the geotechnical investigation completed by Raney Geotechnical for the proposed project (Geotechnical Investigation, Willow Pass Tilt-Up Building. File No. 192-324. March 2016). In the peer review letter, DMA concluded that there was sufficient information to deem the land use permit application complete. DMA found that the Raney Geotechnical report provided an assessment of potential geologic, geotechnical and seismic hazards based on their scope of work, which included review of the previous grading of the site, logging of seven exploratory borings, laboratory testing of samples and engineering analysis of the data gathered. Rainey also provided geotechnical recommendations for the proposed warehouse project. The Raney Geotechnical report and the DMA peer review letter are cited in the revised draft MND. Projects are typically modified during the planning process, as the regulatory context of the project can change (i.e., adoption of the 2016 California Building Code has occurred since the Rainey report was issued) and the standard of care expected from professional engineers is constantly evolving. Moreover, since construction drawings for a building permit are not prepared until the land use permit has been approved, the project geotechnical engineer has not yet had the opportunity to review construction drawings for compliance with its recommendations. Accordingly, DMA recommended the following Geology mitigation measures, which are required either prior to the issuance of building permits or to be completed during construction or are to be completed prior to the final building inspection. Geology 1: Prior to issuance of construction permits the project proponent shall provide evidence of plan review and approval by the project geotechnical engineer. The recommendations for site grading contained in the approved grading plans shall be followed during construction unless modifications are specifically approved in writing by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. Geology 2: Borehole logs indicate the existing pad soils consist of medium stiff to stiff clays containing variable amounts of silt, sand and gravel. These materials are characterized by slow permeability. The applicant shall submit a follow-up geotechnical report that specifically addresses the Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 24 of 43 planned design of the bio-retention basins, and their proximity to planned improvements. Geology 3: During grading and soils preparation work (i.e. lime treatment of soils) the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services. The intent of this geotechnical monitoring is to (i) verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented by the contractor, (ii) view exposed conditions during grading/ soil preparation work to ensure that field conditions match those that were the basis of the geotechnical design report, and (iii) prov ide supplement recommendations during construction, should they be warranted. Geology 4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the geotechnical engineer shall certify that all site preparation work is in compliance with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. During foundation and drainage-related work the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation services to ensure the geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented by the contractor. Geology 5: Prior to requesting a final building inspection of the warehouse structure, the project proponent shall submit a letter-report from the geotechnical engineer documenting the observation and testing services performed during final grading/ foundation work/ lot drainage. The report of the geotechnical engineer shall also provide a professional opinion on the consistence of the as-graded/ as-built project with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. Geology 6: The report of the Corrosion Engineer shall also be provi ded prior to requesting the final building inspection of the warehouse. The mitigation measures provide opportunities for DMA, as the County Peer Review Geologist, to review the construction drawings for the building permit for consistency with the Raney recommendations, and to check that the actual construction follows the recommendations. The mitigation measures also allow the geotechnical engineer to offer supplemental recommendations. In addition, the Building Inspection Division may require further details, plan revisions, and/or calculations prior to issuance of construction permits. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 25 of 43 With respect to the Geology 2 mitigation measure, in its March 2016 report , Raney provided drainage recommendations based on its investigation for the proposed warehouse project. In the report, Raney emphasized the need for positive drainage away from the foundation of the warehouse. According to DMA, the primary concerns related to the design of the project bio-retention basins include providing suitable support for foundations and curbs constructed near the bio-retention facilities, and the potential for subsurface water from the bio-retention areas to migrate (and possibly build up) beneath pavements and the proposed buildings. However, details needed to determine positive drainage are not available for review until the construction drawings for a building permit are prepared following approval of the land use permit. Thus, the Geology 2 mitigation measure provides the opportunity to review a geotechnical report that is based on the construction details of the bio-retention basins, for consistency with the Raney drainage recommendations in the March 2016 report. The Geology 2 mitigation measure does not improperly defer mitigation. 10. General Plan Land Use Compatibility The appellant contends the MND inaccurately concludes that the proposed project is compatible with the General Plan land use designation for the project site, and that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy 5-49. Response: CEQA Checklist Question 10.b asks: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As stated in the MND response to Question 10.b: The proposed project would construct and operate a warehouse in the L - I Light Industrial District and would be allowed on the project site with a land use permit. The warehouse would meet all of the development standards of the L-I District, including minimum lot size (7,500 square feet) and maximum building height (3 stories). The warehouse would be sited to be at least 46 feet from the nearest property boundary, and thereby, would meet the minimum setback of 10 feet and the minimum side yard of 10 feet. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 26 of 43 The warehouse would also be compatible with the LI Light Industry General Plan land use designation. The warehouse would take up 5.19 acres of the 15.42-acre site. The site coverage would be 34 percent, and would be below the maximum 50 percent site coverage standard for the LI designation. The .034 floor area ratio would be below the maximum 0.67 floor area ratio for the LI designation. The maximum height of 42 feet six inches would be within the maximum 50 foot building height limit for the LI designation. Regarding the consistency with the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element’s Policy 5 -49, as explained in Section A.1 above, with implementation of the Conditions of Approval of the Zoning Administrator staff report. As stated earlier, du e to the landscaping and the location of the warehouse in proximity to the existing tree features in the scenic view, the building would blend into the baseline scenic view to the extent possible. 11. Noise 1 Good Faith Effort The appellant states that the MND noise mitigation measure to make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties is an improperly deferred mitigation and is vague and unenforceable. Response: CEQA Checklist Question 12.d asks: Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As stated in the MND response to Question 12.d, there would be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction of the warehouse structure, driveway and parking lot, which could have a potentially significant impact at nearby offsite locations. Thus, the MND includes the following noise mitigation measures: Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project- related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 27 of 43 2. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing off-site buildings as possible. 3. Large trucks and heavy equipment are 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. 4. All 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: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Noise 1 is not improperly deferred, is not vague, and is enforceable. As evident in Noise 1 above, the requirement to make a good faith effort is part of the package of Noise 1 mitigation measures; i.e., all of the measures of Noise 1 are to be implemented together. For example, if a contractor fails to adhere to measure #4 to limit construction hours to start no earlier than 8:00 A.M. and end no later than 5:00 P.M., that contractor would not be making a good faith effort to minimize disruptions to adjacen t properties per measure Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 28 of 43 #1. Further, all of the mitigation measures are required to be included together on construction drawings, such that all contractors would be aware of these requirements. 12. Traffic Levels of Service The appellant states that the MND does not identify any threshold of significance, and that the MND misleads the reader by stating that there are no significant adverse impacts. Response: CEQA Checklist Question 16.a asks: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? The MND response to Question 16.a refers to the transportation analysis prepared by Abrams Associates (Transportation Impact Analysis, Frito Lay Project, Permit App #CDLP 16-02031. September 2016), which is cited in the revised draft MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 regarding the level of technical detail in an environmental review document, the MND response to Question 16.a appropriately summarizes the information in the Transportation Impact Analysis with enough detail to disclose potential significant impacts. As reported by Abrams Associates in its September 2016 Transportation Impact Analysis, the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority established traffic level of services (LOS) standards, and has set LOS D as the standard for Willow Pass Road; i.e., levels of service up to and including LOS D would be considered to have a less than significant impact. Using this standard, Abrams Associates evaluated existing and future traffic conditions at the Willow Pass Road at Evora Road intersection, the Willow Pass Road at the Highway 4 westbound off- and on-ramps, and the Willow Pass Road at the eastbound off-and on-ramps, and found no significant traffic impacts. The intersections highlighted by the appellant for baseline and baseline plus project conditions (shown in the table on the following page) either do not degrade in levels of service or go from LOS C to LOS D, the standard for Willow Pass Road. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 29 of 43 Intersection Willow Pass Rd & Evora Rd Willow Pass Rd & Highway 4 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Rd & Highway 4 Eastbound Ramps Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Baseline Control Signalized Two-Way Stop Two-Way Stop AM >80.0 F >50.0 F 42.1 E PM 32.3 C 41.4 E 23.1 C Baseline plus Project Control Signalized Two-Way Stop Two-Way Stop AM >80.0 F >50.0 F 44.9 E PM 41.7 D 42.1 E 25.3 D Source: Abrams Associates, 2016. B. DeNova Homes March 2, 2017 and June 9, 2017 letters commenting on MND The March 2, 2017 DeNova Homes letter (letter B) and the June 9, 2017 DeNova Homes letter (letter D) are grouped together in this section, because letter B was submitted as comments on the adequacy of the draft MND that was published by the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) on January 31, 2017, and letter D was submitted as comments on the adequacy of the revised draft MND that was published by DCD on May 10, 2017, and except for one comment that is only in letter B, letter D includes comments that are the same as or similar to the comments in letter B. All of the comments in the two letters have been responded to in the August 7, 2017 Final MND, which is Attachment 5 of the Zoning Administrator staff report for its August 7, 2017 meeting. Summaries of the comments in the letters and comment responses from the Final MND are included below. Because letters B and D are letters E and G that are included in Attachment A of the Final MND, the comment responses are taken directly from the Final MND. 1. Disagreement Between Parties (comment 1 letter B, comment 1 letter D) DeNova Homes cites a disagreement between the partners of Thomas DeNova LLC regarding development of the project site in excess of 110,000 square feet. In letter D, DeNova Homes also contends that additional mitigation required by the County will take away the development value of the remaining parcels in the Willow Pass Business Park. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 30 of 43 Response: A disagreement between the partners of Thomas DeNova LLC is a civil matter that is not an environmental review issue. The project site is not part of Subdivision 8918 or Development Plan DP04-3096, and therefore, is not subject to the limits on development that apply to the Willow Pass Business Park that are shown on Table 4 of the approved SD04-8918/DP04- 3096 permit. Approval of the proposed project would not require an amendment of the Willow Pass Business Park and would not affect the approved SD04-8918/DP04-3096 permit. 2. Significant Impacts – EIR Required (comment 2 letter B, comment 2 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the proposed project cannot be approved using the MND because the project has significant impacts on the environment, and that an environmental impact report needs to be prepared. In letter D, DeNova Homes also states that traffic due to truck traffic from the warehouse will require mitigation at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. Response: The MND has evaluated all potential significant environmental impacts due to the proposed project and includes mitigation measures that reduce all potential significant impacts to less than significant levels. Aside from the changes to Section 4 (Biological Resources) in the revised draft MND, a few sections of the draft MND, including Section 16 (Transportation/Traffic), have been revised to add information. The addition of new language to these other sections of the MND is not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, does not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the MND, and does not alter any findings in the section. The revisions are consistent with CEQA requirements for a MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, preparation of an EIR is not necessary. 3. Requested Notice (comment 3 letter B) DeNova Homes states that it had requested that the County provide DeNova with notice of all applications filed for development of the project site. DeNova Homes states that it has not received the requested notice, and that notice was not provided to DeNova at its two office locations at 1500 Willow Pass Court and 1200 Willow Pass Court. Response: DeNova Homes had submitted a request for notice of any applications for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 099-160-026, 099-160-027, 099- 160-032, 099-210-016, 099-210-017, and 099-210-018 in a letter dated Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 31 of 43 September 22, 2015. DCD sent a letter to DeNova Homes dated October 13, 2015, stating that it could provide notice of any discretionary permits for a one-year period, but could not provide notice for non-discretionary approvals that do not require public notification. The one year time period expired on October 13, 2016. DeNova Homes subsequently sent a letter dated March 20, 2017 requesting notification for applications or “any land use related inquiries of any nature whatsoever” for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 099 -160-026, 099- 160-027, 099-160-032, 099-210-016, 099-210-017, and 099-210-018. DCD sent a letter to DeNova Homes dated March 31, 2017, stating that it would provide notice of any discretionary permit but could not provide notice of non-discretionary items. The discretionary permit related to the proposed project is Land Use Permit LP16-2031. Permit application LP16-2031 has not previously been scheduled for consideration of approval. LP16-2031 is now scheduled for consideration of approval at the Zoning Administrator meeting on August 7, 2017, and notice has been sent for the meeting. At the meeting, the Zoning Administrator will consider adopting the MND prior to considering appro val of LP16-2031. Accordingly, notice has been provided to DeNova Homes in accordance with Section 26-2.2104 of the Contra Costa County Code, which requires that notice be provided no less than ten days prior to the meeting, and Section 26-2.2004 of the County Code, which requires mail notice to be provided “to all owners of real property within three hundred feet of the subject land”. Because DeNova Homes has specifically requested notice, it is be included in the notification of the Zoning Administrator meeting. With respect to notice of the MND, Section 15072 of the Contra Costa County Guidelines for Administering the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on August 3, 2010, stipulates that notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration be provided by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, or posting of the notice on and off site in the project vicinity, or by mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Accordingly, notice was provide to owners and occupants of parcels contiguous to the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 32 of 43 4. Inconsistent Aesthetics Analysis (comment 4 letter B, comment 4 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the aesthetics analysis is internally inconsistent, because the checklist does not note any “potentially significant impacts” but the discussion states that there could be “potentially significant adverse environmental impact on Highway 4 scenic resources.” DeNova Homes also states that the proposed plantings would adversely change the “scenic vista”, and that the MND fails to address the impacts on adjoining landowners. Response: Regarding internal consistency, the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” checklist in the revised draft MND shows the environmental factors that have a “Potentially Significant Impact”. No checkbox in this list is checked to indicate that there is a “Potentially Significant Impact”. Similarly, the checklist in the Aesthetics section of the revised draft MND does not have any checkbox that is checked for a “Potentially Significant Impact”. The Aesthetics checklist does have two checkboxes checked for impacts that would be “Less Than Significant With Mitigation”, including #1.b – scenic resources within a state scenic highway (Highway 4), and #1.c – potential degradation of the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The Aesthetics section includes discussions in #1.b and #1.c that indicate that there could be potentially significant impacts and includes mitigation measures that address these potentially significant impacts. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the identified impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The commenter states that the proposed project would adversely change a “scenic vista”. As discussed in #1.a in the Aesthetics section of the revised draft MND, the proposed project has no impact on any scenic vistas as the site is not located near any scenic ridgeways identified in Figure 9-1 (Scenic Ridges & Waterways) of the Contra Costa County General Plan Open Space Element. As discussed in the Open Space Element, scenic vistas include natural ridges, hillsides, and waterways that form the visual identify of the County. The closest identified scenic ridgeway in the Open Space Element is Lime Ridge, located approximately 6 miles to the south of the project site. Lime Ridge would remain visible from areas around the site with the proposed project. Regarding the visual character of the site and its surroundings, as discussed in #1.c in the Aesthetics section of the revised draft MND, with the proposed landscape plantings, including both deciduous and evergreen trees, the Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 33 of 43 proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site and its vicinity. The trees would soften views of the warehouse structure and would partially obscure views of the structure. In addition, vertical elements in the design of the warehouse would break up the apparent mass of the structure. Thus, project impacts to views from the south, north, and east would be less than significant. The views would be comparable to views of the existing Willow Pass Business Park, located adjacent t o the project site to the east. For persons in the Willow Pass Business Park, views of the project would be similar to existing views of the Business Park. 5. Willow Pass Business Park Prior Approvals (comment 5 letter B, comment 5 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the MND does not consider the prior approvals of the Willow Pass Business Park that limit development on the project site to 110,000 square feet. Response: The project site is not part of the Willow Pass Business Park, which is described in the Subdivision 8918 and Development Plan DP04-3096 approval documents and is shown on the Vesting Tentative Map for Major Subdivision 8918 “Willow Pass Business Park”. Thus, the limits on development that apply to the Willow Pass Business Park and are sho wn on Table 4 of the approved SD04-8918/DP04-3096 permit do not include the project site. 6. Traffic Analysis (comment 6 letter B, comment 3 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the MND’s checklist questions are inconsistent with current CEQA Guidelines. DeNova Homes also states that the project trip generation analysis fails to consider the impacts of a warehouse of this size and location, that in 2002, a traffic impact study was prepared for a warehouse/distribution center of 98,400 square feet, that with the original approval, certain traffic improvements were anticipated with development of the project site, and that project traffic would use Evora Court and the easement for access on Evora Court limits the warehouse to no more than 110,000 square feet. In letter D, DeNova Homes also states that the project will impact the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection, that the MND does not account for metering lights on the Highway 4 onramps, and that the MND does not account for the turning radius of trucks. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 34 of 43 Response: The Transportation/Traffic checklist questions are the same as the checklist questions on the 2017 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form. Abrams Associates, the project transportation consultants, assessed the transportation-related impacts of a 225,950 square foot warehouse on the project site in its September 2016 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Abrams Associates estimated 804 daily trips for the project, with 68 AM peak period trips and 72 PM peak period trips. Abrams Associates also completed the Traffic Impact Study in November 2002 for the prior 94,400 square foot warehouse/distribution center and estimated 487 daily trips for that project, with 44 AM peak hour and 57 PM peak hour trips. The 2002 Traffic Impact Study that was prepared for a prior proposed warehouse/distribution center on the project site did not find any significant impacts. The 2002 Study did identify a need to install traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection with development of the surrounding “Lesher property”, including the Willow Pass Business Park, but stated that the prior warehouse/distribution center alone would not warrant installation of the signals. In contrast, the Initial Study prepared for the Willow Pass Business Park project by LSA in August 2005 estimated that the Business Park would generate 6,700 daily trips, with 469 trips in the AM peak hour and 642 trips in the PM peak hour. Consequently, a number of mitigation measures were included in the Initial Study, including a limitation on the square footage that could be developed on each parcel in the Business Park, installation of traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection, and improvements to the Highway 4 ramps on Willow Pass Road. The limitation on the square footage is specific to the parcels within the Willow Pass Business Park and does not apply to the project site. As evaluated by Abrams Associates using the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCCTA) technical procedures, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on existing traffic congestion in the area. The existing traffic congestion and backups between intersections referred to by the commenter will continue to exist regardless of whether nor not the proposed project is constructed. As discussed in Transportation/Traffic section #16.a of the revised draft MND, the project-related traffic would not result in any significant impacts at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road, Willow Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 35 of 43 Pass Road/Highway 4 Westbound Ramps, and Willow Pass Road/Highway 4 Eastbound Ramps intersections. Notably, the existing Level of Service (LOS) is at LOS F at the Willow Pass Road/Highway 4 Westbound Ramps, which is the cause of the backups referred to by the commenter. The Abrams Associates TIA accounted for ramp metering; however, the metering lights were not highlighted in the TIA, because the metering lights are not within any of the study intersections. The Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection was designed to County standards as part of the intersection improvements implemented as part of the approvals for the Willow Pass Business Park. The County standards account for the turning radius of trucks. Regarding the 110,000 square foot limitation in the easement for Evora Court, the Grant Deed from Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP to CP Logistics Willow PASS LLC, recorded in May 2016, conveyed the project site to the applicant/property owner. In the Grant Deed, Evora Court is listed as Parcel Two, which is a “non-exclusive perpetual easement” with no square footage limitation. 7. Insufficient Groundwater (comment 7 letter B, comment 6 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the December 2008 Willow Pass Business Park CC&Rs limit development on the project site to 100,000 square feet. DeNova Homes contends that, as noted by the CCWD (Contra Costa Water District) in its comment letter, there is insufficient water for this project due to insufficient groundwater if development of the site exceeds 100,000 square feet. Response: The commenter cites section 4.11 of the CC&Rs: The Raw Water System and the Potable Water System (“Water System”) which provides service to the Project was designed to accommodate presently contemplated and proposed uses. In particular, the Owner of the Frito-Lay Lot may not change the use of the Frito-Lay Lot from a maximum of one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of office/warehouse (a distribution center) to another use which would require greater fireflow capacity of water consumption unless (a) the Managing Owner determines that the Water System has adequate capacity, or (b) the Owner of the Frito-Lay Lot increases the capacity of the Water System at its own expense Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 36 of 43 and to the satisfaction of the Managing Owner. As listed in section 2.13 of the CC&Rs, the Managing Owner is Thomas/DeNova LLC, and as listed in section 2.6 of the CC&Rs, the Declarants are Thomas/DeNova LLC, Thomas Concord LLC, and Meadow Creek Group LLC. The Managing Owner and Thomas Concord LLC executed the Willow Pass Business Park Amended Estoppel Certificate, dated May 17, 2016, and in part #4 Declarant and Managing Owner stated: Declarant and Managing Owner hereby confirm that the Willow Pass Business Park (WPBP) Water System has adequate capacity for Buyer’s proposed development containing one (1) building, not to exceed 22 6,000 square feet, demised via 4-hour rated fire walls into three (3) adjoining units of no more than 79,000 square feet each. Regarding the CCWD’s statement about insufficient water for the project, the CCWD, in its Comment Letter Regarding the Evora Road Bay Point Project, dated December 27, 2016, stated that: The Proposed Project is a 225,950 square foot concrete tilt-up speculative warehouse building (APN#s 099-160-026 and 099-160-027) on 15.42 acres. While this facility is within the CCWD service area, the Willow Pass Business Park has elected to use groundwater for potable water service and is accessing Canal Water for landscape irrigation water. The District has a separate agreement with the Willow Pass Business Park regarding the use of ground water rather than obtaining treated water service from CCWD. In the event that ground water service is not reliable, there are significant facility improvement and charges that would be required for the Willow Pass Business Park to obtain treated water service. The estimated cost of extending treated water to the Willow Pass Business Park is substantial. As discussed in #17.b and #17.d of the Utilities and Service Systems section of the revised draft MND, the project site is in the CCWD service area, and therefore, CCWD would provide water service in the event that the project does not use ground water. CCWD has not indicated that it could not provide water service. Utilities and Service Systems sections #17.b and #17.d of the revised draft MND is included in the staff-initiated text changes. The text changes are included to more clearly reflect the CCWD Comment Letter. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 37 of 43 Text changes to CEQA Environmental Checklist Section 17. Utilities and Service Systems: The corrections to the text of CEQA Environmental Checklist Section 17 that are included in the Final MND are shown below. Deleted text is shown with strikethrough text and new text is indicated by double underlined text. The first full paragraph on page 66 of the Environmental Checklist (Section 17. Utilities and Service Systems, subsection (b)) is revised as follows: The project site is in the CCWD service area. As described in 17.d below, in the event that the project would not use ground water, water service would be provided by CCWD. The CCWD has not indicated that significant facility improvements would be needed existing water facilities would need to be expanded in order to serve the project. The improvements would be provided by the applicant/property owner at its expense. With the use of ground water or with the installation of these improvements, Thus, impacts of the proposed project on CCWD DDSD facilities would be less than significant. The paragraph on page 66 of the Environmental Checklist (Section 17. Utilities and Service Systems, subsection (d)) is revised as follows: The Willow Pass Business Park has an agreement with CCWD, whereby the Business Park uses ground water. The proposed project would use this ground water source or, in the event that the ground water source is not reliable, would request treated water service from CCWD. The CCWD has indicated that significant facility improvements would be needed to serve water service laterals would need to be extended from existing CCWD facilities to the warehouse, at the applicant/property owner’s project sponsor’s expense. If necessary, CCWD will reviewed the project application documents regarding the provision of new water service pursuant to CCWD water service regulations. With the use of ground water or with the installation of the facility improvements, Accordingly, the impact of providing water service to the proposed project would be less than significant. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 38 of 43 8. Underperforming Canal (comment 8 letter B, comment 7 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the underperforming canal is not discussed in the MND. Response: The Contra Costa Canal is not part of the proposed project and is not connected to the Willow Pass Business Park drainage system. Further, the proposed project does not create a drainage impact, as described in #9.c in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the revised draft MND and in prior responses to Comments 2, 3, and 4 above. Hydrology and Water Quality Comments 2,3, and 4: Hydrology and Water Quality Comments 2, 3, and 4 that were submitted by the Contra Costa Water District and included in the Final MND, and the corresponding staff responses, are as follows: Comment 2: The MND should include a link to supporting documentation to show that the proposed project would not result in overtopping of the existing drainage facilities. (Email D: Contra Costa Water District 2) Response: Hydrology and Water Quality section #9.c of the revised draft MND describes the existing drainage facilities that were designed to meet 10-year storm discharges. This section also describes the design of onsite project stormwater control facilities such that post-project runoff would not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations. Information in this section is based on the Laugenour and Meikle (LM) September 2016 Pre- App 16-0005 Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities For Evora Road Industrial Center. LM concluded that existing drainage improvements for the Willow Pass Business Park, as detailed in Lesher Business Park documents, were sized conservatively and would accommodate the proposed project. The September 2016 LM evaluation is a background document for the MND. Subsequently in the February 2017 LP16-2031 Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities For Evora Road Industrial Center, LM evaluated the July 2006 Willow Pass Business Park Hydrology Study and concluded that the proposed project is compatible with the existing drainage system. Both the LM February 2017 evaluation and September 2016 evaluation are part of the project case file and are available for review at the DCD offices located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 39 of 43 Comment 3: The MND includes contradictory statements. The MND should include a link to supporting documentation to show that the proposed project would not imperil the Contra Costa Canal during heavy rainfall events. (Email D: Contra Costa Water District 3) Response: As stated in the response to Comment 2 above, information was added to the draft MND in the revised draft MND to clarify the discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality. Hydrology and Water Quality section #9.d of the revised draft MND, refers to the previous discussion in #9.c of how the existing drainage improvements for the Willow Pass Business Park would accommodate the proposed project, because the “improvements were sized conservatively, assuming industrial land use and associated infiltration/runoff rates across this entire area.” Thus, the proposed project would not create any significant risk due to off-site flooding. As discussed in the response to Comment 2 above, the February 2017 LP16-2031 Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities For Evora Road Industrial Center included an evaluation of the July 2006 Willow Pass Business Park Hydrology Study. As described in the Willow Pass Business Park Hydrology Study, runoff from the Business Park’s drainage system discharges to a culvert under the Contra Costa Canal, and therefore, would not discharge into the Canal. The referenced LM February 2017 evaluation and September 2016 evaluation are part of the project case file and are available for review at the DCD offices located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA. Comment 4: There is no way to know if the proposed project would affect the Contra Costa Canal during a heavy rainfall event. (Email D: Contra Costa Water District 4) Response: As described in #9.e in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the revised draft MND, describes how the project bio-retention basins and vegetated areas would filter stormwater and reduce the runoff that is directed into the existing drainage swales. As described in #9.c, project runoff would be accommodated by the existing drainage improvements. As evaluated in the LM February 2017 evaluation and described in the July 2006 Willow Pass Business Park Hydrology Study, the existing drainage improvements discharge runoff to a culvert under the Contra Costa Canal. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 40 of 43 9. Maintenance of Bioswales (comment 9 letter B, comment 8 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the MND does not address maintenance of existing bioswales. Response: The proposed project does not affect the maintenance of existing bioswales for the Willow Pass Business Park. The project site is includ ed in the Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the Willow Pass Business Park (CC&Rs), which was executed by Thomas/DeNova LLC, Thomas Concord LLC, and Meadow Creek Group LLC, and recorded on December 18, 2008. Pursuant to the CC&Rs, the applicant/property owner is required to maintain the drainage facilities that would be installed as part of the project, and share in the maintenance of the existing drainage swales and other existing Willow Pass Business Park drainage improvements. Moreover, as stated in the Permit LP16-2031 Staff Report and Conditions of Approval from the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, dated March 28, 2017, the applicant/property owner is required to submit a stormwater control plan and a stormwater control operation and maintenance plan for approval by the Department of Public Works. The applicant/property owner is subsequently required to enter into a stormwater management facility operation and maintenance agreement with Contra Costa County for the project stormwater facilities. 10. Fire Protection Water Supply (comment 10 letter B, comment 9 letter D) DeNova Homes states that the MND does not identify water supply for fire protection. DeNova Homes also states that there is reference to a water tank, which would require DeNova’s consent. Response: As discussed in #14.a of the Public Service section of the revised draft MND, fire protection services would be provided to the project site by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). In the CCFPD comment letter on the proposed project, dated August 18, 2016, CCCFPD stated that an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection be provided to serve the project. The discussion below in I. Utilities and Service Systems includes reference to the May 17, 2016 Willow Pass Business Park Amended Estoppel Certificate that indicates that water service would be provided by the Willow Pass Business Park Water System. Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 41 of 43 As described in section 2.19.7 of the CC&Rs, the Willow Pass Business Park Water System includes well water, the 750,000 gallon water storage tank described in the Surrounding Land Uses and Setting section of the revised draft MND, and “raw water” from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The applicant/property owner has not proposed a new water tank as part of the LP16-2031 application; a water tank is not part of the warehouse project scope under LP16-2031. C. DeNova Homes March 7, 2017 letter The March 7, 2017 DeNova Homes letter was submitted on March 8, 2017 as comments on the proposed project. In the March 7, 2017 letter, DeNova Homes refers to the development restrictions for the Willow Pass Business Park, the inadequacy of the notice provided to it, and the inadequacy of the MND that it had noted in its March 2, 2017 comment letter on the draft MND (letter B). Responses to these comments are included above in Sections B.5, B.3, and B.2, respectively. DeNova Homes specifically includes two comments on the proposed project itself in its March 7, 2017 letter, including: (1) the extensive loading docks, and (2) the height of the warehouse structure. Both comments have been responded to in the August 7, 2017 Zoning Administrator staff report. Summaries of the comments in the letters and comment responses derived from the Zoning Administrator staff report are included below 1. Extensive Loading Docks DeNova Homes states that: “In addition to the land uses allowed under Chapter 84 -63 (entitled Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material and which appears to be irrelevant here), the permitted uses include ‘industrial uses which do not necessarily require or use…extensive loading docks or similar facilities for the receiving or shipment of raw materials or semi-finished or finished products...’ “ “The proposed Project includes 44 truck loading bays. Even under the most generous reading of County Ordinance Code section 84-58.402, the applicant and the County cannot reasonably say that 44 truck loading bays are not ‘extensive loading docks or similar facilities.’ Perhaps a few loading Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 42 of 43 bays would be permissible under the County Ordinance Code, but 44 truck loading bays can only be described as an extensive use of docks or similar facilities.” Response: As discussed in Section IX.B of the Zoning Administrator staff report (Consistency with Zoning), warehouse space is generally considered to be storage, and therefore, warehousing is considered to be a commercial land use, which is allowed in the L-I District with a land use permit. Industrial space is typically used to manufacture, fabricate, or assemble products and may include warehouse space. If the proposed project were to be considered as an industrial use, the proposed 44 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building would be considered to be “extensive loading docks”, and therefore, would not be permitted by right in the L-I District, but would require approval of a land use permit; i.e., the LP16-2031 land use permit application. 2. Height of Warehouse Structure DeNova Homes states that: “In addition, under County Ordinance Code section 84 -58.802, ‘[n]o building or structure or part of it shall be more than three stories high above the highest point of ground elevation on the lot on which the building is erected.’ “ “Further, a 42.5-foot structure exceeds the County Ordinance Code’s height requirement that precludes construction of a building that is more than three stories high. Even assuming that each story is 12 feet high – a generous measurement by any standards – this building exceeds the height of a three story building by at least an additional half-story.” Response: As shown on the project plans, submitted on July 14, 2016, the proposed warehouse is a single-story structure. As discussed in Section IX.B of the Zoning Administrator staff report (Consistency with Zoning), the one story structure meets the L-I District development regulation for building height. The L-I District allows a three-story structure; however, the maximum building height is not listed in the L-I District regulations. Instead, the maximum building height is listed in the LI General Plan development standards. As discussed in Section IX.A of the Zoning Administrator staff report (Consistency with the General Plan), a maximum building height of 50 Planning Commission, November 8, 2017 County File #LP16-2031 Page 43 of 43 feet is allowed in the LI General Plan land use designation, and therefore, the proposed warehouse structure meets this General Plan development standard. VII. CONCLUSION Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the L-I Light Industrial District zoning regulations, the LI Light Industry General Plan land use designation, and the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element policies and implementation measures for scenic routes. Staff has also determined that neither the comments in the Wenter appeal letter, nor the staff responses to the comments, result in any changes to the MND, result in any new significant adverse environmental impact, alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the MND, or alter any findings in the MND. The Findings and Conditions of Approval in Exhibit 1 include findings that support adoption of the MND and approval of the land use permit. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #LP16-2031, based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. In approving County File #LP16-2031, the Zoning Administrator adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this application, consisting of the revised draft MND and the Final MND, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Mitigation Monitoring Program, revised draft MND, and Final MND are included as attachments to the August 7, 2017 Zoning Administrator staff report in Exhibit 4. VIII. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Findings and Conditions of Approval Exhibit 2: Letter of Appeal received on August 17, 2017. Exhibit 3: Maps and Plans Exhibit 4: Staff Report for the August 7, 2017 Zoning Administrator Meeting G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Land Use Permits\LP16-2031\LP16-2031 STAFF 110817 CPC.docx Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 1 of 31 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – COUNTY FILE LP16-2031, WARE MALCOMB (APPLICANT) – CP LOGISTICTS WILLOW PASS, LLC (OWNER) FINDINGS A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Traffic: The warehouse project is projected to generate 17 AM peak period and 19 PM peak period vehicle trips, and as evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), will not significantly increase existing traffic levels in the area. The increase in traffic on Evora Road and Willow Pass Road due to the project will not significantly affect the operation of either street. 2. Water: The project site is in the service area of the Contra Costa Water District. The Water District has stated that water service is provided by the Willow Pass Business Park ground water service and irrigation water is be provided from the Contra Costa Canal, pursuant to its agreement with the Willow Pass Business Park. The Water District has stated that in the event ground water service is not reliable, the project will be required to obtain treated water service. In this situation, t he applicant is required to comply with the requirements of the Water District. 3. Sanitary Sewer. Sanitary sewer service at the project site is provided by the Delta Diablo Sanitary District. The project site is not hooked up to Sanitary District facilities; however, based on the characteristics of warehouse use and the 39 employees that will be employed on the site as projected in the MND, no significant increase in demand for sanitary sewer service is expected from the new warehouse. The applicant will apply for sanitary sewer service with the District and pay all appropriate fees for the service. Also, the applicant is required to submit building plans to the Sanitary District prior to submitting a building permit application to the County. 4. Fire Protection: The project site is in the service area of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The warehouse project will meet all current Fire Protection District requirements including provision of adequate access roadways, an adequate and reliable water supply, fire hydrants and an automatic fire sprinkler system in the warehouse, and therefore, the new warehouse will not adversely affect the provision of fire protection services. Project plans will be reviewed by the Fire Protection District for compliance with its requirements. 5. Public Protection: The project includes exterior lighting of the driveway, parking Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 2 of 31 areas, and truck stalls. Some of the light standards will remain lit at night for security. As discussed in the MND, the security lighting will have a maximum illuminance in the north parking lot of 1.02 fc, in the east parking lot of 1.00 fc, and in the truck loading area of 0.27 fc, and will be consistent with recommended levels of lighting for safety of commercial/industrial building exterior areas. Thus, the warehouse will not significantly increase the demand for police service facilities or personnel. 6. Parks and Recreation: The warehouse project does not include any residential development. To the extent that future employees of the warehouse choose to move into the Bay Point area, there will be an increase in use of area parks. Parks in Bay Point include nine parks administered by the Ambrose Recreation and Park Distri ct. The Park District is funded through an assessment district that includes all properties in Bay Point, including the project site. These parks provide recreational facilities such as playgrounds and baseball fields, picnic and barbecue areas, and youth and adult recreational programs. Given the amount of available park space and the project’s relatively small indirect addition to the Bay Point area population (estimated to be a maximum of 133 persons, which is one percent of the 22,473 persons living in Bay Point in 2015), the project will not significantly increase population in the area, and therefore, will not significantly increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Further, payment of Park Impact fees will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. The fees will be used to purchase land and develop parks and recreation facilities within this area of the County. 7. Flood Control and Drainage: The project site is not located within a flood -prone area as determined by the FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As evaluated in the MND, the drainage improvements for the Willow Pass Business Park, including the drainage swales, detention basin, and seasonal freshwater pond, were sized conservatively, assuming industrial land use and associated infiltration/runoff rates across the entire are, and will accommodate development of a warehouse of this size on the project site. These facilities have been constructed and serve both the existing Willow Pass Business Park and the project site. The project stormwater drainage system will direct all runoff to vegetated areas and small onsite bio-retention basins. The project system will then direct remaining runoff to the existing drainage improvements. As a result, the warehouse project will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area. The site has a slope of two percent and slopes generally to the southwest. The project includes C.3 compliant storm drainage facilities including vegetated areas and bio-retention basins will collect stormwater, allow percolation into the ground, and convey excess runoff to drainage swales that will lead to a detention basin inlet at the southwest corner of the project site. Calculated storm Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 3 of 31 water runoff from the project site has been included in plans for the overall subdivision. The storm water runoff calculations have been reviewed by the Public Works Department. Accordingly, no flood control or risk assessment is required. B. Land Use Permit Findings The following are required findings for the approval of a land use permit for the warehouse at the Evora Road site. 1. The proposed project shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. Project Finding: Construction of the warehouse at the Evora Road property will not require construction or improvement of any roadways in the area. Construction will occur on land in the L-I Light Industrial District and in the LI Light Industry General Plan land use designation that accommodates the warehouse type of land use. Operation of the warehouse facility is compatible with the existing land uses in the area, including the Willow Pass Business Park and other nearby facilities. The project will not impede access through the site to the Business Park’s water storage tank. With full implementation of landscaping, the warehouse will be shielded from offsite views including views from Highway 4. The warehouse will be constructed on a vacant site and will have security lighting, and thereby will improve the general safety of the project vicinity. 2. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the orderly development within the County or the community. Project Finding: The warehouse site is located on a site that had previously been approved for a Frito Lay distribution center. Construction of the warehouse at this location adjacent to the Willow Pass Business Park is consistent with the intended use of the site and with applicable General Plan policies and General Plan and zoning development standards. The warehouse facility does not produce significant amounts of noise, glare, or vibrations. Thus, the project will not impede future use of surrounding, developable vacant properties. 3. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 4 of 31 Project Finding: Construction and operation of the warehouse on the currently vacant light industrial site will increase the property value of the site, Placing an active commercial-industrial use on this site will enhance existing and future developments in this area. As designed, the warehouse facility will be compatible with the Willow Pass Business Park and other nearby properties in the vicinity. 4. The proposed project shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. Project Finding: The warehouse will provide an important warehouse operation adjacent to the major state highway linking the northern portion of the East Bay with Northern Waterfront area of Contra Costa County. The warehouse project with the attached Conditions of Approval will be compatible with the Light Industry policies and the goals of the General Plan, and thereby, will enhance the viability of light industrial and commercial uses in the vicinity. The project, as conditioned, will be consistent with the General Plan Scenic Route policies, and will maintain the scenic qualities along this portion of Highway 4. The project will also be consistent with the General Plan Roadway policies and will not impede the function of Highway 4 or Willow Pass Road. 5. The proposed project shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Project Finding: The project, as conditioned, will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem. The Conditions of Approval require the site, including the security lighting, to be maintained in an orderly manner, and that landscape plantings around the warehouse building be maintained for the life of the project. 6. The proposed project shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Project Finding: Approval of the land use permit will not change the established uses in the vicinity. Construction and operation of the warehouse will extend sanitary sewer service onto the project site; however, this extension of service has been anticipated since the annexation of this area into the Delta Diablo Sanitary District’s jurisdiction in 2002. The site is included in an agreement between the Contra Costa Water District and the Willow Pass Business Park, whereby potable water will be provided by two wells and water for landscape irrigation will come from the nearby Contra Costa Canal. The Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 5 of 31 project is sited on a currently vacant but developable light industrial site. Other vacant, developable light industrial sites exist within the adjacent Willow Pass Business Park; however, development of these parcels have been anticipated in the approvals for the Business Park. Other nearby developable land is within the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The Naval Weapons Station was decommissioned in 2005 and is currently a major reuse project of the City of Concord. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Project Finding: The project site has been approved for a Frito Lay distribution center in Land Use Permit LP01-2018. Prior to the approval, the property was graded in 2002 to accommodate construction on the site. The warehouse project with the attached Conditions of Approval will be consistent with the intended use of the site, will enhance the nearby Willow Pass Business Park, will improve the general safety of the vicinity by replacing a vacant site with an active warehouse operation with security lighting for safety. With full implementation of its landscaping, the warehouse facility will be compatible with the nearby Business Park and will not adversely alter views along this section of Highway 4. C. Environmental Findings 1. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study was prepared for the project. The public review comment period for the draft MND started on March 2, 2021 and ended on April 7, 2021. One comment email was received during the public review period for the draft MND. 2. A Final MND has been prepared that includes the comment email received on the draft MND, comment summary, response to the comment received, and one staff- initiated edit of the text of the MND. 3. The staff response in the Final MND to the comment received on the draft MND do not result in any changes to the draft MND. The Final MND includes one staff- initiated edit of the text of the revised draft MND; the correction does not affect any impacts, mitigation measures, or findings in the revised draft MND. 4. On the basis of the whole record before it, including the revised draft MND and Final MND, the Board of Supervisors finds that: • There is no substantial evidence that the project with the proposed mitigation Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 6 of 31 measures will have a significant effect on the environment; • The MND, consisting of the draft MND and Final MND, reflects the County’s independent judgement and analysis; • The MND is adequate and complete; and • The MND has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA guidelines. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared, based on the identified significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the MND. The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Program are included in the Conditions of Approval. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 7 of 31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE LP16-2031 Project Approval Land Use Permit 1. This Land Use Permit application is APPROVED for the construction and operation of a warehouse, consisting of the following elements: • A 98,460 square foot, 42 feet six-inch tall warehouse structure; • A driveway that wraps around the warehouse; • Parking along the east, north, and west sides of the building that provide 140 parking spaces, including five accessible spaces and 12 electric vehicle charging stations; • 18 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building; • Seven long term and five short term bicycle parking spaces; • Exterior lighting consisting of building-mounted lights and lighting poles; • Eight perimeter and parking lot bio-retention basins and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to existing onsite drainage swales and the existing offsite detention basin; and • Landscape plantings along in the parking areas, along the edges of the project site, and around the building on the west, north, and east elevations. 2. The Land Use Permit approval described above is granted based on the following information and documentation: • Land Use Permit application submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) on July 14, 2016; • Project Plans prepared by Ware Malcomb submitted on July 14, 2016; • Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Ware Malcomb submitted on May 13, 2020; • Stormwater Control Plan prepared by Laugenour and Meikle submitted on February 6, 2017; and • Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center by Laugenour and Meikle submitted on February 23, 2017. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 8 of 31 3. Any change from the approved plans shall require review and approval by the CDD and may require the filing of an application to modify this Land Use Permit. Compliance Report 4. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a report on compliance with the conditions of approval for the review and approval by the CDD. The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,500.00 that is subject to time and material costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Except for those conditions administered by the Public Works Department, the report shall list each conditions followed by a description of what the applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that condition. A copy of the permit conditions of approval may be obtained from the CDD. Child Care 5. If the project will have (a) 100 or more employees or (b) 15,000 gross square feet or more of non-residential area, the project shall comply with the requirements of the Child Care Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a proposed program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the CDD. Archaeology 6. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. A. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. B. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on - site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 9 of 31 7. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on -site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Construction All construction activity shall comply with the following restrictions, which shall be included in the construction drawings. 8. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 9. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible. 10. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 11. A publicly visible sign shall be posted on the property with the telephone number and person to contact regarding construction-related complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The CDD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 12. Large trucks and heavy equipment are subject to the same restrictions that are imposed on construction activities, except that the hours are limited to 9:00 AM to Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 10 of 31 4:00 PM. 13. All 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 details on the actual date the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays: www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/k8.htm California Holidays: www.sos.ca.gov/holidays.htm Air Quality Construction Control Measures The construction control measures listed below shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included in the construction drawings: 14. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to three minutes. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 11 of 31 15. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 16. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 17. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 18. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 19. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 20. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 21. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 22. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. 23. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 24. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 25. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 12 of 31 26. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. 27. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 28. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 29. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. 30. Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. 31. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. 32. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Application Costs 33. The Land Use Permit application was subject to an initial deposit of $2,700.00 that was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid at the time of submittal of a grading or building permit application, or within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance and final file preparation. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 2013/340, where a fee payment is over 60 days past due, the application shall be charged interest at a rate of ten percent (10%) from the date of approval. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. Indemnity 34. The Applicant shall enter into an Indemnification Agreement with the County, and the Applicant shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the County), and hold harmless the County, its boards, commissions, officers, Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 13 of 31 employees, and agents (collectively "County Parties") from any and all claims, costs, losses, actions, fees, liabilities, expenses, and damages (collectively, "Liabilities") arising from or related to the Project, the Applicant's application for a land use permit, the County's discretionary approvals for the Project, including but not limited to the County's actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and planning and zoning laws, or the construction and operation of the Project, regardless of whether those Liabilities accrue before or after Project approval. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 14 of 31 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM APPLIED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE LP16-2031 The applicant shall comply with the following Conditions of Approval, which are required to implement and complete the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Land Use Permit LP16-2031. Aesthetics 35. Aesthetics 1: The following measures are intended to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscaping along the southern edge of the driveway south of the warehouse structure. 1. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall provide for the planting of a minimum of 35 Afghan pine trees of a minimum 24-inch box size. Consideration shall be given to adequate screening of the future warehouse from offsite viewpoints. The plan shall comply with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County's Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall also include an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements (accounting for supply, delivery, and installation of trees and irrigation). The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. 2. Required Security to Assure Completion of Plan Improvements: A security deposit shall be required to ensure that the approved landscaping and irrigation plan is implemented and that the Afghan pines become established. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a security that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall be the amount of the approved cost estimate described in mitigation measure #1 above plus a 20% inflation surcharge. 3. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The applicant shall pay fees to cover all staff time and materials costs for processing the required security. At the time Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 15 of 31 of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial processing fee deposit of $100.00. 4. Duration of Security: When the landscaping and irrigation have been installed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD to be composed by the landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor, verifying that the installation has been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping and irrigation plan. The County may retain the security for up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. At 12 and 24 months following completion of implementation of the plan, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and to prepare a report on the trees' health. The report shall be submitted for review by the CDD and shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the applicant. Any Afghan pine tree that dies within the first two years of being planted shall be replaced by another Afghan pine tree of the same size. Biological Resources 36. Biology 1: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on western burrowing owls. 1. A preconstruction survey for western burrowing owls shall be conducted if work onsite will take place between February 1 and August 31. CDFW Staff Report 2012 (California Department of Fish and Game, Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. March 7, 2012. 15 pages plus appendices.) states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys shall be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. If no owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary. 2. Burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by walking the entire project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during project construction. Pedestrian survey Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 16 of 31 transects shall be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) wherever practical to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows shall be avoided during all seasons. 3. If burrowing owls are detected on the site, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are required, as recommended in CDFW Staff Report 2012. a. From April 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities shall have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. b. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities shall have a 50-meter buffer, medium disturbance activities shall have a 100-meter buffer, and high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. c. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance shall occur within the afore- mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones shall be fenced as well. If burrowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. 4. In accordance with CDFW Staff Report 2012, if burrowing owls were found nesting onsite, credits shall have to be purchased from a mitigation bank to offset the project’s habitat loss on the burrowing owl. This shall be developed in coordination with CDFW and CDD. Condition of Approval 36 – Biology 1.4 is satisfied through implementation and completion of Condition of Approval #69. 37. Biology 2: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to les s than significant levels, adverse impacts on California horned larks and loggerhead Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 17 of 31 shrikes. 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). Condition of Approval 37 – Biology 2.1 is satisfied through implementation and completion of Condition of Approval #70. 2. If the California horned lark and/or loggerhead shrike are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non -disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 3. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. 38. Biology 3: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall not include any plant species identified as invasive. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County’s Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 18 of 31 39. Biology 4: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales. 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review by the County’s Peer Review Biologist and review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall be designed to protect and preserve the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales, including the established riparian trees. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the CDD and by the Department of Public Works. The SWPPP shall include, at a minimum, placement of silt fencing and wildlife friendly hay wattles (i.e., wattles without monofilament netting) around the perimeter of the project site wherever the grassy swales occur prior to initiating site work. Orange construction fencing shall also be installed between the grassy swales, offsite detention basin and mitigation pond and the project site to ensure that construction equipment is not driven into these sensitive habitats. The construction fencing shall be shown on all construction documents. 40. Biology 5: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on nesting birds. The measures may be implemented concurrently with the measures in Biology 2 above. 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 2. If common (non-special status) birds are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer should be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 19 of 31 3. If special-status passerine birds are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 4. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. Condition of Approval 40 – Biology 5 is satisfied through implementation and completion of Conditions of Approval #71 and 72. Energy Energy mitigation measures Greenhouse Gas 1 and Greenhouse Gas 2 are included below as Conditions of Approval #47 and 48, respectively. Geology and Soils 41. Geology 1: Prior to issuance of construction permits the project sponsor shall provide evidence of plan review and approval by the project geotechnical engineer. The recommendations for site grading contained in the approved grading plans shall be followed during construction unless modifications are specifically approved in writing by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. 42. Geology 2: Borehole logs indicate the existing pad soils consist of medium stiff to stiff clays containing variable amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. These materials are characterized by slow permeability. The applicant shall submit a follow-up geotechnical report that specifically addresses the planned design of the bio - retention basins, and their proximity to planned improvements. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 20 of 31 43. Geology 3: During grading and soils preparation work (i.e. lime treatment of soils) the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services. The intent of this geotechnical monitoring is to (i) verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented by the contractor, (ii) view exposed conditions during grading/ soil preparation work to ensure that field conditions match those that were the basis of the geotechnical design report, and (iii) provide supplement recommendations during construction, should they be warranted. 44. Geology 4: (1) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the geotechnical engineer shall certify that all site preparation work is in compliance with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. (2) During foundation and drainage-related work the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation services to ensure the geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented by the contractor. 45. Geology 5: Prior to requesting a final building inspection of the warehouse structure, the project sponsor shall submit a letter-report from the geotechnical engineer documenting the observation and testing services performed during final grading/ foundation work/ lot drainage. The report of the geotechnical engineer shall also provide a professional opinion on the consistence of the as -graded/ as- built project with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. 46. Geology 6: The report of the Corrosion Engineer shall also be provided prior to requesting the final building inspection of the warehouse. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 47. Greenhouse Gas 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show on the plans or otherwise demonstrate how the project design would, at a minimum, meet all applicable standards of the 2016 California Building Standards Code including the installation of high-efficiency appliances and insulation, to satisfy Reduction Measures EE1 and RE1 of the County’s Climate Acti on Plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the CDD. 48. Greenhouse Gas 2: Prior to the final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate on the site plans that the project’s anticipated emissions of GHGs would be reduced by at least 31.54 MTCO2e/yr. The required reduction may be Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 21 of 31 achieved through the inclusion of additional measures, which may include, but not be limited to the following: • Exceed the energy efficiency measures of the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code or CALGreen; • Electrify loading docks and/or require idling-reduction systems for heavy- duty trucks; • Provide end of trip facilities such as showers and changing spaces to encourage community by bicycle; • Install and operate on-site renewable energy (such as solar panels); • Install low-flow water fixtures in exceedance of applicable local standards; • Incorporate measures from the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, such as providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. The calculations shall be provided to the CDD for review and approval. Noise 49. Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 2. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible. 3. Large trucks and heavy equipment are 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. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 22 of 31 4. All 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: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Condition of Approval #49 (Noise-1) is satisfied through implementation and completion of Conditions of Approval #8, 9, 12, and 13. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 23 of 31 PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT LP16-2031 The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on July 14, 2016. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of approval prior to issuance of a building permit and prior initiation of the use proposed under this permit. General Requirements 50. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Site Plan received by the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, on July 14, 2016. 51. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate review and inspection fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. The below conditions of approval are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Any necessary traffic signing and/or striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements (Frontage/On-Site/Off-Site) 52. Any cracked and displaced curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be removed and replaced along Evora Court and the cul-de-sac at the end of Evora Road. Concrete shall be saw cut prior to removal. Existing lines and grade shall be maintained. New curb and gutter shall be doweled into existing improvements. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access 53. The applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 24 of 31 construction of off-site, temporary, or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit 54. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center, if necessary, for construction of driveways or other improvements within the right-of-way of Evora Road. Road Alignment/Intersection Design/Sight Distance 55. The applicant shall grade, trim vegetation, widen pavement as necessary and realign Evora Court to provide sight distance for a design speed of 45 miles per hour at the intersection with Evora Road. Private Roads 56. The applicant shall construct the onsite and off-site roadway system (including Evora Court, the private access road from Evora Road to the project site) from Evora Road to current County private road standards with a minimum traveled width of 16 feet, with 2-foot wide paved shoulders and with minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side, within a minimum 25-foot access easement. Parking 57. Parking shall be prohibited on one side of Evora Court (private access road from Evora Road to the project site) where the curb-to-curb width is less than 36 feet and on both sides of on-site roadways where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. “No Parking” signs shall be installed along these portions of Evora Court subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Utilities/Undergrounding 58. All new utility distribution facility services shall be installed underground. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas, telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 25 of 31 drawings and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 59. The applicant shall collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the stormwater to a natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. Applicant shall verify the adequacy at any downstream drainage facility accepting stormwater from this project prior to discharging runoff. If the downstream system(s) is not adequate to handle the existing plus project condition for the required design storm improvements shall be constructed to make the system adequate. The applicant shall obtain access rights to make any necessary improvements to off- site facilities. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 60. The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design standards. 61. The applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 62. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities, as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay – Region II). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of stormwater pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site’s stormwater drainage: Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 26 of 31 • Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. • Install approved full trash capture devices on all catch basins (excluding catch basins within bioretention basins) as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department. Trash capture devices shall meet the requirements of the County’s NPDES permits. • Place advisory warnings on all catch basins and storm drains using current storm drain markers. • Other alternatives comparable to the above as approved by the Public Works Department. • Shallow roadside and on-site swales. • (Community Development) Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot specific IMPS to buyers. • Filtering Inlets. • (Community Development) The applicant shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least once a year between September 1st and October 15th utilizing a vacuum type sweeper. Verification (invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez CA 94553 (925) 313-2238). • (Community Development) Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: 63. The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (0+M Plan) to the Public Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County ’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be deemed consistent with the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to issuance of a building permit. To the extent required by the NPDES Permit, the Final Stormwater Control Plan, and the 0+M Plan will be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and 0+M Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and the 0+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant. 64. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP and Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 27 of 31 compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014). 65. Stormwater management facilities shall be subject to inspection by the Public Works Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of stormwater management facilities shall be borne by the applicant. 66. Prior to, issuance of a building permit, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility for and related to operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities, and grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of stormwater management facilities. 67. Prior to, issuance of a building permit, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007 -1 (Stormwater Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of stormwater facilities by property owners. 68. Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 28 of 31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT LP16-2031 REQUESTED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TO AUGMENT CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR COUNTY FILE LP16-2031 Biological Resources Western Burrowing Owl Habitat Loss 69. Compensatory burrowing owl mitigation lands was purchased in October 2004 for this site as part of the Thomas/DeNova Industrial Subdivision Project (Amendment No. 2 – Exhibit 1, Exhibit J-1, Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, Contract #HWCB- 04-12, California Department of Fish and Game, Ref. No. 1802-2002-004-03). In addition and in accordance with CDFW Staff Report 2012, if burrowing owls were found nesting onsite, credits shall have to be purchased from a mitigation bank at a minimum of 3:1 (mitigation:loss) ratio to offset the project’s h abitat loss on the burrowing owl. This shall be developed in coordination with CDFW and the CDD. California Horned Lark and Loggerhead Shrike 70. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site within 5 days of the initiation of construction activities. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth -moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). Nesting Birds 71. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site within 5 days of the initiation of construction activities. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth -moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 72. If nesting birds are found, then no work shall be initiated until nest-specific buffers have been established by the qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW and CDD. The buffer area(s) shall be fenced off from work activities and avoided until Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 29 of 31 the young have fledged, as determined by the qualified biologist. Active nests within or adjacent to the project site shall be monitored by the qualified biologist daily throughout the duration of project activities for changes in bird behavior or signs of distress related to project activities. If nesting birds are showing signs of distress or disruptions to nesting, then that nest shall have the buffer immediately increased by the qualified biologist until no further interruptions to breeding behavior are detectable. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 30 of 31 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et. Seq, the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a ninety-day (90) period after the project is approved. The 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the CDD within 90-days of the approval date of this permit. B. The applicant shall submit building plans to the Building Inspection Division and comply with Division requirements. It is advisable to check with the Division prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project. C. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Health Services Department Environmental Health Division regarding its requirements and permits. D. The applicant must submit building plans to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and comply with its requirements. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Fire Protection District. E. The applicant is advised that plans submitted for a building permit must receive prior approval and be stamped by the Delta Diablo Sanitary District. Board of Supervisors – April 27, 2021 LP16-2031 Page 31 of 31 F. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Water District. G. The applicant is responsible for contacting the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District regarding its requirements and permits. H. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority/ Regional Transportation Development Impact Mitigation (ECCRFFA/RTDIM) and Bay Point Areas of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. I. The applicant shall be aware that a Deferred Improvement Agreement (Recorders number 2003-0587784) has previously been executed, which is bound to this property and remains in full effect. The Deferred Improvement Agreement executed is for the following improvements: 1. Realign the access road to intersect Evora Road at a 90-degree angle. This shall include all necessary work to realign the access road to intersect Evora Road at a 90-degree angle including constructing new curb, sidewalk, necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Evora Road. 2. The applicant shall provide a sidewalk along at least one side of the private access road serving the site (MM). 3. The applicant shall construct a sidewalk on the north side of Evora Road from Willow Pass Road to the proposed access to the project site (MM). 4. Street lights shall be installed on Evora Road between Willow Pass Road and the proposed access. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 5. At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, property owner shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with County Ordinances and this deferred improvement agreement. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. Page 1 Contra Costa County March 2, 2021 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, has prepared an initial study evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the following project: 1. Project Title: Panattoni 98,460 square-foot warehouse (Bay Point) 2. State Clearinghouse Number: SCH#2017022002 3. County File Number: Land Use Permit LP16-2031 4. Lead Agency: Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development 5. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Muraoka, AICP (925) 674-7781 6. Project Location: 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point area in Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 099- 160-026, 099-160-027) 7. Applicant’s Name, Address, and Phone Number: Panattoni Development Company, Inc. 8775 Folsom Blvd., Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95826 (916) 383-3460 Attn: Sonya Kinz Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone:1-855-323-2626 John Kopchik Director Aruna Bhat Deputy Director Jason Crapo Deputy Director Maureen Toms Deputy Director Amalia Cunningham Assistant Deputy Director Kelli Zenn Business Operations Manager Page 2 8. Background: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration or MND), State Clearinghouse number SCH #2017022002, was prepared pursuant to applicable California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for a 225,950 square-foot (sq. ft.) warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels located near the western terminus of Evora Road in the Bay Point area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The draft MND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on January 31, 2017 and ended on March 2, 2017. After the public review period closed, the County’s Peer Review Biologist conducted a site visit and reported potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project on biological resources that had not been included in the MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, a revised draft MND was prepared. The revised draft MND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on May 10, 2017 and ended on June 9, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing, then adopted the revised MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project and approved the project. An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision was filed on August 17, 2017, by DeNova Homes, one of the owners of the Willow Pass Business Park located uphill to the east and southeast, contiguous to the project site. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2017 and denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator decision. On November 20, 2017, DeNova Homes filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the County Board of Supervisors. After the filing of the second appeal, both County staff and the project applicant contacted the appellant many times to resolve the appeal. Unfortunately, neither staff nor the applicant were able to reach resolution of the appeal with the appellant. In response to the appellant’s claim that the proposed warehouse was too large and because of the inability to reach a resolution of the appeal with the appellant, the applicant now proposes a 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse in place of the formerly proposed a 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse. The 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is a 56 percent reduction in the size of the 225,950 sq. ft. originally proposed warehouse. Table 1 provides a comparison of the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse and the reduced 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. Table 1: Comparison of Original Warehouse and Reduced Warehouse Item Proposed Warehouse Reduced Warehouse Building Size 225,950 sq. ft. 98,460 sq. ft. Required Parking 226 parking spaces 99 parking spaces Project Parking 238 parking spaces 140 parking spaces Required Loading 6 loading spaces 4 loading spaces Project Loading 44 truck loading bays 18 truck loading bays Trailer Storage 11 trailer storage stalls -- Bicycle Spaces - Long-term* 16 long-term bicycle spaces 7 long-term bicycle spaces Bicycle Spaces - Short-term* 12 short-term bicycle spaces 5 short-term bicycle spaces * Meets requirements of Off-Street Parking Ordinance Page 3 The March 2021 MND is based on the prior 2017 MND SCH #2017022002 and re-evaluates the adverse environmental effects of implementation of a warehouse on the project site. The potential environmental impacts of the 98,460 sq. ft. reduced warehouse are discussed in more detail in the MND. As evaluated in the MND, the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of an impact identified in the 2017 MND for the 225,950 sq. ft. proposed warehouse. 9. Description of Project: The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 98,460 sq. ft. (sq. ft.), 42 feet six-inch tall warehouse structure on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road (approximate address 4000 Evora Road). Details of the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse compared to the originally proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse are shown on Table 1 above. The proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is shown on Figure 1. Evora Court extends from Evora Road onto the project site and provides access to the warehouse along with access through the eastern portion of the site to an offsite water storage tank located northeast of the project site. The warehouse to be constructed would be of a contemporary modern architectural style with exterior walls of painted concrete panels interspersed with vision glass and tinted glass. Vertical design elements are incorporated along the (primary) north and east elevations. The “working” south elevation is characterized by its row of truck loading bays. The project would include the following site improvements: a driveway that wraps around the warehouse; parking along the east and north elevations of the building that provide 140 parking spaces; 18 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building; trailer storage stalls to the west and south of the warehouse; exterior lighting consisting of building-mounted lights and lighting poles; perimeter and parking lot bio-retention basins and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to existing onsite drainage swales and an offsite detention basin; and, landscape plantings along the edges of the project site. The project driveway would be improved to Contra Costa County private street standards. The driveway would connect to Evora Court, a paved private street that provides access to Evora Road. FIGURE 1 Conceptual Site Plan Source: Ware Malcomb, 05/13/20 Page 5 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 15.42-acre project site is comprised of an 8.49-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-026) and an adjoining 6.93-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-027). The site is 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet (0.28 mile) southwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The site is relatively flat, with a slope of one percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above sea level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. Two vacant, terraced lots in the Willow Pass Business Park are located to the southeast. Highway 4 borders the site and the Willow Pass Business Park to the south. The developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park is uphill to the east of the project site, at an average elevation of 190 feet above sea level. Deed-restricted hillside open space land is located to the north of the site. A 750,000-gallon water storage tank that serves the Willow Pass Business Park is in the open space. At an elevation of 310 feet above sea level, the tank is visible above the Business Park. A portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station is located downhill to the west of the project site, at an average elevation of 80 feet above sea level. The Concord Naval Weapons Station was decommissioned in 2005 and is currently a major reuse project of the City of Concord. The project site is separated from the bulk of the Naval Weapons Station property south by Highway 4. A portion of the 48-mile Contra Costa Canal, at an average elevation of 110 feet above sea level, also lies south and west of the project site. Since publication of the May 2017 revised draft MND, the project site has remained unchanged since it was evaluated in 2017. Accordingly, the environmental assessments of the site in the 2017 MND continue to be valid. Changes in the assessments have been made to reflect the current 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. Further, no substantial new development has occurred in the project vicinity. The project site is adjacent to and northwest of seven undeveloped parcels totaling 17.25 acres that are part of the Willow Pass Business Park. Development of a 90,000 sq. ft. private storage warehouse on two of these parcels, Lots 15-16 of the Business Park, is currently pending issuance of a building permit. Development of these parcels has been approved pursuant to Development Plan DP04-3096, the approved final development plan for the Willow Pass Business Park 11. Determination: The County has determined that without mitigation the proposed project may result in significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15070, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which identifies mitigation measures to be incorporated into the project that will reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the County will be accepting comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during a 30-day public comment period. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and documents referenced therein may be reviewed by contacting the offices of the Department of Conservation & Development, located at 30 Muir Road in Martinez, during normal business hours. Page 6 Public Comment Period – The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental document will extend to 4:00 P.M., Wednesday, April 7, 2021. Any comments should be submitted in writing to the following address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development Attn: Stan Muraoka, AICP 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the appeal of the County Planning Commission decision on the proposed project will be considered at a meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. The tentative hearing date before the Board of Supervisors for consideration of the appeal and the Mitigated Negative Declaration is Tuesday, April 27, 2021. Hearing notices will be sent out prior to the finalized hearing date. Additional Information – For additional information on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project, and the appeal. you can contact Stan Muraoka, AICP by telephone at (925) 674-7781, or email at stanley.muraoka@dcd.cccounty.us Sincerely, Stan Muraoka. AICP Principal Planner Department of Conservation & Development cc: County Clerk’s Office (2 copies) attachments: Vicinity Map Page 7 Project Site 1 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (REVISED JANUARY 7, 2019) 1. Project Title: Panattoni 98,460 square-foot warehouse (Bay Point) County File LP16-2031; SCH #2017022002 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Rd. Martinez, CA 94553 3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Muraoka, AICP (925) 674-7781 4. Project Location: 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point area in Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 099-160-026, 099-160-027) 5. Applicant’s Name and Address: Panattoni Development Company, Inc. 8775 Folsom Blvd., Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95826 Attn: Sonya Kinz 6. General Plan Designation: LI, Light Industry 7. Zoning: L-I, Light Industrial 8. Background: A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (Mitigated Negative Declaration or MND), State Clearinghouse number SCH #2017022002, was prepared pursuant to applicable California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for a 225,950 square-foot (sq. ft.) warehouse to be constructed on two adjoining vacant parcels located near the western terminus of Evora Road in the Bay Point area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The draft MND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on January 31, 2017 and ended on March 2, 2017. After the public review period closed, the County’s Peer Review Biologist conducted a site visit and reported potential significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project on biological resources that had not been included in the MND. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, a revised draft MND was prepared. The revised draft MND was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on May 10, 2017 and ended on June 9, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing, then adopted the revised MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project and approved the project. An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision was filed on August 17, 2017, by DeNova Homes, one of the owners of the Willow Pass Business Park located uphill to the east and southeast, contiguous to the project 2 site. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2017 and denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator decision. On November 20, 2017, DeNova Homes filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the County Board of Supervisors. After the filing of the second appeal, both County staff and the project applicant contacted the appellant many times to resolve the appeal. Unfortunately, neither staff nor the applicant were able to reach resolution of the appeal with the appellant. In response to the appellant’s claim that the proposed warehouse was too large and because of the inability to reach a resolution of the appeal with the appellant, the applicant now proposes a 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse in place of the formerly proposed a 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse. The 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is a 56 percent reduction in the size of the 225,950 sq. ft. originally proposed warehouse. Table 1 provides a comparison of the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse and the reduced 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. Table 1: Comparison of Original Warehouse and Reduced Warehouse Item Proposed Warehouse Reduced Warehouse Building Size 225,950 sq. ft. 98,460 sq. ft. Required Parking 226 parking spaces 99 parking spaces Project Parking 238 parking spaces 140 parking spaces Required Loading 6 loading spaces 4 loading spaces Project Loading 44 truck loading bays 18 truck loading bays Trailer Storage 11 trailer storage stalls -- Bicycle Spaces - Long-term* 16 long-term bicycle spaces 7 long-term bicycle spaces Bicycle Spaces - Short-term* 12 short-term bicycle spaces 5 short-term bicycle spaces * Meets requirements of Off-Street Parking Ordinance The March 2021 MND is based on the prior 2017 MND SCH #2017022002 and re-evaluates the adverse environmental effects of implementation of a warehouse on the project site. The potential environmental impacts of the 98,460 sq. ft. reduced warehouse are discussed in more detail in the MND. As evaluated in the MND, the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of an impact identified in the 2017 MND for the 225,950 sq. ft. proposed warehouse. 9. Description of Project: The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 98,460 sq. ft., 42 feet six-inch tall warehouse structure on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road (approximate address 4000 Evora Road). Details of the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse compared to the originally proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse are shown on Table 1 above. The proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is shown on Figure 1. Evora Court extends from Evora Road onto the project site and provides access to the warehouse along with access through the eastern portion of the site to an offsite water storage tank located northeast of the project site. The warehouse to be constructed would be of a contemporary modern architectural style with exterior walls of painted concrete panels interspersed with vision glass and tinted glass. Vertical design elements are incorporated along the (primary) north and east elevations. The “working” south elevation is characterized by its row of truck loading bays. 3 The project would include the following site improvements: a driveway that wraps around the warehouse; parking along the east and north elevations of the building that provide 140 parking spaces; 18 truck loading bays along the southern elevation of the building; trailer storage stalls to the west and south of the warehouse; exterior lighting consisting of building-mounted lights and lighting poles; perimeter and parking lot bio-retention basins and other stormwater drainage improvements that connect to existing onsite drainage swales and an offsite detention basin; and, landscape plantings along the edges of the project site. The project driveway would be improved to Contra Costa County private street standards. The driveway would connect to Evora Court, a paved private street that provides access to Evora Road. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 15.42-acre project site is comprised of an 8.49-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-026) and an adjoining 6.93-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 099-160-027). The site is 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet (0.28 mile) southwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The site is relatively flat, with a slope of one percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above se a level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. Two vacant, terraced lots in the Willow Pass Business Park are located to the southeast. Highway 4 borders the site and the Willow Pass Business Park to the south. The developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park is uphill to the east of the project site, at an average elevation of 190 feet above sea level. Deed-restricted hillside open space land is located to the north of the site. A 750,000-gallon water storage tank that serves the Willow Pass Business Park is in the open space. At an elevation of 310 feet above sea level, the tank is visible above the Business Park. A portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station is located downhill to the west of the project site, at an average elevation of 80 feet above sea level. The Concord Naval Weapons Station was decommissioned in 2005 and is currently a major reuse project of the City of Concord. The project site is separated from the bulk of the Naval Weapons Station property south by Highway 4. A portion of the 48-mile Contra Costa Canal, at an average elevation of 110 feet above sea level, also lies south and west of the project site. Since publication of the May 2017 revised draft MND, the project site has remained unchanged since it was evaluated in 2017. Accordingly, the environmental assessments of the site in the 2017 MND continue to be valid. Changes in the assessments have been made to reflect the current 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. Further, no substantial new development has occurred in the project vicinity. The project site is adjacent to and northwest of seven undeveloped parcels totaling 17.25 acres that are part of the Willow Pass Business Park. A building permit for a 90,000 sq. ft. private storage warehouse on two of these parcels, Lots 15-16 of the Business Park, was issued in February 2021. Development of these parcels has been approved pursuant to Development Plan DP04-3096, the approved final development plan for the Willow Pass Business Park. 4 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing, approval, or participation agreement: Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Sanitation District 12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with Section 21080.3.1 of the California Public Resources Code, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was sent via email on March 2, 2021 to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d), there is a 30-day time period for the Wilton Rancheria to either request or decline consultation in writing for this project. On March 2, 2021, staff received an email from the Wilton Rancheria, stating that the Wilton Rancheria has no concerns about the proposed project. Previously, the Wilton Rancheria had requested consultation in response to a consultation notice for a different project that led to a meeting between staff and a representative of the Wilton Rancheria. At that meeting, a tentative agreement was reached between staff and the Wilton Rancheria that the Native American tribe will be notified of any discovery of cultural resources or human remains on the site. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requested that pursuant to State law, the NAHC shall be notified of any discovery of human remains rather than the Native American tribe. Standard Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) Conditions of Approval – see Conditions of Approval A and B in Section 5 (Cultural Resources) of this Environmental Checklist – provide for notice to the Wilton Rancheria of any discovery of cultural resources and notice to the NAHC of any discovery of human remains on the site. Any future construction activity on the project site would be subject to CDD Conditions of Approval A and B. FIGURE 1 Conceptual Site Plan Source: Ware Malcomb, 05/13/20 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. March 8, 2021 Stan Muraoka, AICP Date Principal Planner Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 1. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No impact) Figure 9-1 (Scenic Ridges & Waterways) of the General Plan Open Space Element identifies the designated scenic ridgeways in the County. The project site is not located near any scenic ridgeways. Thus, the proposed project would not affect any views of any scenic ridgeways. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? (Less than significant with mitigation) The project site is located 890 feet north of Highway 4, which is a designated scenic highway between Interstate 80 and Willow Pass Road - Port Chicago Highway, as identified on Figure 5-4 (Scenic Routes Map) of the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. The site is visible from the scenic highway portion of Highway 4 as a level terrace below and west of the structures and landscaping of the Willow Pass Business Park. The proposed project would include a 396-foot Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 long, 42-foot six-inch tall warehouse with a driveway that wraps around the structure. As shown on the original project plans, the project also includes a row of 35 Afghan pine trees (Pinus eldarica), spaced 30 feet apart along the southern edge of the driveway to mask the warehouse in offsite views from the south. When mature, an Afghan pine tree is 30-50 feet tall and 25-30 feet wide. Thus, at maturity, the tree row would be visible from Highway 4 and much of the warehouse would be hidden from view by the trees. This view would be compatible with existing views of the Willow Pass Business Park. With fully implemented landscaping, the project impact on Highway 4 scenic resources would be less than significant; however, if the landscaping is not fully implemented, the warehouse would be clearly seen in views from the south and would be noticeably different from its setting and from the buildings in the Willow Pass Business Park. This could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on Highway 4 scenic resources . Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures, to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscape plantings. Aesthetics 1: The following measures are intended to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscaping along the southern edge of the driveway south of the warehouse structure. 1. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). The plan shall provide for the planting of a minimum of 35 Afghan pine trees of a minimum 24-inch box size. Consideration shall be given to adequate screening of the future warehouse from offsite viewpoints. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County’s Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall also include an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements (accounting for supply, delivery, and installation of trees and irrigation). The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. 2. Required Security to Assure Completion of Plan Improvements: A security deposit shall be required to ensure that the approved landscaping and irrigation plan is implemented and that the Afghan pines become established. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a security that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall be the amount of the approved cost estimate described in mitigation measure #1 above plus a 20% inflation surcharge. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 3. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The applicant shall pay fees to cover all staff time and materials costs for processing the required security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial processing fee deposit of $100.00. 4. Duration of Security: When the landscaping and irrigation have been installed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD to be composed by the landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor, verifying that the installation has been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping and irrigation plan. The County may retain the security for up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. At 12- and 24-months following completion of implementation of the plan, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and to prepare a report on the trees’ health. The report shall be submitted for review by the CDD and shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the applicant. Any Afghan pine tree that dies within the first two years of being planted shall be replaced by another Afghan pine tree of the same size. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact on scenic resources to a less than significant level. c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (Less than significant with mitigation) The area surrounding the project site is comprised of predominantly open space, except for the Willow Pass Business Park that is adjacent to and uphill to the east of the site. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 1.b above, the proposed project will alter views from the south, including from the scenic highway portion of Highway 4, of the terraced, vacant land with a row of Afghan pine trees and glimpses of the large warehouse behind the trees. In views from the north and east, the proposed warehouse incorporates vertical design elements that break up the mass of the structure. Further, as shown on the original project plans, landscape plantings would soften views of the warehouse from private property to the north and east, including both deciduous trees such as Chinese pistache (Pistacia c. ‘Keith Davy’), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Purple robe tree (Robinia a. ‘Purple Robe’), and evergreen trees such as Interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), and the Marina tree (Arbutus ‘Marina’). Although future views of project site from these locations would change, these offsite views would be comparable to offsite views of the Willow Pass Business Park, and therefore, project impacts to views from private offsite locations to the north and east would be less than significant. However, views of the large warehouse from the Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 south could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact if the landscaping is not fully implemented as the proposed project could be in conflict with Scenic Route Policies in the General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, such as Policy 5-47: “scenic corridors shall be maintained with the intent of protecting attractive natural qualities adjacent to various roads throughout the county” and Policy 5-49: “scenic views observable from scenic routes shall be conserved, enhanced, and protected to the extent possible”. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement mitigation measures in Aesthetics 1 above. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the potential conflict with General Plan Scenic Route Policies to a less than significant level. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less than significant) The original 225,950 sq. ft. project included 33 26-foot-tall light poles and 13 lights mounted on the building at a height of 22 feet to provide exterior lighting of the driveway, parking areas, loading bays, and truck stalls. The project sponsor submitted a photometric plan that shows the lighting to be directed downward and away from adjacent areas, with minimal light spill-over. Lighting in the north parking area would have a maximum illuminance of 6.27 foot candles per square foot (fc) and in the east parking area would have a maximum illuminance of 6.21 fc. Lighting in the south truck loading area would have a maximum illuminance of 5.43 fc. This level of lighting would occur during night-time warehouse operational hours. During hours of minimal warehouse activity when loading and unloading activities would not occur, estimated to be typically between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m., some of the light standards would remain lit for security. The security lighting would have a maximum illuminance in the north parking lot of 1.02 fc, in the east parking lot of 1.00 fc, and in the truck loading area of 0.27 fc. These lighting levels are consistent with recommended levels of lighting for safety of commercial/industrial building exterior areas. The lighting would be visible at night behind and through the row of Afghan trees; however, direct lighting would be almost entirely contained on the project site. The reduced warehouse project would have fewer building mounted lights; however, for security, would include levels of lighting comparable to the original project. With the proposed project, night views of the site from offsite locations would be comparable to night views of the Willow Pass Business Park. Accordingly, the impact on nighttime views would be less than significant. Sources of Information • Site visits conducted by County staff, November and December 2016, January 2021. • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • Energy Trust of Oregon, 2013. Footcandle Light Guide. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Open Space Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Transportation and Circulation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? SUMMARY: a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No impact) As shown on the California Department of Conservation’s Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2016 map, the project site is designated as grazing land and does not contain farmland designated “Prime”, “Unique”, or of “Statewide Importance”. Construction of the project would therefore not result in any impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance to a non-agricultural use. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No impact) The project site is in the L-I Light Industrial District and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g) or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? (No impact) The project site is not considered forest land as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g) or timberland as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 4526. The project site is in the L-I Light Industrial District and the proposed use of the project site for a warehouse is allowed in this zoning district with a land use permit. Construction of the warehouse would not result in the conversion or loss of forest resources. d) Would the project involve or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No impact) The project site is not considered forest land, as discussed above. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? (No impact) The project site is not currently used for agricultural production, and therefore, development of the project would not involve changes to the existing environment, which due to their location or nature would result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Furthermore, the project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of LI, Light Industry and is zoned as L-I Light Industrial, and the proposed project can be developed on the site with a land use permit. Thus, development of the project would not contribute indirectly to the conversion of adjacent farmland. Sources of Information • California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2018 . Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2016. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8. Zoning Ordinance. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No impact) Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay air basin, which is regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) pursuant to the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to bring the air basin into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards and achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2030 and 2050. The proposed project would result in the future construction of a 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse structure on the project site. This construction would take place in a L-I Light Industrial District that allows warehouse development with a land use permit within the urbanized portion of the County, and therefore, would not be in conflict with the Clean Air Plan or obstruct its implementation. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than significant) The May 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide guidance on evaluation of air quality impacts with adopted thresholds of significance for emissions of criteria air pollutants and pollutant pre-cursors during project construction and during project operation. The proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would not exceed the operational screening criteria of 864,000 square feet or the construction- related screening criteria of 259,000 square feet. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 As described in Environmental Checklist Section 8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the proposed project exceeds the 64,000-sq. ft. operational screening criteria for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2017, the project GHG consultant, Raney Planning and Management, Inc., completed a GHG analysis for the 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse using the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) Version 2016.3.1 statewide model. Raney Planning also completed an analysis of the construction and operational emissions of the proposed project using the CalEEMod emissions estimator model. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of the CalEEMod analysis. Table 2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (225,950 sq. ft. warehouse) Pollutant BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Project Emissions Exceeds Threshold? lbs/day lbs/day ROG 54 22.72 No NOx 54 52.35 No PM10 (exhaust) 82 2.88 No PM10 (fugitive) n.a. 18.21 n.a. PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 2.65 No PM2.5 (fugitive) n.a. 9.97 n.a. Source: CalEEMod, January 2017 Table 3: Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions (225,950 sq. ft. warehouse) Pollutant BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance Project Emissions Exceeds Threshold? lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr ROG 54 10 7.70 1.36 No NOx 54 10 10.49 1.86 No PM10 (exhaust) 82 15 0.12 0.02 No PM10 (fugitive) n.a. n.a. 6.61 1.16 n.a. PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 10 0.12 0.02 No PM2.5 (fugitive) n.a. n.a. 1.77 0.31 n.a. Source: CalEEMod, January 2017 As illustrated in the preceding tables, the originally proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse would not exceed any threshold of significance. Thus, the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse, including Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 construction of and subsequent operation, would also not exceed any threshold of significance and would have a less than significant adverse environmental impact on any air quality standard. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than significant) Sensitive receptors would be persons, who by either age (e.g., children and elderly persons), and/or pre-existing health conditions, and/or proximity to emission sources, and/or duration to exposure are considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Accordingly, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and residential areas are considered sensitive to air pollutants. Construction and occupancy of the warehouse would not be expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools) to unhealthy long-term air pollutant levels, since there are no sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors are homes in Clyde that are 0.9 miles west of the site. Thus, the project would have a less than significant adverse environmental impact on any sensitive receptor due to pollutant concentrations. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than significant) The proposed project would not contain any major sources of odor and would not be located in an area with existing odors. During construction and grading, diesel powered vehicles and equipment used on the site could create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people due to the distance of sensitive receptors from the project site, as explained above. Thus, the project would have a less-than-significant impact in terms of odors. Sources of Information • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. • Raney Planning and Management, Inc., received January 27, 2017. Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Evora Road Warehouse Project. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than significant with mitigation) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 As reported by LSA in its August 2005 Initial Study for the Willow Pass Business Park, the project site and adjacent land in the Willow Pass Business Park had been graded following annexation of the area to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. Subsequently, a distribution center on the project site was approved in March 2003; however, the distribution center was never constructed, and the site reverted to a vegetated state. In March 2017, the County’s Peer Review Biologist, Monk & Associates (M&A) conducted a site visit and found non-native grasses and forbs (broad-leaved plants) standing approximately 6-12 inches high, across the entire project site. In a January 2021 site visit, staff confirmed that no changes have occurred on the project site and that it remains essentially in the same state as during the M&A site visit. In March 2017, M&A made the following observations: Herbaceous species observed included rip gut grass (Bromus diandrus), cut-leaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), rattail fescue (Festuca myuros), fox tail barley (Hordeum murinum leporinum), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum). A few native wildflowers were observed onsite as well such as bicolored lupine (Lupinus bicolor), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta) and the native shrub coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) which is a disturbance species that readily establishes where grading or other soil disturbances have occurred. At the time of M&A’s site visit the constructed grassy swales lining the northern, western and eastern project site perimeter had varying degrees of standing water. The eastern-most swale was dry along much of its length and was heavily vegetated with upland grass species. At the project site’s northeastern corner this swale had three inches of standing water and an overstory of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and Fremont cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) which appeared to be about 10 years old. Sierra tree frog (Pseudacris sierrae) larvae were present in the water. In this inundated location, which only occurred where the riparian tree species were growing, the swale’s ordinary high water mark was between two feet and four feet wide. The project site provides nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of passerine bird (song bird) species such as the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), all of which were observed onsite. A few California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beechyi) and their burrows were also observed during the survey, as were Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows. Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) were observed sunning themselves along the rock spillways lining the constructed swales. The cottonwood and willow trees are too small to provide nesting habitat for raptors (birds of prey) but provide passerine bird nesting habitat. Donaldson Associates (DA), in an Initial Study completed on the project site and the adjoining Willow Pass Business Park in February 2002, reported that “[i]n the course of focused botanical surveys conducted on April 13, April 21, and August 17, 2000, no federally or state-listed Endangered Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 or Threatened plans or other special status plan species were detected”. As reported by M&A in 2017, due to the grading that had occurred on the project site, native vegetation that may have occurred on the site was removed and any burrowing animals that had been present on the site were displaced, as the grading collapsed and/or filled the burrows. Also, as described above, M&A found primarily herbaceous plant species on the site. Accordingly, M&A concluded in 2017 that the site does not currently provide habitat for special status plants. Regarding special status wildlife species, DA reported in the 2002 Initial Study that a site assessment was conducted for the presence of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS) in June 2000 on the project site and in ponds within one mile of the site, and no evidence of CTS or CTS larvae were found. M&A reported in 2017 that all CTS records are south of Highway 4 and that Highway 4 and the Contra Costa Canal form barriers to CTS migration. Thus, M&A concluded that it was extremely unlikely that CTS could migrate onto the site, and that further, that the condition of the previously graded site and the absence of aquatic habitats suitable for breeding make it unlikely that CTS would occur on the site. DA conducted an assessment of the potential for other wildlife species of concern that could occur within the project vicinity. DA concluded that suitable habitat was present on the site for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), and the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). DA reported that a preconstruction survey was conducted onsite in March 2001 for western burrowing owls and no owls or signs of owls were found on the site; however, DA stated that suitable habitat for burrowing owls was present on the site. M&A reported in 2017 that off-site mitigation for the loss of burrowing owl habitat was completed, which involved the purchase of 6.5 acres of mitigation credit at the Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, managed by Wildlands, Inc. M&A stated that due to the current condition of the formerly graded site with a relatively dense cover of herbaceous plant species that makes visibility low for ground dwelling birds such as the burrowing owl, it was highly unlikely that burrowing owls would nest on the project site; however, M&A also noted that, while no burrowing owls were observed on the project site, there are a few California ground squirrel burrows on the site that provide nesting habitat and the western burrowing owl is highly mobile, and therefore, there could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on western burrowing owls if it moves onto the site prior to site development. As a result, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measures, to preclude project impacts on burrowing owls. Biology 1: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on western burrowing owls. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 1. A preconstruction survey for western burrowing owls shall be conducted if work onsite will take place between February 1 and August 31. CDFW Staff Report 2012 (California Department of Fish and Game, Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. March 7, 2012. 15 pages plus appendices.) states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys shall be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. If no owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary. 2. Burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by walking the entire project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) of the project impact zone. The 150- meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during project construction. Pedestrian survey transects shall be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) wherever practical to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows shall be avoided during all seasons. 3. If burrowing owls are detected on the site, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are required, as recommended in CDFW Staff Report 2012. a. From April 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities shall have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. b. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities shall have a 50-meter buffer, medium disturbance activities shall have a 100-meter buffer, and high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. c. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance shall occur within the afore-mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones shall be fenced as well. If burrowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 4. In accordance with CDFW Staff Report 2012, if burrowing owls were found nesting onsite, credits shall have to be purchased from a mitigation bank to offset the project’s habitat loss on the burrowing owl. This shall be developed in coordination with CDFW and CDD. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact on burrowing owls to a less than significant level. The California horned lark and the loggerhead shrike are passerine bird species that are included on the April 2017 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals List. Although M&A did not observe any individuals of either species, both species are known to inhabit grassland habitats, and the loggerhead shrike has been found in habitats that have been extensively altered. M&A noted that the ruderal habitats on the project site could provide suitable nesting habitat for passerine birds, and therefore, there could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on California horned larks and/or loggerhead shrikes if the species move onto the site prior to site development. Accordingly, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measures, to preclude project impacts on California horned larks and loggerhead shrikes. Biology 2: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on California horned larks and loggerhead shrikes. 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 2. If the California horned lark and/or loggerhead shrike are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 3. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts on California horned larks and loggerhead shrikes to less than significant levels. The proposed project includes landscaping that would be installed along the perimeter of the site and within the parking areas. The landscaping would consist of native and/or drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. However, some of the proposed landscaping shrubs and groundcovers, including Cotoneaster and Penisetum, have been identified by the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) as invasive species that could become established in offsite habitat areas. Thus, there could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact due to the introduction of invasive plant species. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measure, to preclude offsite establishment of invasive plant species. Biology 3: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall not include any plant species identified as invasive. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County’s Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the impact of invasive plant species to a less than significant level. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less than significant with mitigation) In its 2002 Initial Study, DA identified two freshwater seeps and associated unvegetated swales on the property that was annexed into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Accordingly, Thomas/DeNova, the owner/developer of the Willow Pass Business Park entered into a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW in September 2002. The Agreement allowed the filling of the freshwater seeps and associated unvegetated swales, and the creation of a freshwater pond and a detention basin offsite to the northwest of the project site, a sedimentation basin offsite near the northeast corner of the site, and grassy swales as mitigation. Portions of the grassy swales are on the project site. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 As described by LSA in its 2005 Initial Study, one of the constructed swales was lined with concrete because of engineering constraints. As a result, as directed by the CDFW May 2003 Streambed Alteration Agreement Amendment, Thomas/DeNova donated $5,000 to Save Mount Diablo, a Contra Costa County non-profit land trust, for the sole purpose of wetland/ riparian habitat acquisition. Subsequent to the Amendment, Thomas/DeNova submitted a check for $5,000 to Save Mount Diablo on December 5, 2003. As reported by M&A above, the constructed grassy swales lining the northern, western, and eastern perimeter of the project site had varying levels of standing water at the time of the March 2017 site visit. M&A also found an overstory of riparian tree species (arroyo willow and Fremont cottonwood) that appeared to be ten years old and observed Sierra tree frog larvae. M&A biologists found where the offsite sediment basin’s spillway enters the project site and traced the swales to where they enter the detention basin inlet structure located at the northwest corner of the property. The inlet structure leads to a detention basin located northwest of the site. Consequently, there could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales. Accordingly, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measures, to preclude project impacts on the riparian habitat. Biology 4: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales. 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review by the County’s Peer Review Biologist and review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall be designed to protect and preserve the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales, including the established riparian trees. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the CDD and by the Department of Public Works. The SWPPP shall include, at a minimum, placement of silt fencing and wildlife friendly hay wattles (i.e., wattles without monofilament netting) around the perimeter of the project site wherever the grassy swales occur prior to initiating site work. Orange construction fencing shall also be installed between the grassy swales, offsite detention basin and mitigation pond and the project site to ensure that construction equipment is not driven into these sensitive habitats. The construction fencing shall be shown on all construction documents. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the onsite riparian habitat to a less than significant level. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less than significant with mitigation) In August 2001, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers made a determination that the freshwater seeps and drainages on the property that was annexed into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District had no direct connection to any navigable water or tributaries and were not subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Subsequently, as described above Thomas/DeNova entered into a September 2002 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW in order to grade the site and fill the two freshwater seeps and associated unvegetated swales on the project site and adjacent land in the Willow Pass Business Park. As reported by M&A, the grassy swales along the northern, western, and eastern perimeter of the project site support riparian tree species, such that the swales, together with the offsite detention basin and freshwater pond, both located northwest of the site, could meet the Corps criteria as “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which also likely makes them “waters of the State” under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, project construction could have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on the potentially federally protected onsite riparian habitat. Accordingly, the project sponsor is required to implement the mitigation measures in Biology 4 above, to preclude project impacts on the riparian habitat. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the potentially federally protected onsite riparian habitat to a less than significant level. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Less than significant with mitigation) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 4.a above, coyote brush bushes, willow and cottonwood trees, and ruderal herbaceous habitats exist on the project site. The onsite habitats could provide suitable nesting sites for both tree nesting and ground nesting passerine birds. Actively nesting passerine birds, their eggs and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5, and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Accordingly, there would be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact on nesting birds during project construction. Consequently, the applicant is required to implement the following mitigation measures: Biology 5: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on nesting birds. The measures may be implemented concurrently with the measures in Biology 2 above. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 2. If common (non-special status) birds are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer should be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 3. If special-status passerine birds are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 4. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact on the nesting birds to a less than significant level. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No impact) The Contra Costa County Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance provides for the protection of certain trees by regulating tree removal while allowing for reasonable development of private property. On any developable, undeveloped property, the Ordinance requires tree alteration or removal to be considered as part of the project application. Tree removal is not included in the land use permit application. CDD staff will apply the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance when evaluating the project plans, including the preliminary landscape plan, and will determine if any Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 existing trees on the project site will be affected by project construction. As a result of CDD staff applying the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance to the proposed project, there would be no conflict with the Ordinance. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No impact) There is one adopted habitat conservation plan in Contra Costa County, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), which was approved in May 2007 by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, comprised of the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County. The HCP/NCCP establishes a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the incidental take of endangered species in East Contra Costa County. The Bay Point area is outside of the covered area for the HCP/NCCP, and therefore, the proposed project would not affect the HCP/NCCP. Sources of Information • Barnett Environmental, received July 14, 2016. Biological/Wetland Resources Constraints Analysis of 15.42 acres (APNs 099-160-026-3 and 099-160-027-1). • Monk & Associates, 2017. Peer Review Study for Contra Costa County’s SCH2017022002 MND, Proposed Warehouse at 4000 Evora Road (approximate address), Concord, California. • LSA, 2005. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Donaldson Associates. 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. • Wildlands, Inc. and Thomas/DeNova LLC, 2004. Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, Agreement for Sale of Conservation Credits. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. California Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals List. • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1971. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Horned Lark. • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2000. Loggerhead Shrike Status Assessment. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2002. 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, Notification Number: R3-2001-1060. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003. Streambed Alteration Agreement Amendment, Notification Number: R3-2001-1060. • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2001. Letter on Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • Contra Costa Water District, 2016. Letter: Comment Letter Regarding the Evora Road, Bay Point Project (File No. DP16-2031). • http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/water/HCP/, accessed December 15, 2016. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy. • http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Habitat-Conservation-Plans/es_hcp.htm, accessed December 15, 2016. Habitat Conservation Plans; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SUMMARY: a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (No Impact) There are no structures on the project site. Thus, there are no onsite historical resources, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. There is no structure that: • Is listed in the California Register of Historic Places and has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historic Resources Commission; • Is included in a local register of historic resources, and identified as significant in a historical resource survey that has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; and • Has been determined to be historically or culturally significant by a lead agency. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Less than significant) The Donaldson Associates February 2002 Initial Study prepared for the annexation of the project site and the adjoining Willow Pass Business Park to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District cited the 1987 EIR prepared for the Lesher General Plan Amendment and stated that there was a low possibility that prehistoric or historic cultural resources exist within the area. The LSA August 2005 Initial Study prepared for the Willow Pass Business Park reported that there were no known archeological resources on the property. Also, in its November 2004 letter, the California Historical Resources Information System states: “The proposed project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore, no further study for archaeological resources is recommended.” The project site has been graded and has no discernable archaeological features. Also, previous environmental review conducted for the project area have found no evidence of potential Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 archaeological resources; however, there is a possibility that a buried archaeological resource could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Consistent with standard CDD practice, the following Condition of Approval will be added if the project is approved: A. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. 1. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. As a result, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact on archaeological resources. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less than significant) There is a possibility that human remains could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Standard CDD practice is to add the following Condition of Approval if the project is approved: B. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 Thus, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact due to disturbance of human remains. Sources of Information • Site visits conducted by County staff, November and December 2016, January 2021. • LSA, 2005. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Donaldson Associates. 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. • California Historical Resources Information System, 2004. Letter: GP04-0010, RZ04-3151, SD04- 8918, DP04-3096 / Hwy 4 & Willow Pass Road / Thomas/DeNova LLC. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 6. ENERGY – Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than significant) The proposed project would use energy during project construction and project operation. Construction The proposed project is the construction and operation of a 98,460 sq. ft., 42 feet six-inch tall warehouse structure on two adjoining vacant parcels located northwest of Evora Court at the western terminus of Evora Road. During construction, there would be energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for building construction, lighting, and other construction uses. Fossil fuels to power construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment. Incorporation of standard CDD Air Quality Construction Control Measures in the Conditions of Approval for the project would reduce energy use through limiting idling of vehicles and equipment and requiring equipment to be properly maintained. In addition, the applicant is required to implement standard CDD construction restrictions that include, but are not limited to, limiting all construction activities and use of large trucks and heavy equipment to daylight, non-holiday weekday hours. With incorporation of these air quality construction control measures and construction restrictions into the proposed project, the impact from the construction-related energy use would be less than significant. Operation During the operation of the project, energy would be consumed as part of warehouse operations. Warehouse operations would involve energy consumption for the various equipment at the warehouse, along with outdoor parking lot and security lighting. The proposed project would be Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 designed and constructed in accordance with the 2019 California Green Buildings Standards Code, which includes specific requirements for nonresidential construction to reduce the amount of energy required for lighting and heating, as well as to promote energy conservation. As a result, while there would be an incremental increase in energy use with the proposed project, such increase would be considered to be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less than significant with mitigation) The State of California has routinely adopted legislation to address climate change and clean energy production that has resulted in efforts to increase the efficiency of vehicles, buildings, and appliances and to provide energy from renewable sources. Locally, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan in December 2015. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 8 below, the warehouse project is consistent with applicable reduction standards for new nonresidential development in the Climate Action Plan, except for Land Use and Transportation Reduction Measure (LUT) 4: New residential and nonresidential development will be located within one half-mile of a BART or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of a bus station. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a, the North Concord BART station is located approximately 1.34 miles southwest of the project site. Thus, the project does not comply with LUT 4 of the 2015 Climate Action Plan. The conflict with the Climate Action Plan would be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement mitigation measures Greenhouse Gas 1 and Greenhouse Gas 2 of Environmental Checklist Section 8. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the conflict with the Climate Action Plan to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. • Institute for Local Government, 2011. Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of California’s Environmental Review Process: A Local Official’s Guide. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Climate Action Plan. • Raney Planning and Management, Inc., received January 27, 2017. Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Evora Road Warehouse Project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? SUMMARY: a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Less than significant) The nearest fault considered active by the California Geological Survey is the Concord fault. The State of California has delineated “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones” (A-P Zones) along all of the faults it considers to be active and pose a risk of surface fault rupture. The A-P Zone that encompasses recently active and potentially active traces of the Concord fault passes approximately 2⅝ miles southwest of the site. Mapping of the U.S. Geological Survey shows a northwest-trending thrust fault crossing the site. This fault is not considered active and a geologic investigation confirmed that the fault does not cross the project site. Instead, it is located in the hilly upland area northeast of the site. Exploratory trenching of the fault found no evidence of geologically recent displacement. Because the site is not within an official Earthquake Fault Zone, the risk of fault rupture would be less than significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than significant) Mapping of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that the project site is underlain by surficial deposits that accumulated on the valley floor during the past 11,000 years±. (i.e., alluvial fan and fluvial deposits of Late Pleistocene age), with bedrock mapped in the extreme eastern portion of the site. The project site and land in the Willow Pass Business Park was graded approximately 15 years ago under a grading permit issued by the County to DeNova Homes, prior to the March 2003 approval of a distribution center on the site. Currently the site is a graded pad with a man-made drainage ditch around the perimeter of the property. Exposed on the graded pad are engineered fill, Late Pleistocene alluvium, and some bedrock in the east and northeast portion of the site. The Safety Element of the General Plan classifies earthquake damage susceptibility as a function of ground conditions. Figure 10-4 (Estimated Seismic Ground Response) of the General Plan Safety Element identifies the site in an area rated “moderately low” damage susceptibility (i.e., structures on firm, dry alluvium can be expected to perform satisfactorily). However, ground conditions can vary from site to site; areas where the water table is shallow are considered potentially hazardous. In this case a 50-foot-deep boring logged on the site in 2016 by Rainey Geotechnical, Inc. encountered no free groundwater. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The prevailing building code requires use of seismic parameters in the design of structures. The seismic parameters from the 2013 California Building Code have been provided by the project geotechnical engineers based on soil profile types and proximity of faults deemed capable of generating strong/violent earthquake shaking. These parameters are utilized by the project structural engineer in the design of improvements. In summary, a properly designed and constructed building that conforms to the provisions of the building code Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 and geotechnical report can be expected to perform satisfactorily. Thus, the environmental impact from seismic ground shaking would be considered to be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than significant) Figure 10-5 (Estimated Liquefaction Potential) of the General Plan Safety Element divides land in the County into three liquefaction potential categories: “generally high,” “generally moderate to low,” and “generally low”. This map was prepared for the County by a geotechnical engineering firm. The consultant’s scope of work included reviewed of available information on soil conditions, along with data on the elevation of the water table, and review of selected borehole logs for land development projects in the County. The map is used as a “screening criteria” during the processing of land development applications, on a project-by-project basis. The County has consistently required rigorous evaluation of liquefaction potential in areas of “high potential,” and qualitative investigations are demanded in the “moderate to low” category. Assessment of liquefaction potential is minimal for sites in the “generally low” category. The classification “generally high” liquefaction does not imply the presence of liquefiable sands on a parcel. The map attempts to be conservative of the side of safety. Where geologically recent fluvial deposits or sand bars could exist in the subsurface, the map places such areas in the Generally High category. Site specific investigations are needed to determine if liquefiable sands are present and to provide stabilization measures where liquefiable sands are confirmed to be present in the subsurface. Safety Element Liquefaction Policies are presented in Table 4 below. According to Figure 10-5, the project site is in the Generally Moderate to Low liquefaction susceptibility category. In the experience of the County Peer Review Geologist, only one out of every 1,000 acres in this category have subsurface conditions that made them candidate sites for liquefaction. As noted above, the County only requires qualitative evaluation of liquefaction potential. Normally this involves evaluation of the subsurface conditions by based on adequate subsurface exploration of the site. The deposits penetrated in the borehole are described, and both field measurements and laboratory testing in performed. Data gathered typically includes (i) depth of water table, (ii) Standard Penetration Test blow counts, (iii) moisture/ density testing, (iv) gradation testing of sand layers and (v) geotechnical evaluation of the data gathered to draw a preliminary conclusion. In this case, Harding Lawson Associates logged a 51-foot-deep boring in 1989. No groundwater was encountered and the degree of induration of the alluvial deposits encountered in the boring are consistent with a Late Pleistocene age. The absence of clean, relatively loose to medium dense sands, and absence of groundwater indicate the site is not a candidate for liquefaction. Raney Geotechnical reevaluated the liquefaction potential. Because no saturated, relatively loose sand beds were encountered, the liquefaction potential was found to be nil. Raney’s liquefaction potential assessment included a computer model run which forecasts 0.18 inch of settlement on the site. This settlement can be attributed to Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 consolidation of engineered fill and alluvial deposits induced by earthquake ground shaking. Based on the foregoing investigations, the environmental impact from liquefaction would be considered to be less than significant. Table 4: Safety Element Liquefaction Policies Policy 10-18. This General Plan shall discourage urban or suburban development in areas susceptible to high liquefaction dangers and where appropriate subject to the policies of 10-20 below, unless satisfactory mitigation measures can be provided, while recognizing that there are low intensity uses such as water-related recreation and agricultural uses that are appropriate in such areas. Policy 10-19. To the extent practicable, the construction of critical facilities, structures involving high occupancies, and public facilities shall not be sited in areas identified as having a high liquefaction potential, or in areas underlain by deposits classified as having a high liquefaction potential Policy 10-20. Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction damage shall be sited, designed and constructed to minimize dangers from damage due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Policy 10-21. Approvals to allow the construction of public and private development projects in areas of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions, and on proper implementation of the mitigation measures. iv) Landslides? (No impact) The surficial deposits map published by the USGS in 1997 (Helley et.al.) did not attempt to show the distribution of landslide deposits. However, a previous USGS publication provides landslide mapping of all of Contra Costa County and that mapping is presented on Figure 10-6 (Geologic (Landslide) Hazards) of the General Plan Safety Element. Specifically, in 1975 the USGS released a set of surficial deposit maps of Contra Costa County that provide information on the distribution of landslide and other types of surficial deposits based on geologic interpretation of vertical angle aerial photographs flown in the 1960s and early 1970s. The USGS geologist (Tor Nilsen) used geomorphic features to identify landslides. This method is a fine reconnaissance tool, but it has limitations, and it is not a substitute for a site specific investigation. Furthermore, the USGS map did not classify landslides according to the type of landslide deposit, depth of slide plane or activity status. Nevertheless, the map fulfills its function, which is to “red flag” properties where ground failure may be a potential hazard, and where site-specific geologic investigations should be required. According to the 1975 USGS map, the site is within an area mapped as Terrace Deposits (Qt). These are older alluvial deposits, and would be consistent with the 1997 USGS map, which regards these alluvial deposits as Pleistocene in age. No Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 landslides are indicated on the site, but the USGS did map identify suspected landslides in the hillside area northeast of the property. The 1989 investigation of Harding Lawson Associates confirmed the presence of some landslides in the upslope hillside area. When 43.8 acres of a 70-acre Thomas/DeNova property that includes the project site and the Willow Pass Business Park was graded in 2002, the landslide on the Thomas/DeNova property were over-excavated and replaced with engineered fills that were keyed into bedrock. Accordingly, landsliding is not a potential hazard for this site. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than significant) According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, the soil series mapped on the site is the Capay clay (CaC; two to five percent slopes). It is a prime agricultural soil (Class II) with a Storie Index rating of 51. The soil profile is 60 inches thick. This soil is described as well drained, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight where the soil is tilled and exposed. As a result, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than significant) As discussed in a)iii above, the project site is in an area that is in the “generally moderate to low” category. Further, as explained in a)iv above, the identified landslide on the Thomas/DeNova property was over-excavated and replaced with engineered fills keyed into bedrock. Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. Thus, the environmental impact from an unstable geologic unit or soil would be considered to be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than significant with mitigation) With regard to its engineering properties, the Capay clay is rated both highly expansive and highly corrosive by the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County. Its permeability is slow, and its shear strength is rated medium to low, and this soil is considered susceptible to piping. Expansive soils expand when water is added and shrink when they dry out. This continuous change in soils volume causes buildings, roads, and other structures to move unevenly and crack. It should also be recognized that corrosive soils tend to damage concrete and/or uncoated steel that is in contact with the ground. Testing performed by Raney Geotechnical confirms that the clayey soils on the graded pad are expansive. Additionally, samples of earth materials on the pad were collected for testing by a State Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 Certified Laboratory. The data gathered indicates that the dark brown to black native clays is low in water soluble chloride, low in water soluble sulfates, and with only traces of sulfides. Resistivity testing indicates that the clayey fill is less corrosive to iron pipe than the dark native clays. Based on these field conditions, geotechnical design recommendations are provided by Raney Geotechnical. • To address the hazard posed by expansive soils, Raney Geotechnical provides detailed criteria for lime treatment of pad soils, and those recommendations are further supported by foundation design criteria and drainage recommendations, • To address the corrosion hazard to uncoated iron, the geotechnical engineer recommends (i) wrapping or cathode protection of iron pipes, and (ii) the project proponent retain a Corrosion Engineer to provide detailed recommendations. • With regard to the hazard to concrete, the data gathered indicate a relatively low corrosivity. Rainey Geotechnical concludes that use of the Type I/II Portland cement is appropriate for the project. Also, the drainage plan for the original project indicated that eight relatively small bio-retention basins are proposed around the perimeter of the 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse. Staff anticipates that while the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would be smaller than the original warehouse, most of the planned bio-retention basins will be required to be installed. From a geotechnical perspective, the primary concerns with bio-retention structures are (i) providing suitable support for foundations, curbs and other improvements constructed near the bio-retention facilities, and (ii) potential for subsurface water from the bio-retention areas to migrate (and possibly build up) beneath pavements and the proposed building. Specific criteria and standards for the siting and design of such facilities should be provided prior to issuance of construction permits, including the effect of infiltration on stability of the adjacent bank of the drainage ditch, and potential for uncontrolled overflow if the spillway of the basin is obstructed (e.g., by woody vegetation, litter, soil). Consequently, there is a potentially significant adverse environmental impact due to an expansive soil. As a result, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measures: Geology 1: Prior to issuance of construction permits the project proponent shall provide evidence of plan review and approval by the project geotechnical engineer. The recommendations for site grading contained in the approved grading plans shall be followed during construction unless modifications are specifically approved in writing by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. Geology 2: Borehole logs indicate the existing pad soils consist of medium stiff to stiff clays containing variable amounts of silt, sand and gravel. These materials are characterized by slow Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 39 permeability. The applicant shall submit a follow-up geotechnical report that specifically addresses the planned design of the bio-retention basins, and their proximity to planned improvements. Geology 3: During grading and soils preparation work (i.e., lime treatment of soils) the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services. The intent of this geotechnical monitoring is to (i) verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented by the contractor, (ii) view exposed conditions during grading/ soil preparation work to ensure that field conditions match those that were the basis of the geotechnical design report, and (iii) provide supplement recommendations during construction, should they be warranted. Geology 4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the geotechnical engineer shall certify that all site preparation work is in compliance with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. During foundation and drainage-related work the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation services to ensure the geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented by the contractor. Geology 5: Prior to requesting a final building inspection of the warehouse structure, the project proponent shall submit a letter-report from the geotechnical engineer documenting the observation and testing services performed during final grading/ foundation work/ lot drainage. The report of the geotechnical engineer shall also provide a professional opinion on the consistence of the as-graded/ as-built project with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. Geology 6: The report of the Corrosion Engineer shall also be provided prior to requesting the final building inspection of the warehouse. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of expansive soil to a less than significant level. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No impact) The clayey soils on the graded pad are characterized by slow permeability and hence have limitations for use as septic system leach fields. However, the project is within the area served by the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. There will be no septic system within the project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 40 f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less than significant) The project site is essentially flat and has no discernable geologic features. Similar to archaeological resources, there is a possibility that buried fossils and other paleontological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Consistent with standard CDD practice, the following Condition of Approval will be added if the project is approved: A. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. 3. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 4. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. As a result, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact on paleontological resources. Sources of Information • California Geological Survey, 2007, Special Publication 42. • Graymer, R., D.L. Jones & E.E. Brabb, 1994. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-622. • Darwin Myers Associates, received August 23, 2016. Geologic Peer Review, LP16-2031 (CP Logistics Willow Pass, Owner), 0 Evora Road, APN 099-160-026 & -027, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA project 3044.16. • Darwin Myers Associates, received November 11, 2016. Geologic Peer Review / CEQA Section. DMA Project 3070.16. • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road. • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 41 • Raney Geotechnical, Inc., received July 14, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, Willow Pass Tilt-Up Building. File No. 192-324. • Raney Geotechnical, Inc., received September 29, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, 226,000 Square Foot Tilt-Up Building. File No. 192-324.01. • Donaldson Associates. 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. • Harding Lawson Associates, 1989. Geotechnical Investigation, Lesher Business Park, Contra Costa County, California, HLA Job #18848.001.03. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Safety Element. • Contra Costa County Grading Ordinance. • California Building Code, 2013. • Helley E.J. and R.W. Graymer, 1997. Quaternary Geology of Contra Costa County and Surrounding Parts of Alameda, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, California. A Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 97-98. • Nilsen, T.H., 1975. Preliminary Photointerpretation Map of Landslide and Other Surficial Deposits of the Port Chicago 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Contra Costa and Solano Counties, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Map 75-277-45. • Welch, L.E. et. al., 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. USDA Soil Conservation Service. • http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed December 15, 2016. USDA Web Soil Survey. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center, Contra Costa County, California, APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027. LM Job #4042-15-1. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 42 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SUMMARY: a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than significant with mitigation) Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change. Greenhouse gases include gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various fluorocarbons commonly found in aerosol sprays. Typically, a single commercial construction project in the County would not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to substantially change the global average temperature; however, the accumulation of GHG emissions from all projects both within the County and outside the County has contributed and will contribute to global climate change. Future construction and operation of the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse will generate some GHG emissions. The warehouse exceeds the screening criterion provided in the 2010 BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, which specifies 64,000 square feet as the operational greenhouse gas screening size. (The BAAQMD does not have any standards for construction-related greenhouse gases.) Thus, the project may result in the generation of GHG emissions that exceed the threshold of significance. In 2017, the project GHG consultant, Raney Planning and Management, Inc., completed a GHG analysis of the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse using the CalEEMod emissions estimator model. The nearest BART station to the project site is the North Concord station located approximately 1.34 miles to southwest, and therefore, Raney Planning reported that CalEEMod modeling run for the warehouse project’s actual distance the North Concord BART station resulted in 1,768.07 Metric Tons of CO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr), and that if the project site were to be located within one-half mile of the North Concord BART station, the emissions would be 1,736.53 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the GHG emissions would be 31.54 MTCO2e/yr more at for the proposed warehouse at the project site than if the warehouse were to be sited within one-half mile of the North Concord BART station. Although the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is substantially smaller than the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse, based on the Raney assessment, the projected increase in GHG emissions could be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement the following mitigation measures, to reduce project GHG emissions. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 43 Greenhouse Gas 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show on the plans or otherwise demonstrate how the project design would, at a minimum, meet all applicable standards of the 2016 California Building Standards Code including the installation of high-efficiency appliances and insulation, to satisfy Reduction Measures EE1 and RE1 of the County’s Climate Action Plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the CDD. Greenhouse Gas 2: Prior to the final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate on the site plans that the project’s anticipated emissions of GHGs would be reduced by at least 31.54 MTCO2e/yr. The required reduction may be achieved through the inclusion of additional measures, which may include, but not be limited to the following: • Exceed the energy efficiency measures of the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code or CALGreen; • Electrify loading docks and/or require idling-reduction systems for heavy-duty trucks; • Provide end of trip facilities such as showers and changing spaces to encourage community by bicycle; • Install and operate on-site renewable energy (such as solar panels); • Install low-flow water fixtures in exceedance of applicable local standards; • Incorporate measures from the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, such as providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. The calculations shall be provided to the CDD for review and approval. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of GHG emissions to a less than significant level. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than significant with mitigation) At a regional scale, the BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan that addresses GHG emissions as well as various criteria air pollutants. The BAAQMD Plan included a number of pollutant reduction strategies for the San Francisco Bay air basin. In April 2012, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors directed the Department of Conservation and Development to prepare a Climate Action Plan to address the reduction of GHG emissions in the unincorporated areas of the County. In December 2015, the Climate Action Plan Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 44 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Appendix E of the 2015 Plan lists GHG reduction measures applicable to new residential and nonresidential development. The warehouse project is consistent with applicable reduction standards for new nonresidential development, except for Land Use and Transportation Reduction Measure (LUT) 4: New residential and nonresidential development will be located within one half-mile of a BART or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of a bus station. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 8.a above the North Concord BART station is located approximately 1.34 miles southwest of the project site. Thus, the project does not comply with LUT 4 of the 2015 Climate Action Plan. The conflict with the Climate Action Plan would be a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement mitigation measures Greenhouse Gas 1 and Greenhouse Gas 2 above. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the conflict with the County’s 2015 Climate Action Plan to a less than significant level. Sources of Information • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. • Institute for Local Government, 2011. Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of California’s Environmental Review Process: A Local Official’s Guide. • Contra Costa County, 2015. Climate Action Plan. • Raney Planning and Management, Inc., received January 27, 2017. Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Evora Road Warehouse Project. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 45 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? SUMMARY: a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 46 The proposed warehouse structure would be constructed subsequent to approval of the land use permit. There would be associated use of fuels and lubricants, paints, and other construction materials during the construction period. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction would occur in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. With compliance with existing regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact from construction. Use of the warehouse for hazardous materials storage or transport is subject to Chapter 84-63 of the County Code (Land Use Permits for Development Projects involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material). The project sponsor does not anticipate the use of warehouse for storage of hazardous materials and does not foresee the transport of hazardous materials to and from the facility, and therefore, has not submitted an application for either a determination of noncoverage (exemption) or a land use permit pursuant to Chapter 84-63. Normal project operation would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in very small quantities as they relate to warehouse use (e.g., window cleaner, wall and flooring cleaner). Contra Costa County regulates hazardous materials disposal, and the warehouse tenants would be responsible for proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials. Because any hazardous materials used for warehouse operations would be anticipated to be in small quantities, long‐term impacts associated with handling, storing, and dispensing of hazardous materials from project operation would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than significant) The project site is vacant and already graded. As described above, construction and operation of the warehouse would be expected to involve very small quantities of hazardous materials. Thus, the risks presented by the proposed warehouse would be considered to be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No impact) There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is the Sun Terrace Elementary School, located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not have an impact due to hazardous substances on the school. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 47 d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No impact) A review of regulatory databases maintained by County, State, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site. Also, the project site has been designated as suitable for warehouse use since March 2003, when a land use permit was approved for a distribution center on the site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No impact) The nearest public or public use airport facility is the Buchanan Field Airport, which is approximately three miles southwest of the project site. The airport influence area is delineated in the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The project site is outside of the Buchanan Field Airport influence area, and therefore, there would be no potential hazards from airport operations. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No impact) The project site is 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet southwest of the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. Highway on and off ramps south of this intersection provide access to and from Highway 4. Evora Road east of this intersection is an arterial that provides access to locations in Bay Point north of Highway 4. Willow Pass Road is an arterial that provides access to the south to the City of Concord. Construction of the warehouse would not require any road closures or change road alignments. Operation of the warehouse would not interfere with access along the northbound approach to the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. Thus, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the County’s adopted emergency response plan. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than significant) The project site is in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard area, as identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Consequently, construction on the site would conform to applicable requirements of the California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure), California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas), and Title 24 of the California Code of Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 48 Regulations (California Building Standards). As a result, the fire-related risks of the proposed project would be less than significant. Sources of Information • http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm, accessed December 15, 2016. Hazardous Waste and Substances sites. • Contra Costa County, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Transportation and Circulation Element. • http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_codes.php, accessed December 15, 2016. Cal Fire, Wildland Hazards and Building Codes. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 49 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? iii) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 50 The proposed project must comply with applicable Contra Costa County C.3 requirements. Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and 16 incorporated cities in the county have formed the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. In October 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit for the Program, which regulates discharges from municipal storm drains. Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit places requirements on site design to minimize creation of impervious surfaces and control stormwater runoff. The County has the authority to enforce compliance with its Municipal Regional Permit authority in its adopted C.3 requirements. The C.3 requirements stipulate that projects creating and/or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface shall treat stormwater runoff with permanent stormwater management facilities, along with measures to control runoff rates and volumes. The Department of Public Works is requiring a project stormwater control plan that addresses stormwater management and discharge control. There is currently no development on the project site. The original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse was estimated to create 11.15 acres of impervious surface on the 15.42-acre site. Although the currently proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is considerably smaller than the 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse, creation of impervious surfaces on the site is conservatively estimated to be roughly the same as originally proposed. The project includes storm drainage facilities that would be designed to meet the C.3 requirements. Project treatment facilities would be designed to treat the majority of rainfall events and would be equipped with overflow or bypass structures to convey larger storm runoff flows to the drainage system, which would be designed for a 10-year storm event. Onsite stormwater management would include directing runoff from the warehouse roof and paved surfaces to vegetated areas and eight small bio-retention basins installed along the perimeter of the driveway and parking areas. Runoff would percolate through the bio-retention basins and, as described in Section 4.b (Biological Resources) above, would flow to the existing onsite drainage swales that would direct runoff to detention basin inlet structure located at the northwest corner of the property. The inlet structure leads to a detention basin located northwest of the site. Department of Public Works staff will review and approve the project’s stormwater control plan. With implementation of the stormwater control plan, the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. The project site is in the service area of the Diablo Delta Sanitary District. Development of the site would include the construction of a sewage collection system that would transport waste discharge to Diablo Delta facilities and would conform to applicable requirements of the Sanitary District, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on waste discharge. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less than significant) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 51 A dual water supply system currently serves the Willow Pass Business Park. The system includes two wells that supply potable water and the nearby Contra Costa Canal, which supplies water for landscape irrigation and fire suppression. The fire suppression system includes pumping water to a 750,000-gallon water storage tank located 1,015 feet east of the project site. The wells, located on Business Park property draws groundwater, which would be replenished by infiltration from permeable surfaces including the drainage swales, the detention basin, and a seasonal freshwater pond located northwest of the project site. Development on the project site would tie into this dual water supply system. As described above, the proposed project includes storm drainage facilities that would direct runoff to vegetated areas and small onsite bio-retention basins that would allow for infiltration and would direct runoff to the drainage swales. Since the onsite stormwater management system would replenish groundwater supplies, the proposed project would have a less than significant effect on groundwater supplies. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Less than significant) The project site has a slope of two percent and slopes generally to the southwest. The drainage improvements for the Willow Pass Business Park, including the drainage swales, detention basin, and seasonal freshwater pond, were designed to accommodate development of a distribution center on the project site. These facilities have been constructed and serve both the existing Willow Pass Business Park and the project site. The prior approved distribution center (2003) was to be 98,400 square feet in size and the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is essentially the same size. Notwithstanding, the existing drainage improvements were sized conservatively, assuming industrial land use and associated infiltration/runoff rates across this entire area. The drainage facilities were designed to meet County drainage requirements, which specify that for the associated watershed size, post-construction 10-year storm discharges from the property with buildout land uses shall not exceed the pre-construction 10-year storm discharges. The proposed project would include C.3 compliant storm drainage facilities including vegetated areas and bio-retention basins to collect stormwater, allow percolation into the ground, and convey excess runoff to drainage swales that lead to a detention basin inlet at the northwest corner of the project site. Pursuant to the C.3 permit requirements, the onsite project stormwater control facilities would also be sized to manage increases in runoff flow and volume such that post-project runoff will not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume would have an increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, and siltation. Thus, post-project stormwater discharge rates and durations will be Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 52 required to match pre-project discharge rates and durations from 10 percent of the pre- project 2-year peak flow up to the pre-project 10-year peak flow. As a result, the proposed project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less than significant) As described previously, the Willow Park Business Park drainage improvements were designed to accommodate development of the project site, and the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. As a result, there would not be any significant risk due to an increase in the project-related volume of runoff that would result in onsite or off-site flooding. iii) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less than significant) The project would construct C.3-compliant vegetated areas and small onsite bio-retention basins that would direct stormwater runoff to existing drainage swales located along the perimeter of the site. The storm drainage facilities would be installed concurrent with warehouse construction. The bio-retention basins and vegetated areas would filter stormwater and reduce the level of pollutants in the runoff that is directed into the drainage swales leading to the onsite detention basin inlet at the northwest corner of the site. With implementation of these design features, the project would have a less than significant impact. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less than significant) The project site is located on National Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel # 06013C0094G. As shown on the FIRM Panel, Evora Road in the vicinity of the project site is classified as being in Zone X, which is not considered to be subject to flooding. Thus, the project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. Accordingly, there would be no risks associated with the redirection of flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.c.iv above, the project site is not within a 100- year flood hazard area. The project site is also not in an area that would be susceptible to inundation Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 53 by seiche or tsunami. The proposed project would not be susceptible to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The California Geological Survey (2009) has projected and mapped the tsunami hazard posed by a tidal wave that passes through the Golden Gate and into San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait. The Bay Point area is not included on any tsunami hazard map. A seiche is a water wave in a standing body of water such as a large lake or reservoir that is caused by an earthquake, a major landslide, or strong winds. This hazard does not exist for the project site as it is 1.5 miles uphill from the Mallard Reservoir. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10.a above, the proposed project must comply with applicable Contra Costa County C.3 requirements. The C.3 requirements stipulate that projects creating and/or redeveloping at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surface shall treat stormwater runoff with permanent stormwater management facilities, along with measures to control runoff rates and volumes. The Department of Public Works is requiring a project stormwater control plan that addresses stormwater management and discharge control Also, there is no groundwater management plan in effect for the project area. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Sources of Information • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center, Contra Costa County, California, APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027. LM Job #4042-15-1. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Stormwater Control Plan for a Regulated Project for a Land Use Permit Application, Willow Pass Industrial Center. LM Job #4042-15-1. • Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Engineering Services Division, 2017. Letter: Permit LP16-2031 Comments. • http://www.cccleanwater.org/new-development-c-3/, accessed December 16, 2016. Contra Costa Clean Water Program New Development C.3. • https://msc.fema.gov/portal, accessed December 16, 2016. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel # 06013C0094G. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Safety Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 54 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? SUMMARY: a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No impact) The project site is adjacent to and west of the existing Willow Pass Business Park, which is on a level terrace above the site. The site itself has been graded and is a level terrace below the Business Park and above the northern portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station that is downhill to the west of the site. The site is separated from the bulk of the Naval Weapons Station to the south by a portion of the Contra Costa Canal and by Highway 4. Deed-restricted open space land is uphill north of the site. This open space includes a water storage tank that serves the Business Park. Within this setting, the proposed project would not divide an established community. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No impact) The proposed project is the construction and operation of a warehouse in the L-I Light Industrial District that would be allowed on the project site with a land use permit. The warehouse would meet all of the development standards of the L-I District, including minimum lot size (7,500 square feet) and maximum building height (3 stories). The warehouse would be sited to be at least 46 feet from the nearest property boundary, and thereby, would meet the minimum setback of 10 feet and the minimum side yard of 10 feet. The warehouse would also be compatible with the LI Light Industry General Plan land use designation. The originally proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse was estimated to take up 5.19 acres of the 15.42-acre site. The site coverage would have been 34 percent, which is below the maximum 50 percent site coverage standard for the LI designation. The currently proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would have less site coverage and would be well below the maximum 50 percent site coverage standard. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 55 Similar to the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse, the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would have a 0.34 floor area ratio that would be below the maximum 0.67 floor area ratio for the LI designation. The maximum height of 42 feet six inches for the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would be within the maximum 50 foot building height limit for the LI designation. Sources of Information • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Land Use Element. • Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 56 12. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No impact) Known mineral resource areas in the County are shown on Figure 8-4 (Mineral Resource Areas) of the General Plan Conservation Element. No known mineral resources have been identified in the project vicinity, and therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No impact) The project site is not within an area of known mineral importance according to the Conservation Element of the General Plan, and therefore, the project would not impact any mineral resource recovery site. Sources of Information • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. Conservation Element. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 57 13. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SUMMARY: a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than significant with mitigation) Community Noise Exposure Levels shown on Figure 11-6 of the General Plan Noise Element. Figure 11-6 shows that levels of 75 dB or less are normally acceptable and 80 dB or less are conditionally acceptable on industrial land. The project site is within the 60 dB noise contour for Highway 4, which is estimated in the General Plan Noise Element to have a noise level of 78 dB at 100 feet. The site is approximately 880 feet north of Highway 4. In general, noise levels drop by three dB for a doubling of the distance from the noise source, and therefore, at the project site, noise from the highway would be approximately 69 dB. Thus, existing noise levels at the project site are within the normally acceptable range. Operational noise from the warehouse would be primarily from trucks accessing the loading bays along the south side of the building and from vehicles in the parking areas. Noise associated with loading and unloading activities would include truck airbrakes, backup alarms, engine ignition, and truck acceleration from stop, and would range from approximately 70 to 80 dB at 25 feet. Non-truck noise associated with loading and unloading activities (e.g., forklifts, rolling doors) would be contained within the warehouse. Noise associated with vehicles in the parking areas and from vehicles and trucks travelling to and from the project site would generally be below 80 dB. The Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 58 nearest existing development to the project site would be the buildings in the Willow Pass Business Park located approximately 150 feet to the east. At this distance, noise generated by on-site activities within the warehouse and the parking lot, and truck traffic to and from the project site would generally be below 74 dB. Thus, project noise impacts would be less than significant. Traffic generated by the proposed project, along with noise typically associated with a warehouse (e.g., truck loading and unloading), would incrementally increase noise levels in the vicinity of the subject site above existing noise levels. However, the types and levels of noise generated from the new warehouse would be similar to noise levels from the existing Willow Pass Business Park. Thus, the increase in ambient noise levels due to the project would be less than significant. A temporary increase in ambient noise levels would occur during construction of the warehouse structure, driveway, and parking lot. During project construction, there may be periods of time where there would be loud noise from construction equipment, vehicles, and tools. Noise levels as high as 91 dB could occur at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source and up to 87 dB at the Willow Pass Business Park. Although such activities would be temporary, the activities could have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact at nearby offsite locations during project construction. Consequently, the project sponsor is required to implement the following noise mitigation measures. Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project- related contractors. 2. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise- generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing off-site buildings as possible. 3. Large trucks and heavy equipment are 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. 4. All 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: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 59 o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact from the construction noise to a less than significant level. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than significant) Project construction does not include any components (e.g., pile-driving) that would generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels. Additionally, normal warehousing activities would not generate ground-borne vibrations during project operations. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No impact) There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people to airstrip related noise. Buchanan Field Airport is approximately 0.7 mile east of the project site; however, the project site is outside of the airport’s 55-60 dB CNEL noise contour. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels from Buchanan Field. Sources of Information • LSA, 2005. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 60 • Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2014. Loading Dock Noise Study, Midpoint at 237, San Jose, CA. • Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020, Noise Element. • Contra Costa County, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 61 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SUMMARY: a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less than significant) The proposed project would replace a vacant site with a warehouse. The project would not include construction of any off site roads or other infrastructure that could lead to indirect population growth. The warehouse would not provide any housing on the project site. There is no tenant identified for the warehouse; however, using default occupancy for a distribution warehouse from the U.S. Green Building Council, approximately 39 persons could be employed at the warehouse. These persons could either live in the Bay Point area, or live elsewhere and commute to the project site, or would relocate into the Bay Point area. Assuming that all future employees and their families would move into the Bay Point area, and using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the area population could increase by 133 persons, which would be one-half percent of the estimated 22,473 persons living in Bay Point in 2015. Thus, the potential maximum increase in population in the Bay Point area due to the project would not be significant. The project site is adjacent to and northwest of seven undeveloped parcels totaling 17.25 acres that are part of the Willow Pass Business Park. Development of these parcels has been approved pursuant to Development Plan DP04-3096, the approved final development plan for the Willow Pass Business Park. A building permit for a 90,000 sq. ft. private storage warehouse on two of these parcels, Lots 15-16 of the Business Park, was issued in February 2021. The remaining parcels would be developed at some time in the future consistent with DP04-3096 and Rezone RZ04-3151, which established the Willow Pass Business Park P-1 Planned Unit District. Thus, the warehouse project would have a less than significant impact on population growth in the area. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No impact) Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 62 The project site is currently vacant, and therefore, the project would have no impact on housing displacement. Construction of the warehouse structure would not displace any person. Sources of Information • Site visits conducted by County staff, November and December 2016, January 2021. • U.S. Green Building Council, 2016. Appendix 2. Default Occupancy Counts, LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. • https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, accessed January 18, 2017. American Fact Finder, Bay Point CDP, California. [Note: the U.S. Census has discontinued American Fact Finder; the January 2017 data is the most recently available data.] Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 63 15. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? SUMMARY: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? (Less than significant) Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD). Fire protection to the project site would be provided by Fire Station 86 at 3000 Willow Pass Road in Bay Point, located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the project site, or Fire Station 6 at 2210 Willow Pass Road in Concord, located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the site. Prior to future construction of the warehouse structure, the construction drawings would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD. As a result, potential impacts of the proposed project on fire protection services would be less than significant. b) Police Protection? (Less than significant) Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, which provides patrol service to the Bay Point area. The project includes exterior lighting of the driveway, parking areas, and truck stalls. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 1 (Aesthetics), some of the light standards would remain lit at night. The nighttime security lighting would have a maximum illuminance in the north parking lot of 1.02 fc, in the east parking lot of 1.00 fc, and in the truck loading area of 0.27 fc, and would be consistent with recommended levels of lighting for safety of commercial/industrial building exterior areas. Thus, the addition of a warehouse on the project site would not significantly affect the provision of police services to the Bay Point area. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 64 c) Schools? (Less than significant) The project does not include any residential development. Indirectly, as described in Environmental Checklist Section 14.a (Population and Housing), the project could result in a maximum increase of 133 persons in the Bay Point area. Of these persons, approximately 45 (34 percent) would be children up to age 19, including approximately 12 elementary school age children and 11 middle school age children. These children would attend schools in the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD), which provides public education services from kindergarten to 12th grade to students in the Bay Point area. MDUSD schools in the area include Bel Air Elementary School at 663 Canal Road, Rio Vista Elementary School at 611 Pacifica Avenue, Shore Acres Elementary School at 351 Marina Road, and Riverview Middle School at 205 Pacifica Avenue. The elementary schools have a combined enrollment of 1,412 students, including 465 students at Bel Air, 502 students at Rio Vista, and 445 students at Shore Acres. The elementary school age children associated with the warehouse project would increase total elementary school enrollment by one percent. Riverview Middle School has an enrollment of 854 students. The middle school age children associated with the project would increase middle school enrollment by one percent. These increases in school enrollment in the Bay Point area would be considered to be less than significant. d) Parks? (Less than significant) As described above, the project does not include any residential development. To the extent that future employees at the warehouse structure choose to move into the Bay Point area, there would be an increase in use of area parks. Parks in Bay Point include nine parks administered by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District. The Park District is funded through an assessment district that includes all properties in Bay Point, including the project site. These parks provide recreational facilities such as playgrounds and baseball fields, picnic and barbecue areas, and youth and adult recreational programs. Given the amount of available park space and the project’s relatively small indirect addition to the Bay Point area population, the impacts of the proposed project on parks would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities? (Less than significant) Libraries: Contra Costa Library operates 28 facilities in Contra Costa County, including the Bay Point Library at 205 Pacifica Avenue. The Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local property taxes, with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. A portion of the property taxes on the project site would go to the Contra Costa Library system. Accordingly, the impact of the use of the public libraries by warehouse employees and their families who live in or move to the Bay Point area would be less than significant. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 65 Health Facilities: Contra Costa County Health Services District (CCCHSD) operates a regional medical center (hospital) and 11 health centers and clinics in the County. County health facilities generally serve low income and uninsured patients. The Bay Point Family Health Center at 215 Pacifica Avenue, provides routine and preventative health care services, prenatal and women’s health services, and children’s dental care. CCCHSD is primarily funded by federal and state funding programs, with additional revenue from local taxes, including a portion of the taxes on the project site. Thus, the impact of the use of public health facilities by warehouse employees and their families who live in or move to the Bay Point area would be less than significant. Sources of Information • http://www.cccfpd.org/, accessed January 18, 2017. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. • http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/60/Sheriff, accessed January 18, 2017. Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. • https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml, accessed January 18, 2017. American Fact Finder, Bay Point CDP, California. [Note: the U.S. Census has discontinued American Fact Finder; the January 2017 data is the most recently available data.] • http://www.mdusd.org/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1399564562549, accessed January 18, 2017. Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Our Schools. • http://www.greatschools.org/, accessed March 1, 2021. Great Schools. • http://www.ambroserec.org/, accessed January 18, 2017. Ambrose Recreation and Park District. • http://ccclib.org/, accessed January 18, 2017. Contra Costa County Library. • http://cchealth.org/, accessed January 18, 2017. Contra Costa Health Services. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 66 16. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SUMMARY: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 15 (Public Services), there are nine parks administered by the Ambrose Recreation and Park District in the Bay Point area. The parks provide recreational facilities such as playgrounds and baseball fields, picnic and barbecue areas, and youth and adult recreational programs. In addition to these recreational facilities, the Bay Point Regional Shoreline, administered by the East Bay Regional Park District, provides approximately 150 acres of undeveloped open space and marsh habitat that provide opportunities for activities such as hiking, nature study, and fishing. Warehouse employees and their families who live in or move to the Bay Point area would incrementally increase use of these parks and recreational facilities. The impact of this incremental increase in use of the parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less than significant) The proposed project is the construction and operation of a warehouse. There are no plans to construct any substantial recreational facility on the project site. Given the location of the nearby parks in Bay Point, warehouse employees and their families would likely use these nearby facilities. As described above, use of these public recreational facilities by employees and their families would incrementally increase use of the facilities, but would not be expected to result in the need to construct or expand recreational facilities. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 67 Sources of Information • http://www.ambroserec.org/, accessed January 18, 2017. Ambrose Recreation and Park District. • http://www.ebparks.org/parks/bay_point, accessed January 18, 2017. Bay Point Regional Shoreline. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 68 17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? SUMMARY: a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (Less than significant) Policy 4-c of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan requires a traffic impact analysis of any project that is estimated to generate 100 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) rates for warehousing, TJKM Transportation Consultants projected the original 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse to generate 393 daily trips, including 38 AM peak hour trips and 43 PM Peak hour trips. TJKM projected the reduced 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse to generate 171 daily trips, including 13 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips in their November 2020 Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. Of these trips, approximately 20 percent are expected to be truck trips. Since the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse project would yield less than 100 peak hour AM or PM trips, the proposed project would not conflict the General Plan Growth Management Element. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority is responsible for ensuring local government conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP), a program aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The CMP requires that each local jurisdiction identify existing and future transportation facilities that will operate below an acceptable service level and provide mitigation where future growth degrades that service level. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to generate 100 or more additional peak-hours trips. As the reduced warehouse project would yield less than 100 peak hour AM or PM trips, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP. Regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities, there are no sidewalks or bike lanes along Evora Road south of the gas station at the northwest corner of the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 69 Bike lanes are striped on Willow Pass Road south of Evora Road. TJKM assessed the potential project impacts to pedestrian and bicycle safety in the project vicinity and found that the reduced warehouse project would not disrupt or be inconsistent with pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and therefore, project impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be less than significant. With respect to transit facilities, the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri-Delta Transit) provides transit service to East Contra Costa County residents. Tri-Delta Transit Route 201 provides service between the Concord BART station and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station. Route 201 has stops (#815012 for westbound buses and #815008 for eastbound buses) located between the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection and Highway 4 westbound off- and on-ramps. TJKM found that the proposed project would not interfere with existing bus routes and would not affect existing bus stops. Although the proposed project could increase patronage of the bus line, this increase in patronage could be accommodated by existing bus services, and therefore, impacts of the reduced warehouse project on transit service would be less than significant. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 14 (Population and Housing), 39 persons could be employed at the warehouse. Thus, the project would not be subject to the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, administered by the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is mandatory for all employers with 50 or more full-time employees. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? (Less than significant) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines in June 2020. The Transportation Analysis Guidelines include the following screening criteria. If a proposed project meets the screening criteria, the project would be expected to have a less than significant impact and would not require VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) analysis. i. Projects that: a. Generate or attract fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips; or, b. Projects of 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. ii. Residential, retail, office projects, or mixed-use projects proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. iii. Residential projects (home-based VMT) at 15% or below the baseline County-wide home- based average VMT per capita, or employment projects (employee VMT) at 15% or below the baseline Bay Area average commute VMT per employee in areas with low VMT that incorporate similar VMT reducing features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility). Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 70 iv. Public facilities (e.g., emergency services, passive parks (low-intensity recreation, open space), libraries, community centers, public utilities) and government buildings. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 17.a, the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse is projected to generate 171 daily trips, and therefore, exceeds the County’s screening criteria. Accordingly, in their November 2020 Focused Traffic Impact Analysis, TJKM proceeded to establish existing employee VMT in the project area to determine if the proposed project would be required to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. The proposed reduced warehouse would be constructed on a project site that is currently vacant, and therefore, projected automobile VMT would be generated primarily by employees commuting to and from work. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) travel demand model generates simulated daily weekday VMT per capita by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within Contra Costa County and throughout the Bay Area, for commute VMT per employee and home-based VMT per resident. The project site is within TAZ 20096; however, currently this TAZ is predominantly open space. Thus, in order to establish the expected per employee VMT at the project site, other nearby TAZs were evaluated for their proximity to the project site, freeway access, and mix of employment uses. TJKM identified three TAZs located immediately west of the project, including TAZ 20618 and TAZ 20619 that encompass the decommissioned naval weapons station and TAS 20097, which is a mixed industrial area accessed from Port Chicago Highway that includes warehouses. TJKM then calculated the weighted average per employee commute VMT in the four identified TAZs, as a reasonable estimate of employee VMT that would be generated by the proposed project. For these TAZs, based on model simulations for the year 2020, the estimated existing daily commute VMT per employee is 10.6 miles. Table 5 shows a summary of the TAZ data used to generate this weighted average. Table 5: Summary of TAZ Data TAZ Description Employment Home-Based VMT Per Resident Commute VMT Per Employee 20096 Project Location 1,078 5,348 5.0 20097 Industrial area west of Port Chicago Highway 2,529 49,438 19.5 20618 Naval Weapons Station – decommissioned 1,731 8,957 5.2 20619 Naval Weapons Station - decommissioned 3,151 26,353 8.4 Total 8,489 90,096 10.6 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 71 For the year 2020, the Bay Area average commute VMT per employee generated by the CCTA travel demand model is 15.58. The corresponding threshold to consider a location to have low VMT, 15 percent below the regional average, is 13.24. The proposed project is estimated to have an average commute VMT of 10.6, which is 32 percent below the regional average. Therefore, based on the Contra Costa County screening criteria, the proposed project is expected to cause a less-than- significant impact under CEQA and is exempt from further VMT analysis. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact and would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less than significant) Department of Public Works staff evaluated the proposed connection of the project driveway to existing streets, and observed that both Evora Road, and Evora Court meet the applicable street requirements. Staff has determined that parking along either one side or both sides of Evora Court will be prohibited, depending upon the actual curb-to-curb pavement width in a Condition of Approval. In addition, the Department of Public Works will require that adequate sight distance be provided at the driveway to ensure sight lines that are clear of obstructions in a Condition of Approval. With the parking restriction and the adequate sight distance added as Public Works Conditions of Approval, project-related traffic hazards will be minimized to less than significant levels. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (Less than significant) The proposed project is located at the end of Evora Court, which is at the western terminus of Evora Road. At this location, there is no through traffic on Evora Road that could be obstructed by the project. Further, Evora Road slopes uphill to the east at a slope of approximately six percent to the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection. As a result, vehicle speeds would be relatively low on the eastbound intersection approach. Thus, emergency access in the project vicinity would not be impeded. Regarding onsite access, at the time of County review of construction drawings for building permits, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District would review the construction drawings and ensure that adequate emergency access to buildings on the project site is provided. Sources of Information • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • TJKM, received November 3, 2020. Technical Memorandum, Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the Panattoni Warehouse Development, Project No. 029-186. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 72 • Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. Trip Generation, 10th Edition. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Growth Management Element. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Transportation and Circulation Element. • Contra Costa Transportation Authority, 2019. Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. • http://trideltatransit.com/, accessed January 21, 2021. Tri-Delta Transit, Schedules & Maps. • Contra Costa County, 2010. Bicycle Facilities Network Map. • Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Engineering Services Division, 2017. Letter: Permit LP16-2031 Comments. • Contra Costa County, 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 73 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? SUMMARY: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (No impact) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 5.a above, no structures or onsite historical resources are on the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on visible tribal cultural resources. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Sections 5.b, and 5.c above grading and other earthwork associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. However, if the proposed project is approved, standard CDD Conditions of Approval will be added including: A. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 74 1. A program of on-site education to instruct all construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted by a certified archaeologist prior to the start of any grading or construction activities. 2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Native American tribe that has requested consultation and/or demonstrated interest in the project site, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. B. Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them. The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor's remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains. Thus, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact on archaeological resources or due to disturbance of human remains. Regarding paleontological resources, as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 7.f, the project site is essentially flat and has no discernable geologic features. Similar to archaeological resources, there is a possibility that buried fossils and other paleontological resources could be present and accidental discovery could occur. Standard CDD Condition of Approval A will address any discovered paleontological resource. As a result, there would be a less than significant adverse environmental impact on paleontological resources. With respect to consultation with California Native American Tribes, on March 2, 2021, a Notice of Opportunity to Request Consultation was sent via email to the Wilton Rancheria, the one California Native American tribe that has requested notification of proposed projects. On March 2, 2021, staff Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 75 received an email from the Wilton Rancheria, stating that the Wilton Rancheria has no concerns about the proposed project. Sources of Information • Site visits conducted by County staff, November and December 2016, January 2021. • LSA, 2005. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Donaldson Associates. 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. • California Historical Resources Information System, 2004. Letter: GP04-0010, RZ04-3151, SD04- 8918, DP04-3096 / Hwy 4 & Willow Pass Road / Thomas/DeNova LLC. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 76 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SUMMARY: a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than significant) The proposed project would be constructed in an area designated for the proposed use. Utilities and service systems are in existence and available for use by the proposed project. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would originate from restrooms in the warehouse structure. Sewer line laterals would be installed to connect the warehouse to Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD) facilities. The wastewater generated by the warehouse would incrementally Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 77 increase wastewater flows in the DDSD system; however, the warehouse would be expected to be accommodated by existing DDSD facilities. The DDSD would connect the warehouse to its facilities after processing a non-residential wastewater utility service application and collecting the applicable connection fees, completing a building plan review, and issuing a permit for sewer work. By following this process, impacts of the proposed project on DDSD facilities would be less than significant. The project site is in the CCWD service area. As described in Environmental Checklist Section 19.b below, in the event that the project would not use ground water, water service would be provided by CCWD. The CCWD has not indicated that significant facility improvements would be needed in order to serve the project. The improvements would be provided by the applicant/property owner at its expense. With the use of ground water or with the installation of these improvements, impacts of the proposed project on CCWD facilities would be less than significant. As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), project stormwater controls include dispersion of runoff from the warehouse roof and paved surfaces to vegetated areas and small onsite bio-retention basins installed along the perimeter of the driveway and parking areas. The stormwater controls would collect stormwater, allow percolation into the ground, and convey excess runoff to existing onsite drainage swales that would direct runoff to detention basin inlet structure located at the northwest corner of the property. The inlet structure leads to a detention basin located northwest of the site. Department of Public Works staff will review and approve the project’s stormwater control plan. Accordingly, with implementation of the approved stormwater control plan, the warehouse project would have a less than significant adverse environmental impact on any drainage facility Other utilities and service systems would requirement minor modification to meet design and construction code requirements for the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. There would be no requirements for new or expanded utilities or other systems related to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. The installation and operation of the proposed warehouse would have less than significant effects on these other utilities and service systems. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (Less than significant) The Willow Pass Business Park has an agreement with CCWD, whereby the Business Park uses ground water. The proposed project would use this ground water source or, in the event that the ground water source is not reliable, would request treated water service from CCWD. The CCWD has indicated that significant facility improvements would be needed to serve the warehouse, at the applicant/property owner’s expense. If necessary, CCWD will review the project application documents regarding the provision of new water service pursuant to CCWD water service Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 78 regulations. With the use of ground water or with the installation of the facility improvements, the impact of providing water service to the proposed project would be less than significant. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 19.a above, the project site is served by the DDSD. DDSD would review the construction drawings for the building permit for the warehouse to ensure that the development would be accommodated by DDSD facilities. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less than significant) The proposed project would generate construction solid waste and post-construction commercial solid waste. Construction waste would be hauled to the Acme Landfill, located at 890 Waterbird Way in Martinez. The Acme Landfill is estimated to be at 35 percent of capacity. Future construction of the warehouse structure would incrementally add to the construction waste headed to the landfill; however, the impact of the project related incremental increase is considered to be less than significant. Further, construction on the project site would be subject to the CalGreen Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Program administered by the Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division, at the time of application for a building permit. The Debris Recovery Program would reduce the construction debris headed to the landfill by diverting materials that can be recycled to appropriate recycling facilities. With respect to commercial waste, the receiving landfill for operational waste is Keller Canyon, located at 901 Bailey Road in Bay Point. Keller Canyon is estimated to be at 15 percent of capacity. Commercial waste from the warehouse would incrementally add to the operational waste headed to the landfill; however, the impact of the project-related commercial waste is considered to be less than significant. Moreover, the warehouse would be subject to the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program (AB 341 Solid Waste: Diversion) to reuse, recycle or otherwise divert solid waste from the landfill. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No impact) The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws related to solid waste. The warehouse project would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 79 Sources of Information • http://www.deltadiablo.org/, accessed January 19, 2017. Delta Diablo (Sanitation District). • Contra Costa LAFCO, 2007. Section 8.0 Diablo Delta Sanitation District Wastewater Service, Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review for East Contra Costa County. • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center, Contra Costa County, California, APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027. LM Job #4042-15-1. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 80 20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? SUMMARY: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 9.g (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the project site is in an area designated as a moderate fire hazard area However, the potential for wildfires originating from the warehouse facility is greatly minimized by conformance to applicable requirements of the California Building Code Chapter 7A (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure), California Fire Code Chapter 47 (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas), and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards), which would reduce the risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 81 As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 15.a (Public Services – Fire Protection), fire protection and emergency medical response services in the project vicinity are provided by the CCCFPD, which has two fire stations in proximity to the project site. Prior to future construction of the warehouse structure, the construction drawings would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD. Compliance with all CCCFPD requirements would ensure that project impacts on emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less than significant) The site is 890 feet northwest of the western terminus of Evora Road, which is 1,500 feet southwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The site is relatively flat, with a slope of two percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above sea level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. Accordingly, access to and from the warehouse would not be substantially encumbered due to a wildfire and persons on the project site would be able to readily evacuate if necessary. In addition to meeting CCCFPD requirements as discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 20.a above, construction plans for the warehouse would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD. With the preceding consideration, wildfire risk to persons at the warehouse would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than significant) As discussed in Environmental Checklist Section 20.a above, construction plans for the warehouse would be reviewed and approved by the CCCFPD, and compliance with all Fire Protection District requirements would ensure that temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment due to wildfires would be less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than significant) As discussed above in Environmental Checklist Section 19.a (Utilities and Service Systems), project stormwater controls would collect stormwater, allow percolation into the ground, and convey excess runoff to existing onsite drainage swales that would direct runoff to detention basin inlet structure that leads to a detention basin. Moreover, the Department of Public Works staff will review and approve the project’s stormwater control plan and will require Conditions of Approval Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 82 as necessary to reduce risks of runoff, slope instability, and drainage changes. Compliance with the Public Works Conditions of Approval will reduce risks to less than significant levels. Sources of Information • http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_codes.php, accessed December 15, 2016. Cal Fire, Wildland Hazards and Building Codes. • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center, Contra Costa County, California, APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027. LM Job #4042-15-1. Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 83 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SUMMARY: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less than significant with mitigation) Future development of the warehouse structure would be contained within the 15.42-acre project site. As assessed in Environmental Checklist Section 4 (Biological Resources), the proposed project would have potential impacts on special status wildlife species, nesting birds, riparian habitat, and sensitive habitats due to introduction of invasive species; however, with implementation of the recommended mitigations, the project would not have a significant impact on riparian and sensitive habitats, special status species, or nesting birds. As assessed in Environmental Checklist Section 5 Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 84 (Cultural Resources), the proposed project would have no impact on historic resources and less than significant impacts on prehistoric and archaeological resources with the application of standard CDD Conditions of Approval. Where mitigation measures are proposed in this Initial Study, the measures will be Conditions of Approval of the proposed project and the project sponsor will be responsible for implementation of the measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less than significant) The proposed project would not create substantial cumulative impacts. The project site is located within the Urban Limit Line in an area that allows commercial development, such as warehouses. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing nearby commercial development in the Willow Pass Business Park c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less than significant with mitigation) This Initial Study has disclosed impacts that could be potentially significant but would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. If the project is approved, all identified mitigation measures will be included in the Conditions of Approval for the project, and the project sponsor will be responsible for implementation of the measures. As a result, with Conditions of Approval, there will not be any environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 85 REFERENCES In the process of preparing the Initial Study Checklist and conduction of the evaluation, the following references were consulted and are available for review by contacting the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Rd., Martinez, CA 94553: • Barnett Environmental, received July 14, 2016. Biological/Wetland Resources Constraints Analysis of 15.42 acres (APNs 099-160-026-3 and 099-160-027-1). • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017. California Natural Diversity Database, Special Animals List. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1971. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Horned Lark. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2002. 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, Notification Number: R3-2001-1060. • California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003. Streambed Alteration Agreement Amendment, Notification Number: R3-2001-1060. • California Historical Resources Information System, 2004. Letter: GP04-0010, RZ04-3151, SD04- 8918, DP04-3096 / Hwy 4 & Willow Pass Road / Thomas/DeNova LLC. • Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., 2014. Loading Dock Noise Study, Midpoint at 237, San Jose, CA. • Contra Costa LAFCO, 2007. Section 8.0 Diablo Delta Sanitation District Wastewater Service, Water and Wastewater Municipal Services Review for East Contra Costa County. • Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, Engineering Services Division, 2017. Letter: Permit LP16-2031 Comments. • Contra Costa Water District, 2016. Letter: Comment Letter Regarding the Evora Road, Bay Point Project (File No. DP16-2031). • Darwin Myers Associates, received August 23, 2016. Geologic Peer Review, LP16-2031 (CP Logistics Willow Pass, Owner), 0 Evora Road, APN 099-160-026 & -027, Bay Point Area, Contra Costa County, DMA project 3044.16. • Darwin Myers Associates, received November 11, 2016. Geologic Peer Review / CEQA Section. DMA Project 3070.16. • Donaldson Associates. 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development for Delta Diablo Sanitation District. • Energy Trust of Oregon, 2013. Footcandle Light Guide. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities for Evora Road Industrial Center, Contra Costa County, California, APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160- 027. LM Job #4042-15-1. • Laugenour and Meikle, received September 29, 2016. Stormwater Control Plan for a Regulated Project for a Land Use Permit Application, Willow Pass Industrial Center. LM Job #4042-15-1. • LSA, 2005. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 86 • Monk & Associates, 2017. Peer Review Study for Contra Costa County’s SCH2017022002 MND, Proposed Warehouse at 4000 Evora Road (approximate address), Concord, California. • Raney Geotechnical, Inc., received July 14, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, Willow Pass Tilt-Up Building. File No. 192-324. • Raney Geotechnical, Inc., received September 29, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, 226,000 Square Foot Tilt-Up Building. File No. 192-324.01. • Raney Planning and Management, Inc., received January 27, 2017. Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Evora Road Warehouse Project. • TJKM, received November 3, 2020. Technical Memorandum, Focused Traffic Impact Analysis for the Panattoni Warehouse Development, Project No. 029-186. • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2001. Letter on Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2000. Loggerhead Shrike Status Assessment. • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. • U.S. Green Building Council, 2016. Appendix 2. Default Occupancy Counts, LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction. • Ware Malcomb, received July 14, 2016. Willow Pass, Evora Road (project plans). • Ware Malcomb, received May 13, 2020. Conceptual Site Plan. • Wildlands, Inc. and Thomas/DeNova LLC, 2004. Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, Agreement for Sale of Conservation Credits. APRIL 2021 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY FOR PROPOSED 98,460 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE SCH #2017022002 LAND USE PERMIT LP16-2031 APRIL 27, 2021 I. Introduction: This document constitutes the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND), State Clearinghouse SCH #2017022002, for the proposed 98,460 square-foot (sq. ft.) warehouse at 4000 Evora Road in the unincorporated Bay Point area of Contra Costa County. The Final MND includes the written comment received on the March 2021 draft MND, the response to the comment received, and one staff-initiated text change. The text change is not the result of any new significant adverse environmental impact, does not alter the effectiveness of any mitigation included in the pertinent section, and does not alter any findings in the section. The Board of Supervisors will consider the environmental record including the draft MND, the Final MND, and the findings therein prior to taking action on the project as a whole. As described in the March 2021 MND, the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) published a draft MND that analyzed potential significant adverse environmental impacts of a proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse on January 31, 2017. Subsequently, DCD published a revised draft MND on May 10, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the County Zoning Administrator adopted the revised MND, consisting of the revised draft MND and a Final MND and approved the warehouse project. The Zoning Administrator decision was appealed on August 17, 2017 by DeNova Homes. On November 8, 2017, the County Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator decision. DeNova Homes appealed the Planning Commission decision on November 20, 2017. Thus, the applicant is proposing a 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse in place of the formerly proposed 225,950 sq. ft. warehouse. DCD published the March 2021 draft MND on March 2, 2021 on the 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse. The draft MND public review period that ended on April 7, 2021. The purpose of the public review period is for the public to submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the MND. DCD received one email in response to the publication of the draft MND. II. Comment Received and Response to Comment Received: During the March 2, 2021 to April 7, 2021 public review period on the draft MND, DCD received an email from Jonathan Bailey of Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Co. The email is included herein as Attachment A. Following is the comment summary and staff response to the comment in the email. Comment: The commenter states building at 1600 Willow Pass Court overlooks the warehouse project site and could block views from the building. The commenter also requested that the applicant erect sticks so that the potential impact can be determined. (Email: Jonathan Bailey, Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Co.) April 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2017022002 2 of 2 Response: DCD does not normally ask applicants to erect sticks to show the height of a proposed structure on a project site; however, staff asked the applicant if it would erect sticks as requested, the applicant has declined to erect sticks. With respect to potentially blocking views, as described in the March 2021 draft MND, the proposed 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse would be 42 feet six -inch tall. The warehouse would be constructed on a project site that is site is relatively flat, with a slope of one percent, and is at an average elevation of 145 feet above sea level. The site is essentially a level terrace sited above a portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station to the west and below the developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park to the east. The developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park is at an average elevation of 190 feet above sea level. The top of the proposed warehouse would be at an elevation of 187 feet six inches above sea level, which is two feet six inches below the elevation of the developed portion of the Willow Pass Business Park. Thus, the proposed project would not block any views from the building at 1600 Willow Pass Court. II. Initial Study / Negative Declaration Edit: This section includes one edit to the text of the MND. Deleted text is shown with double strikethrough text and new text is indicated by double underlined text. Section 17. Transportation The third sentence in the first paragraph of Section 9.a on page 68 of the Initial Study is revised as follows: TJKM projected the reduced 98,460 sq. ft. warehouse to generate 171 daily trips, including 17 13 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips in their November 2020 Focused Traffic Impact Analysis. April 2021 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, SCH #2017022002 ATTACHMENT A Subject Proposed Panattoni Warehouse Project - Neighbor Comment From Jon Bailey To Stanley Muraoka Sent Friday, March 12, 2021 2:21 PM HI Stan, Just left you a message. Our building is located at 1600 Willow Pass Court, directly overlooking the proposed Panattoni warehouse site. We just received the Notice of Public Review...Neg. Dec. Our main concern is the height of the proposed building - 42.5 feet is tall, and would potentially block our views and thus affect both enjoyment and value of our building. I would appreciate it if the applicant could erect some 'sticks' so we can see what the potential impact would be.... Thanks. Jonathan Bailey, PE, GE, QSD Principal Civil / Geotechnical Engineer Qualified SWPPP Developer Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Co., Inc. 1600 Willow Pass Court, Concord, California 94520 Tel. 925-688-1001 | Fax 925-688-1005 | Mobile 925-383- 7068 | www.sfandb.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 815, Concord, CA 94522-0815 Mitigation Monitoring Program County File LP16-2031 4000 Evora Road Bay Point, CA 94520 April 27, 2021 Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 2 of 16 SECTION 1: AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impacts: Views of the warehouse would be screened by landscaping; however, if landscaping is not fully implemented, there could be significant adverse environmental impacts on: (b) scenic resources along Highway 4, and (c) the visual character of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics 1: The following measures are intended to ensure full implementation of the Afghan pine landscaping along the southern edge of the driveway south of the warehouse structure. 1. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). The plan shall provide for the planting of a minimum of 35 Afghan pine trees of a minimum 24-inch box size. Consideration shall be given to adequate screening of the future warehouse from offsite viewpoints. The plan shall comply with the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County's Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall also include an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor of the materials and labor costs to complete the improvements (accounting for supply, delivery, and installation of trees and irrigation). The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. 2. Required Security to Assure Completion of Plan Improvements: A security deposit shall be required to ensure that the approved landscaping and irrigation plan is implemented and that the Afghan pines become established. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a security that is acceptable to the CDD. The security shall be the amount of the approved cost estimate described in mitigation measure #1 above plus a 20% inflation surcharge. 3. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security: The applicant shall pay fees to cover all staff time and materials costs for processing the required security. At the time of submittal of the security, the applicant shall pay an initial processing fee deposit of $100.00. 4. Duration of Security: When the landscaping and irrigation have been installed, the applicant shall submit a letter to the CDD to be composed by the landscape architect, arborist, or landscape contractor, verifying that the installation has been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping and irrigation plan. The County may retain the security for up to 24 months beyond the date of receipt of this letter. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 3 of 16 At 12 and 24 months following completion of implementation of the plan, the applicant shall arrange for the consulting arborist to inspect the trees and to prepare a report on the trees' health. The report shall be submitted for review by the CDD and shall include any additional measures necessary for preserving the health of the trees. These measures shall be implemented by the applicant. Any Afghan pine tree that dies within the first two years of being planted shall be replaced by another Afghan pine tree of the same size. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project landscape architect or contractor, project arborist, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents. Verification by project arborist. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 4 of 16 SECTION 4: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impacts: The project could have a significant adverse environmental impact (a) through habitat modification on candidate, sensitive, or special status species (western burrowing owls). Mitigation Measures: Biology 1: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on western burrowing owls. 1. A preconstruction survey for western burrowing owls shall be conducted if work onsite will take place between February 1 and August 31. CDFW Staff Report 2012 (California Department of Fish and Game, Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. March 7, 2012. 15 pages plus appendices.) states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys shall be conducted 14 days prior or less to initiating ground disturbance. As burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence. If no owls are found during these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary. 2. Burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by walking the entire project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500 feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during project construction. Pedestrian survey transects shall be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be 7 meters to 20 meters and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls thus, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is greater than 20 kilometers per hour and there is precipitation or dense fog. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) wherever practical to avoid flushing occupied burrows. Disturbance to occupied burrows shall be avoided during all seasons. 3. If burrowing owls are detected on the site, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are required, as recommended in CDFW Staff Report 2012. a. From April 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities shall have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 5 of 16 b. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities shall have a 50-meter buffer, medium disturbance activities shall have a 100-meter buffer, and high disturbance activities shall have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. c. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance shall occur within the afore-mentioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones shall be fenced as well. If burrowing owls were found in the project area, a qualified biologist shall delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. 4. In accordance with CDFW Staff Report 2012, if burrowing owls were found nesting onsite, credits shall have to be purchased from a mitigation bank to offset the project’s habitat loss on the burrowing owl. This shall be developed in coordination with CDFW and the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review); prior to active construction phases. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project biologist/ornithologist, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents; review and approval of survey reports prior to commencing active construction phases. Potentially Significant Impacts: The project could have a significant adverse environmental impact (a) through habitat modification on candidate, sensitive, or special status species (California horned larks, loggerhead shrikes). Mitigation Measures: Biology 2: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on California horned larks and loggerhead shrikes. 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 2. If the California horned lark and/or loggerhead shrike are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 6 of 16 fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 3. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to prior to active construction phases. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project biologist/ornithologist, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of survey reports prior to commencing active construction phases. Potentially Significant Impacts: Project landscaping could include invasive species that could cause a significant adverse environmental impact (a) through habitat modification on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Mitigation Measures: Biology 3: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall not include any plant species identified as invasive. The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or the County’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, if the County’s Ordinance has been adopted. Verification of compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall accompany the plan. The plan shall be implemented prior to final building inspection. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project landscape architect or contractor, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents. Potentially Significant Impacts: The project could have a significant adverse environmental impact on (b) the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales, and (c) the potentially federally protected onsite riparian habitat. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 7 of 16 Mitigation Measures: Biology 4: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales. 1. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a final landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for review by the County’s Peer Review Biologist and review and approval by the CDD. The plan shall be designed to protect and preserve the onsite riparian habitat associated with the grassy swales, including the established riparian trees. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the CDD and by the Department of Public Works. The SWPPP shall include, at a minimum, placement of silt fencing and wildlife friendly hay wattles (i.e., wattles without monofilament netting) around the perimeter of the project site wherever the grassy swales occur prior to initiating site work. Orange construction fencing shall also be installed between the grassy swales, offsite detention basin and mitigation pond and the project site to ensure that construction equipment is not driven into these sensitive habitats. The construction fencing shall be shown on all construction documents. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project landscape architect or contractor, County Peer Review Biologist, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents. Potentially Significant Impacts: The project could have a significant adverse environmental impact on (d) wildlife nursery sites (nesting birds). Mitigation Measures: Biology 5: The following measures are required to preclude or reduce to less than significant levels, adverse impacts on nesting birds. The measures may be implemented concurrently with the measures in Biology 2 above. 1. If project site grading or construction will take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around the project site 15 days prior to commencing with the work. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise (for example, along the pond and detention basin and adjacent slopes). 2. If common (non-special status) birds are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer should be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 8 of 16 ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 3. If special-status passerine birds are identified nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist after observing the birds and determining how acclimated they are to disturbance. The buffer shall be demarcated with orange construction fencing. The ornithologist shall prepare a report on the finding(s) and implementation of mitigation(s) to CDD. 4. Nesting buffers shall be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1, the qualified ornithologist conducting the nesting surveys should prepare a report that provides the details about the nesting outcome and the removal of the buffers. This report should be submitted to the CDD prior to the time that nest protection buffers are removed. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to prior to active construction phases. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project biologist/ornithologist, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of survey reports prior to commencing active construction phases. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 9 of 16 SECTION 6: ENERGY Potentially Significant Impact: The warehouse project would (b) conflict with a local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Mitigation Measures: Greenhouse Gas 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show on the plans or otherwise demonstrate how the project design would, at a minimum, meet all applicable standards of the 2016 California Building Standards Code including the installation of high-efficiency appliances and insulation, to satisfy Reduction Measures EE1 and RE1 of the County’s Climate Action Plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the CDD. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project architect, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD for review; CDD review and approval of construction documents. Greenhouse Gas 2: Prior to the final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate on the site plans that the project’s anticipated emissions of GHGs would be reduced by at least 31.54 MTCO2e/yr. The required reduction may be achieved through the inclusion of additional measures, which may include, but not be limited to the following: • Exceed the energy efficiency measures of the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code or CALGreen; • Electrify loading docks and/or require idling-reduction systems for heavy-duty trucks; • Provide end of trip facilities such as showers and changing spaces to encourage community by bicycle; • Install and operate on-site renewable energy (such as solar panels); • Install low-flow water fixtures in exceedance of applicable local standards; • Incorporate measures from the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, such as providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. The calculations shall be provided to the CDD for review and approval. Implementing Action: COA Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 10 of 16 Timing of Verification: Prior to final building inspection. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project architect or contractor, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 11 of 16 SECTION 6: GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact: The warehouse structure would (d) be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Mitigation Measures: Geology 1: Prior to issuance of construction permits the project sponsor shall provide evidence of plan review and approval by the project geotechnical engineer. The recommendations for site grading contained in the approved grading plans shall be followed during construction unless modifications are specifically approved in writing by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD for review; CDD review and approval of construction documents. Geology 2: Borehole logs indicate the existing pad soils consist of medium stiff to stiff clays containing variable amounts of silt, sand and gravel. These materials are characterized by slow permeability. The applicant shall submit a follow-up geotechnical report that specifically addresses the planned design of the bio-retention basins, and their proximity to planned improvements. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD for review; CDD review and approval of construction documents. Geology 3: During grading and soils preparation work (i.e. lime treatment of soils) the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and testing services. The intent of this geotechnical monitoring is to (i) verify that geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented by the contractor, (ii) view exposed conditions during grading/ soil preparation work to ensure that field conditions match those that were the basis of the geotechnical design report, and (iii) provide supplement recommendations during construction, should they be warranted. Implementing Action: COA Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 12 of 16 Timing of Verification: Prior to final inspection of grading. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Geology 4: (1) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the geotechnical engineer shall certify that all site preparation work is in compliance with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. (2) During foundation and drainage-related work the geotechnical engineer shall provide observation services to ensure the geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented by the contractor. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: (1) Prior to CDD approval of construction documents. (2) Prior to final inspection of grading. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Geology 5: Prior to requesting a final building inspection of the warehouse structure, the project sponsor shall submit a letter-report from the geotechnical engineer documenting the observation and testing services performed during final grading/ foundation work/ lot drainage. The report of the geotechnical engineer shall also provide a professional opinion on the consistence of the as-graded/ as-built project with recommendations in the approved geotechnical report. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to final building inspection. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Geology 6: The report of the Corrosion Engineer shall also be provided prior to requesting the final building inspection of the warehouse. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to final building inspection. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project geotechnical engineer, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 13 of 16 SECTION 7: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Potentially Significant Impact: The warehouse project would (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and (b) would conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: Greenhouse Gas 1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall show on the plans or otherwise demonstrate how the project design would, at a minimum, meet all applicable standards of the 2016 California Building Standards Code including the installation of high-efficiency appliances and insulation, to satisfy Reduction Measures EE1 and RE1 of the County’s Climate Action Plan. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the CDD. Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review). Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project architect, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD for review; CDD review and approval of construction documents. Greenhouse Gas 2: Prior to the final building inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate on the site plans that the project’s anticipated emissions of GHGs would be reduced by at least 31.54 MTCO2e/yr. The required reduction may be achieved through the inclusion of additional measures, which may include, but not be limited to the following: • Exceed the energy efficiency measures of the current Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code or CALGreen; • Electrify loading docks and/or require idling-reduction systems for heavy-duty trucks; • Provide end of trip facilities such as showers and changing spaces to encourage community by bicycle; • Install and operate on-site renewable energy (such as solar panels); • Install low-flow water fixtures in exceedance of applicable local standards; • Incorporate measures from the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, such as providing a subsidy to reduce or cover employee’s monthly transit or vanpool costs, providing a free or low cost transit service for employees, or incorporating an alternative commuter benefit that would effectively reduce single-occupancy commute trips. The calculations shall be provided to the CDD for review and approval. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 14 of 16 Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to final building inspection. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, project architect or contractor, and CDD. Compliance Verification: Submit report to CDD, Building Inspection Division for review. Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 15 of 16 SECTION 12: NOISE Potentially Significant Impact: Construction of the warehouse project would (d) cause a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Mitigation Measures: Noise 1: The following noise reduction measures shall be implemented during project construction and shall be included on all construction plans. 1. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize project-related disruptions to adjacent properties, and to uses on the site. This shall be communicated to all project-related contractors. 2. The applicant shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise -generating equipment such as air compressors as far away from existing residences as possible. 3. Large trucks and heavy equipment are 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. 4. All 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: o New Year’s Day (State and Federal) o Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) o Washington’s Birthday (Federal) o Lincoln’s Birthday (State) o President’s Day (State and Federal) o Cesar Chavez Day (State) o Memorial Day (State and Federal) o Independence Day (State and Federal) o Labor Day (State and Federal) o Columbus Day (State and Federal) o Veterans Day (State and Federal) o Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) o Day after Thanksgiving (State) Abbreviations: Mitigation Monitoring Program Condition of Approval (COA) LP16-2031 Community Development Division (CDD) Page 16 of 16 o Christmas Day (State and Federal) Implementing Action: COA Timing of Verification: Prior to CDD approval of construction documents (with COA compliance review) and throughout construction-related activity. Responsible Department or Agency: Project sponsor, all contractors, and CDD. Compliance Verification: CDD review and approval of construction documents. Verification in field by Building Inspection Division. RECOMMENDATION(S): OPEN the public hearing and ask if any notified property owners wish to be heard as to the four items specified in Section B below, CLOSE Public Hearing. Upon completion and closing of the hearing, MAKE the findings and determinations listed under Section B below and ADOPT the attached Resolution of Necessity No. 2021/134 to acquire the required property by eminent domain. Project No.: 0662-6R4083 FISCAL IMPACT: In eminent domain actions, the judgment will be the price paid for the property, and may include court costs that are regarded as a roughly calculable expense of property acquisition. Costs of acquisition in this case are funded by Federal Highway Bridge Program Funds (88.53%) and Local Road Funds (11.47%). (DCD-CP No. 15-41) APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Angela Bell, 925. 957-2451 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Resolution of Necessity No. 2021/134 for the Marsh Creek Road Bridges #28C-143 & 28C145 Replacement Project, Brentwood and Clayton areas. BACKGROUND: A. Proposed Project Contra Costa County Public Works Department is proposing to proceed with the Marsh Creek Drive Bridges Project (“Project”) to replace two bridges on Marsh Creek Road, approximately 4 miles apart from each other, located between the Clayton and Brentwood areas. County Bridge No. 28c-0143 (Bridge 143) is located near the Clayton Palms Mobile Home park, and County Bridge No. 28c-0145 (Bridge 145) is located near the Camino Diablo “Y” and Marsh Creek Reservoir. Both bridges are at the end of their service life and require replacement to bring them to current standards. The Project is federally funded and administered by the State of California, Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) through the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP). The HBP will fund 88.5% of the Project costs; the remaining 11.5% of Project costs will be paid from County Road Funds. The bridge structures will be single-span concrete bridges with spans of approximately 80 feet in length over Marsh Creek. Each Project site will require significant road reconstruction, from 600 feet to 1000 feet on each roadway approach on each side of each bridge structure. This road reconstruction work is necessary to reconnect the realigned bridges to the existing roadway. Project-related work will include drainage, creek work, and the relocation of a Contra Costa Water District-owned waterline. On August 4, 2020, this Board approved the Project and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program for this Project. The Notice of Determination was filed by the County Clerk Recorders Office on August 14, 2020 and posted at the State Clearinghouse on September 2, 2020 all in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SCH No.: 2020040312/DCD-CP #15-41. On November 26, 2019, Caltrans approved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code, Section 326. Caltrans determined that this Project has no significant impacts on the environment, as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117(b). In order to proceed with the Project, it is necessary for the County to exercise its power of eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice was given to all persons listed on the attached Exhibit “A” whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll. This notice consisted of sending by first-class and certified mail on March 29, 2021, a Notice of Intention that notified these owners that a hearing is scheduled for April 27, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. in the Board's Chambers, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California, at which time they may appear to be heard on the matters referred to in the notice. B. Scope of Hearing Per C.C.P. Section 1245.235 1. Public interest and necessity require the proposed Project. The Project includes replacing two existing bridge structures that were constructed in the 1930s. The bridges are located along Marsh Creek Road in Contra Costa County, southeast of Clayton. The two bridges – Bridge 143 and Bridge 145 (“Bridges,” and each a “Bridge”) – exhibit significant signs of deterioration and are considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The structures are in need of safety improvements due to their existing narrow shoulder widths, high average daily traffic count totals, and nonstandard barriers. The Bridges have been assigned low sufficiency ratings and therefore are eligible to be replaced through the federal HBP. Caltrans District 4 Local Assistance, which has been delegated the responsibility of managing the federal HBP in California, has formally agreed has been delegated the responsibility of managing the federal HBP in California, has formally agreed that replacing each Bridge is the most cost-effective solution to remediate these various deficiencies. The Project will replace each Bridge with a new Bridge structure that will accommodate two 12-foot vehicle travel lanes (one in each direction of travel), two 8-foot-wide shoulders (one in each direction of travel), and Caltrans-approved concrete barriers, for a total Bridge width of approximately 43 feet for each Bridge. The new Bridges will be precast, pre-stressed concrete girder, single-span structures supported on reinforced concrete seat type abutments. The span length for each Bridge will be 80 feet over Marsh Creek, which is approximately 20 to 40 feet longer than the existing spans. 2. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. In order to ensure the Project was designed to be feasible, effective, and appropriate for the Project sites, an alternatives analysis was performed for each site. During the Project development process, multiple alignment alternatives were evaluated for the Bridge replacement at each site. The alternatives ranged from reconstructing each replacement Bridge using the existing Bridge alignments, to realignments in close proximity to the existing Bridges. The option that best balanced all of the design criteria including cost, impacts to surrounding facilities, avoiding and reducing impacts to private properties, reducing impacts to traffic during construction, design speed, and safety, was a Project design that realigned the roadway approaches and each Bridge allowing for single stage Bridge construction slightly to the east of the current alignment of Bridge 143, and slightly to the north of the current alignment of Bridge 145. The Project will utilize single stage construction for the Bridge work and staged construction for the roadway approach work to maintain two lanes of vehicular traffic (one in each direction of travel) throughout Project construction. To accommodate the single stage Bridge construction, and in order to improve the roadway alignment at the Bridges, there will be approximately 700 to 1,000 linear feet of roadway approach reconstruction work at each end of Bridge 143, and approximately 600 to 800 linear feet of roadway approach reconstruction at each end of Bridge 145. 3. The properties sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project, The property interests sought for this Project are described in the resolution of necessity and its Appendix A. These property interests are necessary for the replacement of the Bridges, reconstruction of the approach roadways to each new Bridge structure, relocation of utilities, and other Project-related activities, based on Project design and planning. All efforts have been made to reduce physical and operational impacts to adjacent properties both during and after Project construction. The Project cannot be constructed as planned without the acquisition of these property interests. 4. The offers of compensation required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code have been made to the owners of record . The County, through the Real Estate Division of the Public Works Department, has made an offer of just compensation to the owner of record for the properties and property rights and interests required for this project. The offer was based on an appraisal of the fair market value of the property rights being acquired. In this case, efforts were made to acquire each required property or property right or interest through negotiated purchase and sale instead of condemnation. Attempts to negotiate a settlement involved the County making phone calls, leaving voicemail messages and sending emails to negotiate a settlement. The County also made visits to the best-known addresses of some of the property owners. However, negotiations were not successful, requiring the County to proceed with the adoption of this Resolution of Necessity. Resolution of Necessity. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will be unable to acquire the property rights necessary for the project. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2021/134 Appendix A Exhibit A Exhibit B MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/134 Recorded at the request of:Angela Bell, Public Works Real Estate Division Return To:Public Works Real Estate Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorDiane Burgis, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/134 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, by vote of four-fifths or more of its members, RESOLVES that: Pursuant to Government Code Section 25350.5 and Streets & Highways Code Section 943, Contra Costa County intends to replace two existing bridges (Bridge No. 28C-143 and Bridge No. 28C-145) and related roadway approaches on Marsh Creek Road, a County highway, in the Brentwood and Clayton areas of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Project). The Project includes replacing the bridge structures and reconstructing 600 to 1000 feet of road right of way on each side of each new bridge structure to reconnect the realigned bridge to the existing roadway. Project-related work will include drainage, creek work, and the relocation of a Contra Costa Water District owned waterline. In connection therewith, the County must acquire interests in certain real property. WHEREAS, The property to be acquired consists of thirty (30) parcels that are generally located in the Brentwood and Clayton areas of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The property is more particularly described in Appendix "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, On March 29, 2021, notice of the County's intention to adopt a resolution of necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of the real properties described in Appendix "A" was sent to persons whose names appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll as owners of said property. The notice specified April 27, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors Chambers in the Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, Martinez, California, as the date, time, and place for the hearing thereon. WHEREAS, The hearing was held on that date and at that time and place, and all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. Based upon the evidence presented to it, this Board finds, determines, and hereby declares the following: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; and 2. The proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. The property described herein is necessary for the proposed Project; and 4. The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code was made to the owner or owners of record. 5. Insofar as any of the property described in this resolution has heretofore been dedicated to a public use, the acquisition and use of such properties by Contra Costa County for the purposes identified herein is for a more necessary public use than the use to which the property have already been appropriated, or is for a compatible public use. This determination and finding is made and this resolution is adopted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510 and 1240.610. On November 26, 2019, Caltrans approved a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion, pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code, Section 326. Caltrans determined that this project has no significant impacts on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117(b). On August 4, 2020, this Board APPROVED the proposed Project and ADOPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program pertaining to this Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).A Notice of Determination was filed by the County’s Clerk Recorders Office on August 14, 2020 and posted at the State Clearinghouse on September 2, all in compliance with CEQA. SCH No.: 2020040312/DCD-CP #15-41 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The County Counsel of this County is hereby AUTHORIZED and EMPOWERED: To acquire in the County's name, by condemnation, the titles, easements and rights of way hereinafter described in and to said real property or interest(s) therein, in accordance with the provisions for eminent domain in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Constitution of the State of California: Parcels 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 6-1, 9-3, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 17-1, and 18-1 are to be acquired as permanent Roadway Easements; Parcels 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11 are to be acquired as permanent Slope and Drainage Easements; Parcels 7-3 and 13-3 are to be acquired as permanent Slope Easements; Parcels 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 8-1, 8-2, 11-2, 11-3, 11-4, 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 15-1, 17-2, 18-2, are to be acquired as Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs). Each of those TCEs will be exclusive for period of twenty-one (21) months, commencing August 15, 2021, and continuing through and terminating on May 14, 2023. Parcel 5-1 is to be acquired as a Temporary Construction Easement (TCE), which will be exclusive commencing September 15, 2021, and continuing through and terminating on July 30, 2022. To prepare and prosecute in the County's name such proceed-ings in the proper court as are necessary for such acquisition; and To deposit the probable amount of compensation based on an appraisal, and to apply to said court for an order permitting the County to take immediate possession and use said real property for said public uses and purposes. Contact: Angela Bell, 925. 957-2451 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Exhibit B G:\realprop\Marsh Creek Road Bridge Replacement (143&145)\Condemnation\Exhibit B Map.docx RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the hearing on the proposed formation of Zone 3007 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 3007 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. 2021/137, attached hereto, establishing Zone 3007 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: 04/27/2021 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, 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:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FORMATION OF ZONE 3007 IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA OF P-6 IN THE NORTH RICHMOND AREA OF THE COUNTY (DISTRICT I) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. #9423 (County File #SD15-9423), 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 5.83-acre site located at 2200 Central Street in the North Richmond area of the County. On March 23, 2021, the Board granted conceptual approval for a June 29, 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 North Richmond area of the County. On March 23, 2021, the Board approved Resolution No. 2021/90, 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 June 29, 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. 2021/137, which would establish Zone 3007 subject to voter approval of the special tax. A separate hearing is also scheduled for April 27, 2021, to consider the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the levy of the tax. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Zone 3007 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 2021/137 Resolution 2021/137 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Resolution No. 2021/90 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/137 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/137 IN THE MATTER OF CREATING ZONE 3007 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE NORTH RICHMOND 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 3007 of County Service Area P-6. 2. A majority protest against the proposed formation of Zone 3007 does not exist, pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b). 3. Subject to voter approval of Ordinance No. 2021-07 on June 29, 2021, authorizing the levy of a special tax within proposed Zone 3007, 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 3007 of County Service Area P-6, effective upon this Board’s adoption of a resolution declaring the results of the June 29, 2021, election (“Effective Date”). 4. No affected properties located in Zone 3007 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION (APN 408-190-004) THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF LOT "L", AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JULY 1, 1907 IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 7 AND A PORTION OF LOT 201, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAN PABLO RANCHO, ACCOMPANYING AND FORMING A PART OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN PARTITION", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 1, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 0° 09' EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT "L'", 496 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL TWO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRONDONA, ET AL, TO CARL ALFRED GRONDONA, DATED MAY 17, 1937 AND RECORDED MAY 22, 1937 IN BOOK 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 187; THENCE WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 260 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT "K" AS DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP OF SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH; THENCE SOUTH 87° 45' WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "K", 82 FEET, TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL THREE IN SAID DEED TO GRONDONA (439 OR 187); NORTH 89° 44' WEST, 169.76 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE 5.825 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO GIOVANI CASAZZA IN THE DEED FROM CHARLES E. CASAZZA, DATED APRIL 12, 1955 AND RECORDED APRIL 20, 1955 IN BOOK 2518 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 361; THENCE SOUTH 0° 9' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 493.42 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 511.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEEDS RECORDED JULY 30, 2020 AS DOCUMENT NOS. 2020-0156612 AND 2020-0156613, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Said property is being subdivided as SD15-9423. JACQUELINE LUK, PLS 8934 DATE: 07/30/2020 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 03/23/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/90 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 3006 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE NORTH RICHMOND 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 North Richmond 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 3006 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 3006" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 2021, 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 3006 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: March 23, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2021-07, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 3007 of County Service area P-6 in the North Richmond area of the County; CONSIDER oral and written comments received; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-07, attached hereto. 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/138, attached hereto, authorizing an election in Zone 3007 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2021-07. 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 June 29, 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: 04/27/2021 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SPECIAL TAX ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE ELECTION TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL (DISTRICT I) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. 9423 (County File #SD15-9423), 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 5.83-acre site located at 2200 Central Street in the North Richmond area of the County. On March 23, 2021, the Board approved Resolution No. 2021/90, 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 North Richmond 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 June 29, 2021, election. The Board is scheduled to conduct a separate hearing on April 27, 2021, 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. 2021/138, establishing CSA P-6, Zone 3007 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. 2021-07), which would authorize the levy of a special tax for police protection services on all taxable parcels in the area of Zone 3007 if a special tax ballot measure is approved by a two-thirds majority of the registered voters in the zone area. Resolution No. 2021/138, 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 June 29, 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 2021/138 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Ordinance No. 2021-07 Resolution No. 2021/90 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/138 Signed Ordinance 2021-07 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/138 IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TAX IN PROPOSED ZONE 3007 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. 2021-07, adopted on this date, is to be presented for approval of the voters of proposed Zone 3007 of County Service Area P-6 at the election to be held on June 29, 2021, according to the following ballot proposition: “Shall Ordinance No. 2021-07, to provide additional funding for police protection services, be approved to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 3007 of County Service Area P-6 in the North Richmond 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, 2022?" 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION (APN 408-190-004) THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF LOT "L", AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JULY 1, 1907 IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 7 AND A PORTION OF LOT 201, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAN PABLO RANCHO, ACCOMPANYING AND FORMING A PART OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN PARTITION", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 1, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 0° 09' EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT "L'", 496 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL TWO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRONDONA, ET AL, TO CARL ALFRED GRONDONA, DATED MAY 17, 1937 AND RECORDED MAY 22, 1937 IN BOOK 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 187; THENCE WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 260 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT "K" AS DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP OF SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH; THENCE SOUTH 87° 45' WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "K", 82 FEET, TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL THREE IN SAID DEED TO GRONDONA (439 OR 187); NORTH 89° 44' WEST, 169.76 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE 5.825 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO GIOVANI CASAZZA IN THE DEED FROM CHARLES E. CASAZZA, DATED APRIL 12, 1955 AND RECORDED APRIL 20, 1955 IN BOOK 2518 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 361; THENCE SOUTH 0° 9' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 493.42 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 511.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEEDS RECORDED JULY 30, 2020 AS DOCUMENT NOS. 2020-0156612 AND 2020-0156613, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Said property is being subdivided as SD15-9423. JACQUELINE LUK, PLS 8934 DATE: 07/30/2020 Ordinance No. 2021-07 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-07 (Uncodified) (An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County) Authorizing a Special Tax for Police Protection Services in Zone 3007 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 3007 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 3007 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 3007 (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. 2021-07 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, 2022 through June 30, 2023) 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. 2021-07 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. 2021-07 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 3007 in an election to be held on June 29, 2021, so that taxes shall first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 2022. 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 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on April 27, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: __________________________ _____________________________________ Deputy Chair of the Board of Supervisors [SEAL] EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION (APN 408-190-004) THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF LOT "L", AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JULY 1, 1907 IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 7 AND A PORTION OF LOT 201, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF THE SAN PABLO RANCHO, ACCOMPANYING AND FORMING A PART OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN PARTITION", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 1, 1894, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 0° 09' EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT "L'", 496 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL TWO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRONDONA, ET AL, TO CARL ALFRED GRONDONA, DATED MAY 17, 1937 AND RECORDED MAY 22, 1937 IN BOOK 439 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 187; THENCE WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 260 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT "K" AS DESIGNATED ON SAID MAP OF SAMPSON-TAMS RANCH; THENCE SOUTH 87° 45' WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "K", 82 FEET, TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL THREE IN SAID DEED TO GRONDONA (439 OR 187); NORTH 89° 44' WEST, 169.76 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE 5.825 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO GIOVANI CASAZZA IN THE DEED FROM CHARLES E. CASAZZA, DATED APRIL 12, 1955 AND RECORDED APRIL 20, 1955 IN BOOK 2518 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 361; THENCE SOUTH 0° 9' WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 493.42 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT "L"; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 511.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE QUITCLAIM DEEDS RECORDED JULY 30, 2020 AS DOCUMENT NOS. 2020-0156612 AND 2020-0156613, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Said property is being subdivided as SD15-9423. JACQUELINE LUK, PLS 8934 DATE: 07/30/2020 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-07 ZONE 3007 FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2022, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 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 03/23/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/90 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 3006 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE NORTH RICHMOND 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 North Richmond 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 3006 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 3006" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 2021, 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 3006 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: March 23, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the hearing on the proposed formation of Zone 213 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 213 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. 2021/139, attached hereto, establishing Zone 213 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: 04/27/2021 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FORMATION OF ZONE 213 IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA OF P-6 IN THE BAY POINT AREA OF THE COUNTY (DISTRICT V) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. #9340 (County File #SD13-9340), 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 2.42-acre site located at 589 Pacifica Avenue in the Bay Point area of the County. On March 23, 2021, the Board granted conceptual approval for a June 29, 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 March 23, 2021, the Board approved Resolution No. 2021/91, 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 June 29, 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. 2021/139, which would establish Zone 213 subject to voter approval of the special tax. A separate hearing is also scheduled for April 27, 2021, to consider the adoption of an ordinance authorizing the levy of the tax. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Zone 213 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 2021/139 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Resolution No. 2021/91 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/139 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/139 IN THE MATTER OF CREATING ZONE 213 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE BAY POINT 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 213 of County Service Area P-6. 2. A majority protest against the proposed formation of Zone 213 does not exist, pursuant to Government Code Section 25217.1, subdivision (b). 3. Subject to voter approval of Ordinance No. 2021-08 on June 29, 2021, authorizing the levy of a special tax within proposed Zone 213, 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 213 of County Service Area P-6, effective upon this Board’s adoption of a resolution declaring the results of the June 29, 2021, election (“Effective Date”). 4. No affected properties located in Zone 213 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , 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 03/23/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/91 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 213 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE BAY POINT 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 Bay Point 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 213 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 213" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 2021, 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 213 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: March 23, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN hearing to consider adopting Ordinance No. 2021-08, authorizing the levy of a special tax for police protection services in Zone 213 of County Service area P-6 in the Bay Point area of the County; CONSIDER oral and written comments received; and CLOSE the public hearing. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-08, attached hereto. 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/140, attached hereto, authorizing an election in Zone 213 of County Service Area P-6 to consider approval of Ordinance No. 2021-08. 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 June 29, 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: 04/27/2021 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena D. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED SPECIAL TAX ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE ELECTION TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL (DISTRICT V) BACKGROUND: Per the conditions of approval for Subdivision No. 9340 (County File #SD13-9340), 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 2.42-acre site located at 589 Pacifica Avenue in the Bay Point area of the County. On March 23, 2021, the Board approved Resolution No. 2021/91, 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 Bay Point 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 June 29, 2021, election. The Board is scheduled to conduct a separate hearing on April 27, 2021, 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. 2021/140, establishing CSA P-6, Zone 213 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. 2021-08), which would authorize the levy of a special tax for police protection services on all taxable parcels in the area of Zone 213 if a special tax ballot measure is approved by a two-thirds majority of the registered voters in the zone area. Resolution No. 2021/140, 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 June 29, 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 2021/140 Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Ordinance No. 2021-08 Resolution No. 2021/91 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/140 Signed Ordinance No. 2021-08 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/140 IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TAX IN PROPOSED ZONE 213 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. 2021-08, adopted on this date, is to be presented for approval of the voters of proposed Zone 213 of County Service Area P-6 at the election to be held on June 29, 2021, according to the following ballot proposition: “Shall Ordinance No. 2021-08, to provide additional funding for police protection services, be approved to authorize a special tax on property located in Zone 213 of County Service Area P-6 in the Bay Point 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, 2022?" 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) 655-2867 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Rosa Mena Ordinance No. 2021-08 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-08 (Uncodified) (An Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County) Authorizing a Special Tax for Police Protection Services in Zone 213 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 213 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 213 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 213 (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. 2021-08 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, 2022 through June 30, 2023) 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. 2021-08 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. 2021-08 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 213 in an election to be held on June 29, 2021, so that taxes shall first be collected hereunder for the tax year beginning July 1, 2022. 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 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, County of Contra Costa, State of California, on April 27, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: MONICA NINO, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: __________________________ _____________________________________ Deputy Chair of the Board of Supervisors [SEAL] ORDINANCE NO. 2021-08 ZONE 213 FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2022, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 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 03/23/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/91 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ZONE 213 OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA P-6 IN THE BAY POINT 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 Bay Point 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 213 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 213" of CSA P-6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT at 9:30 a.m. on April 27, 2021, 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 213 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: March 23, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Rosa Mena 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: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Monica Nino I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Update on COVID -19 CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Jan, M.D., resident of Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Covid-19 Update D.9 April 27 2021  Covid 19 Update Report      Anna Roth, Health Services Director    A major milestone in the pandemic has been met.  Health Services had set a goal of delivering one million vaccines by July 4th, then  revised that to Memorial Day.  This goal was met over the weekend.  Contra Costa created a system that is delivering more than  90,000 doses of the vaccine per week.   The positive trend of lessening cases that allowed the County to move into the Orange Tier has now flattened. In order to move to the yellow tier, the occurrence of new cases of infection needs to be below two per 100,000 residents. The current rate is 4.8. Contra Costa is expected to remain in the orange tier until at least June 15, 2021 when the Blueprint for A Safe Economy is updated or discontinued by the Governor. The number of people dying from Covid-19 in Contra Costa is on a steady decline. Health Services is watching a new trend with concern. Younger people are getting infected and being hospitalized. The average age of those who die from the virus has changed from 73 years old in March to 64 years old in April. The most powerful defense against the virus is vaccination. Health Services wants to make it easy as possible for those people who haven't yet gotten a vaccine. There are 9,000 appointments available in the next seven days. There is no backlog. You can go online to cc health.org and book directly. You don't have to wait for a ticket or wonder if you are eligible. Everyone 16 or over is eligible. Walk-in sites are available, no appointment necessary. To find out exactly the closest vaccination site to you or where those walk -n sites are, visit cc health.org or call (833)829-2626. Between April 15th and the 26th, the County’s mobile teams provided 7,000 vaccines in the hardest hit communities between Brentwood and Richmond. Health Services is grateful to our community partners for making this possible including United Latino Voices, One Accord, and the churches and faith leaders that have stepped forward to make this possible, in addition to efforts by the firefighters. The community commitment to get the vaccines out has been truly awe inspiring. Vaccines work better when everyone is vaccinated - the concept of community immunity or herd immunity. Between the ages of 16-50, there are 225,000 people in Contra Costa County who have yet to be vaccinated. Ms. Roth encourages residents to talk to each other about their vaccine questions. CCheath.org website has a page frequently asked questions. Health Services has been tracking questions about the vaccines. If you go to the frequently asked question page, you can learn the common answer to the questions many, many people have been having. We can't emphasize enough that we really want you to get your vaccine today, right? We have tried to make it easy as possible. We have moved vaccine sites into neighborhoods across the community. A vaccine call line is available. Please make your appointment to get your vaccine. Dr. Farnitano, Public Health Officer The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was briefly paused in the United States due to concerns about a rare side effect of blood clots. The CDC (Center for Disease Control) as well as the western state scientific panel have reviewed the evidence carefully, and they have concluded the risk is so small, and it is far outweighed by the tremendous benefit in the vaccine preventing people from getting seriously ill from covid-19 infection. There have been in total about 15 cases of this reaction nationwide out of nearly 8,000,000 doses administered of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. That's an overall risk of two out of 1,000,000 people. Most of the cases were women under 50. Even in that age group of women, the risk is estimated to be seven in a million. A very rare side effect. Contra Costa County has Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. People who would prefer the one-dose Johnson & Johnson will be able to choose that one. At County sites, a person can choose a one-dose or two-dose vaccine. The mobile teams will be scheduling specific days on which they have the one or two dose version. It is expected that approval will be granted for the vaccination of teens 12-15 within a few weeks. Health Services has been working closely with our partner school districts to plan for some vaccine events, community vaccine events at local middle schools and high schools for those students and families and other members of the community to come to their local school to be vaccinated. We expect there to be some break-through cases with the vaccines, those cases in which a vaccinated person still contracts the virus. The vaccines are not 100% effective in preventing covid, but they are 100% effective in preventing severe illness or death. Health Services has tracked 128 cases of breakthrough cases in the county reported over the last three months. Some were symptomatic, many were a-symptomatic. That works out to one or two cases per day of someone fully vaccinated from covid testing positive compared to over 100 cases a day we have been seeing among the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. There were identified about four hospitalized cases, people hospitalized with covid fully vaccinated in the past four months. That is in comparison to have had several hundred cases of hospitalized cases during that timeframe of unvaccinated persons. The vaccines are incredibly effective, very powerful vaccines. While not perfect, they dramatically prevent cases and more so hospitalizations and deaths from covid. Health Services is tracking the new variant strains of covid, actually having begun the whole gene sequencing in the County’s own public health lab. The county purchased our own machine and sequenced 82 specimens with plans to increase within our own lab. In addition to that, we continue to send specimens to an outside lab for general surveillance. 60 to 90 specimens a week. The goal is to do random sampling, as well as targeted surveillance with people hospitalized or have other concerns about possibly having a variant. The most common variant seen is this west coast variant. That's the one predominant throughout california. We are also seeing increasing numbers of the B1.1.7 -- otherwise known as the U.K. variant. Contra Costa has identified 32 cases of that one. That's concerning because it seems to spread more easily and cause more severe disease. We think we are going to continue to see an increase with sequencing. Of note, throughout California, in March, about 20% of the sequences were the U.K. variant and now increased to 40% throughout California and April are the U.K. variant. It was late to arrive in California compared to other places in the east coast and midwest, but we are seeing more of the u.k. variant which makes it even more important for people to get vaccinated because the covid that's in the community is more easy to spread and more lethal, more severe. The vaccine still works against the variant. So far Contra Costa has seen only one case of the P1 Brazil variant and no cases of the B1351 known as the South Africa variant. There was concern about a fourth wave following the Easter and Passover holidays and spring break travel, and fortunately, there has not been an increased rate of cases. That is mainly because we have gotten the vaccines out so quickly. California has opened up slower than other parts of the country which has seen a spring fourth wave. Contra Costa is currently in the Orange tier. In actuality, it's a tale of two counties. Contra Costa is really a purple county and yellow county at the same time. We have 430,000 of our residents fully vaccinated. We have 200,000 people partially vaccinated and 300,000 adults with yet to begin the adult process. That's not counting the 200,000 children yet not eligible, underage 16, not eligible to be vaccinated. If you look at the case rates in our unvaccinated adults where we are seeing most of the case, that rate is three to four times the overall case rate in the county. At the current level of 20 positive cases a day, not just five or six cases per day, overall,Contra Costa would be in the purple tier. The number of unvaccinated is shrinking, the case rate over all is staying level. The case rate among the unvaccinated is increasing. For those fully vaccinated, yellow county conditions apply, where it's safe to do a lot of activities, indoor dining, getting together with friends, but those who are unvaccinated, purple conditions apply, where the activities are dangerous, and poeple are at high risk of getting covid and getting sick. Everyone that hasn't started the process of getting vaccinated should schedule an appointment. RECOMMENDATION(S): Ratify the Health Services Department's expenditure strategies and objectives, and initiatives plan and acceptance of the approximate award of $39,500,000 Federal Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) Enhancing Detection through Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Funds for the period from January 15, 2021 through July 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: The award will result in approximately $39.5M, and most likely up to $39,451,314 in federal funds the state is passing through to counties, which allows for 1) continuation of staff currently funded by Phase 1 of the ELC in the amount of $3,452,880; 2) replacement funding for positions funded by the expiring CARES funding in the amount of $20,468,758; and 3) for new projects subject to Federal and State guidelines in the amount of $15,529,676. Of the new project funding, $9,520,832 (61%) is directed to Health Equity initiatives and the remainder $6,008,844 (39%) will be directed to new infrastructure projects to address COVID-19 within our communities. BACKGROUND: Each California Local Health Jurisdiction (LHJ) (excluding Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Pasadena) is awarded a base of $1,000,000. The balance of funds were distributed based on the proportion each LHJ contributes APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5405 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jackie Peterson, Marcy Wilhelm D.10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Award of Approximately $39.5 million ELC Supplemental Funds BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to the 2019 population (50% of allocation), the proportion each LHJ contributes to the 2019 population in poverty (25% of allocation), and the proportion each LHJ contributes to the population that is Black/African American, Latinx, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (25% of allocation). Population and race/ethnicity data are from the Department of Finance, and population in poverty are calculated using 2019 Census Estimates. As required, the expenditure of grant dollars must focus on meeting objectives within six (6) strategies, with a special emphasis on health equity throughout the strategies. See attachment 1 for full details of strategies 1-6. The six (6) strategies are as follows: 1. Enhance laboratory, surveillance, informatics and other workforce capacity 2. Strengthen laboratory testing 3. Advance electronic data exchange at Public Health Labs 4. Improve surveillance and reporting of electronic health data 5. Use laboratory data to enhance investigations, response, and prevention 6. Coordinate and engage with partners Contra Costa Health Services staff consulted subject matter experts, and State and local officials on how to best spend the grant dollars allocated to Contra Costa County meeting prescriptive six (6) strategies while addressing Health Equity concerns within the community. The following initiatives were identified: 1. Continue community COVID-19 testing and increase critical workforce capability associated with the COVID-19 pandemic response Continue community disease investigation and contact tracing 2. New lab software, upgrades to improve real time data automation for analysis of infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2, supporting the identification of disproportionally impacted priority populations to allow for targeted outreach and service delivery 3. Automate and improve Communicable Disease workflows to prepare for future disease outbreaks 4. Public information and education campaigns to target high risk communities and website redesign and community engagement tools 5. Funding to support the transition of unhoused individuals from Project Roomkey to sheltered congregate facilities 6. Various lab supplies, equipment, and HIPAA compliant tool to support community surveys CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will not receive the approximate $39.5 million grant from the California Department of Public Health. ATTACHMENTS Attachment No 1 Strategies Strategy 1: Enhance Laboratory, Surveillance, Informatics and other Workforce Capacity 1. Train and hire staff to improve laboratory workforce ability to address issues around laboratory safety, quality management, inventory management, specimen management, diagnostic and surveillance testing and reporting results. 2. Build expertise for healthcare and community outbreak response and infection prevention and control (IPC) among local health departments. 3. Train and hire staff to improve the capacities of the epidemiology and informatics workforce to effectively conduct surveillance and response of COVID-19 (including case investigation and contact tracing) and other emerging infections and conditions of public health significance. This should include staff who can address unique cultural needs of those put at higher risk for COVID-19. 4. Build expertise to support management of the COVID-19 related activities within the jurisdiction and integrate into the broader ELC portfolio of activities (e.g., additional leadership, program and project managers, budget staff, etc.). 5. Increase capacity for timely data management, analysis, and reporting for COVID-19 and other emerging coronavirus and other infections and conditions of public health significance. Strategy 2: Strengthen Laboratory Testing 1. Establish or expand capacity to quickly, accurately and safely test for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and build infectious disease preparedness for future coronavirus and other events involving other pathogens with potential for broad community spread. a. Develop systems to improve speed and efficiency of specimen submission to clinical and reference laboratories. b. Strengthen ability to quickly scale testing [e.g., nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), antigen, etc.] as necessary to ensure that optimal utilization of existing and new testing platforms can be supported to help meet increases in testing demand in a timely manner. Laboratories are strongly encouraged to diversify their testing platforms to enable them to pivot depending on reagent and supply availabilities. c. Perform serology testing with an FDA EUA authorized serological assay in order to conduct surveillance for past infection and monitor community exposure. d. Work with LHDs, including through sub-awards, to build local capacity for testing of COVID-19/SARS-CoV- 2 including within high-risk settings or in vulnerable populations that reside in their communities. e. Apply laboratory safety methods to ensure worker safety when managing and testing samples that may contain SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. f. Implement alternative surveillance methods, including sequencing, wastewater surveillance, regional testing centers for surveillance and screening, etc. and link with other relevant surveillance systems (e.g., immunization registry). [This activity is optional and should complement other already funded activities.] g. Augment or add specificity to existing laboratory response plans for future coronavirus and other outbreak responses caused by an infectious disease. h. Support national surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 by submitting representative, deidentified samples to CDC for sequencing through the National SARS-CoV-2 Strain Surveillance (NS3) program. i. Expand the use of SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequencing and molecular epidemiology for state and local surveillance and response. 2. Enhance laboratory testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 outside of public health laboratories a. Conduct surveillance of all SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing resources and map the jurisdictional testing resources that exist outside the public health arena (e.g., point of care, private, academic, etc.). b. Establish or expand capacity to coordinate with public/private laboratory testing providers, including those that assist with surge and with testing for high-risk environments. c. Secure and/or utilize mobile laboratory units, or other methods to provide POC testing (including antigen testing) at public health-led clinics or non-traditional test sites including but not limited to shelters or other places of congregate housing, food processing plants, correctional facilities, Long Term Care Facilities (LTCF), elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and institutions of higher education. d. Ensure public/private laboratory testing providers, including those providing POC testing at public health- led clinics or non-traditional test sites, are provided biosafety resources for SARS-CoV-2 specimen collection and/or testing. 3. Enhance data management and analytic capacity in public health laboratories to help improve efficiencies in operations, management, testing, and data sharing. a. Improve efficiencies in laboratory operations and management using data from throughput, staffing, billing, supplies, and orders. Ensure ability to track inventory of testing reagents by device/platform, among other things. b. Improve the capacity to analyze laboratory data to help understand and make informed decisions about issues such as gaps in testing and community mitigation efforts. Data elements such as tests ordered and completed (including by device/platform), rates of positivity, source of samples, specimen collection sites, and test type will be used to create data visualizations that will be shared with the public, local health departments, and federal partners. Strategy 3: Advance Electronic Data Exchange at Public Health Labs 1. Enhance and expand laboratory information infrastructure, to improve jurisdictional visibility on laboratory data (tests performed) from all testing sites and enable faster and more complete data exchange and reporting. a. Employ a well-functioning Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) system to support efficient data flows within the PHL and its partners. This includes expanding existing capacity of the current LIMS to improve data exchange and increase data flows through LIMS maintenance, new configurations/modules, and enhancements. Implement new/replacement LIMS where needed. Note: If implementing new or replacement systems, develop an implementation plan, including appropriate milestones and timeline to completion. Implementation plans will be reviewed and approved for consistency with the activities set forth in the ELC awards by CDC prior to start of implementation. b. Ensure ability to administer LIMS. Ensure the ability to configure all tests that are in LIMS, including new tests, EUAs, etc., in a timely manner. Ensure expanding needs for administration and management of LIMS system are covered through dedicated staff. c. Interface diagnostic equipment to directly report laboratory results into LIMS. d. Put a web portal in place to support online ordering and reporting. Integrate the web portal into the LIMS. Note: If implementing new or replacement systems, develop an implementation plan, including appropriate milestones and timeline to completion. Implementation plans will be reviewed and approved for consistency with the activities set forth in the ELC awards by CDC prior to start of implementation. e. Enhance laboratory test ordering and reporting capability. i. Implement or improve capacity to consume and produce electronic HL7 test orders and result reporting (ETOR) to allow laboratories and healthcare providers to directly exchange standardized test orders and results across different facilities and electronic information systems using agreed upon standards. ii. 100% of results must be reported with key demographic variables including age/gender/race. iii. Report all testing to the health department and CDC using HL7 ELR. Strategy 4: Improve Surveillance and Reporting of Electronic Health Data Conducting the activities in this section to enable comprehensive, automated, daily reporting to the CDC and others in a machine-readable format, is a requirement of accepting these funds. See CDC website(s) for required data elements. Websites will be amended as requirements are updated. A. Lab Reporting: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/reporting-lab-data.html#what-to-report B. Case Reporting: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/reporting-pui.html. 1. Establish complete, up-to-date, timely, automated reporting of morbidity and mortality to CDC and others due to COVID-19 and other coronavirus and other emerging infections which impact conditions of public health significance, with required associated data fields in a machine-readable format, by: a. Establishing or enhancing community-based surveillance, including surveillance of vulnerable populations, individuals without severe illness, those with recent travel to high-risk locations, or who are contacts to known cases. b. Monitoring changes to daily incidence rates of COVID-19 and other conditions of public health significance at the county or zip code level to inform community mitigation strategies. 2. Establish additional and on-going surveillance methods (e.g. sentinel surveillance) for COVID-19 and other conditions of public health significance. 3. Establish complete, up-to-date, timely, automated reporting of individual-level data through electronic case reporting to CDC and others in a machine-readable format (ensuring LHD have access to data that is reported): a. At the health department, enhance capacity to work with testing facilities to onboard and improve electronic laboratory reporting (ELR), including to receive data from new or non-traditional testing settings. Use alternative data flows (e.g., reporting portals) and file formats (e.g., CSV or XLS) to help automate where appropriate. In addition to other reportable results, this should include all COVID- 19/SARS-CoV-2-related testing data (i.e., tests to detect SAR-CoV-2 including serology testing). b. Automate receiving EHR data, including eCR and FHIR-base eCR Now, to generate initial case report as specified by CDC for the reportable disease within 24 hours and to update over time within 24 hours of a change in information contained in the CDC-directed case report, including death. Utilize eCR data to ensure data completeness, establish comprehensive morbidity and mortality surveillance, and help monitor the health of the community and inform decisions for the delivery of public health services. c. Develop a project plan for the automated processing of the Electronic Initial Case Report (eICR) and Reportability Response (RR) into health information systems. Prior to implementation of eICR and RR for a specific disease or disease group, plan how data will be used for surveillance workflows (e.g. negative COVID-19 reports from providers), draft reporting specifications, and consumption, as appropriate. Note: As an interim solution, while health information system capacity is being developed, convert to a human readable format and provide for use by appropriate surveillance program personnel. d. Increase connectivity with laboratory and healthcare feeds for epidemiologic analysis (including using automated single CSV files). e. Expand electronic reporting mechanism (e.g., eCR, ELR) to include all conditions of public health significance. 4. Improve understanding of capacity, resources, and patient impact at healthcare facilities through electronic reporting. a. Required expansion of reporting facility capacity, resources, and patient impact information, such as patients admitted and hospitalized, in an electronic, machine-readable, as well as human-readable visual, and tabular manner, to achieve 100% coverage in jurisdiction and include daily data from all acute care, long-term care, and ambulatory care settings. Use these data to monitor facilities with confirmed cases of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection or with COVID-like illness among staff or residents and facilities at high risk of acquiring COVID- 19/SARS-CoV-2 cases and COVID-like illness among staff or residents. b. Increase ADT messaging and use to achieve comprehensive surveillance of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, facility and department transfers, and discharges to provide an early warning signal, to monitor the impact on hospitals, and to understand the growth of serious cases requiring admission. 5. Enhance systems for flexible data collection, reporting, analysis, and visualization. a. Implement new/replacement systems where needed. Ensure systems are interoperable and that data can be linked across systems (e.g., public health, healthcare, private labs), including adding the capacity for lab data and other data to be used by the software/tools that are being deployed for case investigation and contact tracing. Note: 1. If implementing new or replacement systems, develop an implementation plan, including: a. Rationale for acquiring a new/replacement health information surveillance system and information used to make the decision, such as i. gaps in existing system a. options explored prior to making the decision. b. Tasks and efforts required (appropriate milestones). c. Timeline for completion. d. Person responsible for these activities. Implementation plans must be submitted to EDX@cdc.gov, with a copy uploaded into REDCap. Plans will be reviewed and must receive programmatic support from CDC prior to start of implementation. 2. Examples for data linkages and/or interoperability across systems include case surveillance data, vaccination data, vital records, etc. 3. If implementing or expanding immunizations related information technology systems (e.g., registries, data lake, VAMS, vaccine finder, etc.), recipient should work with Immunization Cooperative Agreement Project Officer for long-term support. Once COVID funds are exhausted, ELC Cooperative Agreement will not have resources for ongoing financial assistance with these registries. b. Update/Enhance/Modernize infrastructure to handle large data streams and properly process, triage, and retain data. For example, receiving large numbers of negative test results, triage, process, and use as appropriate. Consider scalable storage (e.g. data lake). c. Data must be made available at the local, state, and federal level. d. Make data on cases, syndromic surveillance, laboratory tests, hospitalization, and healthcare capacity available on health department websites at the county/zip code level in a visual and tabular manner. 6. Establish or improve systems to ensure complete, accurate and immediate (within 24 hrs.) data transmission to a system and open website available to local health officials and the public by county and zip code, that allows for automated transmission of data to the CDC in a machine readable format. a. Increase coverage (Target for emergency departments (ED): 100%) and number of facilities submitting syndromic surveillance data to the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) [https://www.cdc.gov/nssp/index.html] for emergency department (ED) and urgent care facilities for syndromes and illnesses with messages that include the NSSP priority 1 and 2 data elements. b. Submit all case reports in an immediate, automated way to CDC for COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 and other conditions of public health significance with associated required data fields in a machine-readable format. c. Provide accurate accounting of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 associated deaths. Establish electronic, automated, immediate death reporting to CDC with associated required data fields in a machine- readable format. d. Report requested COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2-related data, including line level testing data (negatives, positives, indeterminants, serology, antigen, nucleic acid) daily by county or zip code to the CDC- designated system. e. Establish these systems in such a manner that they may be used on an ongoing basis for surveillance of, and reporting on, routine and other threats to the public health and conditions of public health significance. Strategy 5: Use Laboratory Data to Enhance Investigation, Response and Prevention 1. Use laboratory data to initiate and conduct case investigation and contact tracing and follow up; and implement containment measures. a. Conduct necessary case investigation and contact tracing including contact elicitation/identification, contact notification, contact testing, and follow-up. Activities could include traditional case investigation and contact tracing and/or proximity/location-based methods, as well as methods adapted for healthcare-specific contexts, employers, elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities, institutions of higher education, long-term care facilities, or in other settings. b. Utilize tools (e.g., geographic information systems and methods) that assist in the rapid mapping and tracking of disease cases for timely and effective epidemic monitoring and response, incorporating laboratory testing results and other data sources. 2. Identify cases and exposure to COVID-19 in high-risk settings or within populations at increased risk of severe illness or death to target mitigation strategies and referral for therapies (for example, monoclonal antibodies) to prevent hospitalization. a. Assess and monitor infections in healthcare workers across the healthcare spectrum. b. Monitor cases and exposure to COVID-19 to identify need for targeted mitigation strategies to isolate and prevent further spread within high-risk healthcare facilities (e.g., hospitals, dialysis clinics, cancer clinics, nursing homes, and other long-term care facilities, etc.). c. Monitor cases and exposure to COVID-19 to identify need for targeted mitigation strategies to isolate and prevent further spread within high-risk occupational settings (e.g., meat processing facilities), and congregate living settings (e.g., correctional facilities, youth homes, shelters). d. Work with LHDs to build local capacity for reporting, rapid containment and prevention of COVID- 19/SARS-CoV-2 within high-risk settings or in vulnerable populations that reside in their communities. e. Jurisdictions should ensure systems are in place to link test results to relevant public health strategies, including prevention and treatment. Note: Additional resources Treatment: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/treatments-for- severe-illness.html Public health strategies: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6949e2.htm 3. Implement prevention strategies in high-risk settings or within vulnerable populations (including tribal nations as appropriate) including proactive monitoring for asymptomatic case detection. Note: These additional resources are intended to be directed toward testing, case investigation and contact tracing, surveillance, containment, and mitigation, including support for workforce, epidemiology, use by employers, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, institutions of higher education, long-term care facilities, or in other settings, scale up of testing by public health, academic, commercial, and hospital laboratories, and community-based testing sites, mobile testing units, health care facilities, and other entities engaged in COVID–19 testing, and other related activities related to COVID–19 testing, case investigation and contact tracing, surveillance, containment, and mitigation which may include interstate compacts or other mutual aid agreements for such purposes. a. Build capacity for infection prevention and control in LTCFs (e.g., at least one Infection Preventionist (IP) for every facility) and outpatient settings. i. Build capacity to safely house and isolate infected and exposed residents of LTCFs and other congregate settings. ii. Develop interoperable patient safety information exchange systems. iii. Assist with enrollment of all LTCFs into NHSN and provision of related user support. b. Build capacity for infection prevention and control in elementary and secondary schools, childcare facilities, and/or institutions of higher education. c. Increase Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) assessment capacity onsite using tele-ICAR. d. Perform preparedness assessment to ensure interventions are in place to protect high-risk populations. e. Coordinate as appropriate with federally funded entities responsible for providing health services to higher-risk populations (e.g., tribal nations and federally qualified health centers). Strategy 6: Coordinate and Engage with Partners 1. Partner with LHDs to establish or enhance testing for COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. a. Support appropriate LHDs with acquiring equipment and staffing to conduct testing for COVID- 19/SARS-CoV-2. b. Support LHDs to conduct appropriate specimen collection and/or testing within their jurisdictions. 2. Partner with local, regional, or national organizations or academic institutions to enhance capacity for infection control and prevention of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2. a. Build infection prevention and control and outbreak response expertise in local health departments (LHDs). b. Partner with academic medical centers and schools of public health to develop regional centers for IPC consultation and support services. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP) developed by the Regional Impact Council (RIC). The RAP outlines eight (8) strategies and a program investment framework to reduce unsheltered homelessness in the Bay Area and Contra Costa County by 75% by 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact to approve the regional plan. Long-term fiscal impacts are currently unknown as interventions are scaled and subsequent financial resource needs are calculated to achieve the goal to reduce homelessness. BACKGROUND: All Home is a Bay Area, non-profit organization that advances regional solutions to disrupt the cycles of poverty and homelessness. By working across counties, sectors and silos, All Home seeks to promote coordinated, innovative service delivery and build coalition-supported momentum to challenge the long-standing systems that perpetuate homelessness. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Alicia Nuchols, 925-252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Lavonna Martin, Health Services D.11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Supervisor Diane Burgis & Supervisor Candace Andersen Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:All Home Regional Action Plan (RAP) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In January 2020, All Home launched the Regional Impact Council (RIC), a coalition of elected officials, key stakeholders, and industry leaders from across the nine-county Bay Area that?included former Chair of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Candace Andersen and the Health Services’ Director of Health, Housing, and Homeless Services (H3). Supervisor Diane Burgis, as the current Chair of the Board of Supervisor, assumed the seat on the Regional Impact Council in January 2021 to carry forward the call to action that culminated into a Regional Action Plan (RAP) with a bold, audacious goal reduce unsheltered homelessness by 75% within the next 4 years. And, on February 4, 2021, the specific measurable goals to reduce unsheltered homelessness as outlined in the RAP were introduced to the Contra Costa’s Council on Homelessness for alignment with the homeless system of care’s improvement framework and logic model. With support from the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, the Council on Homelessness, Health Services and its non-profit partners will advance the RAP within Contra Costa County in coordination other Bay Area jurisdictions toward the goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness in the Bay Area by 75% by 2024 through the implementation of the 1-2-4 Framework encompassing investments in interim housing, permanent housing solutions and preventative interventions and related Strategic Priorities, with recognition of local needs and conditions.? The RAP and its implementation are the first phase of the RIC’s?focus on making homelessness rare, brief and non-recurring; increasing housing security; and, expanding economic opportunity and racial equity for people with extremely low incomes across our region and within Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Regional Action Plan - A Call to Action from the Regional Impact Council All Home Contra Costa Briefing MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Correspondence Received 1 RIC STATEMENT OF EMERGENCY: A REGION IN CRISIS REGIONAL ACTION PLAN A Call to Action from the Regional Impact Council February 2021 | All Home REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 2 I. Emergency Statement from the Regional Impact Council Page 3 II. Call to Action Page 5 III. Lead with Racial Equity Page 7 IV. Operationalizing this Work Page 8 V. Plan Details Page 9 Comprehensive 1-2-4 Framework Page 9 Priorities for Implementation Page 11 Impact Metrics & Tracking Page 20 VI. Introduction to the Regional Impact Council Page 21 VII. End Notes Page 25 Acknowledgements Page 25 Glossary Page 26 Cover page photo source: Eden Housing TABLE OF CONTENTS REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 3 A PROBLEM WE CAN SOLVE The Bay Area’s homelessness crisis is a chronic problem, arguably the region’s greatest and most serious challenge. The scale and complexity of this challenge is undeniably daunting. As a region we have fought to solve this crisis for decades, to limited avail. However, the problem can and will be solved. We need a new approach to homelessness, marked by new levels of regional cooperation. The Regional Impact Council (RIC) envisions a Bay Area that is united and coordinated against homelessness: a Bay Area that is organized to seamlessly share best practices, data systems, advocacy efforts, and resources. In the Bay Area we envision homelessness is a rare, brief, and non - recurring situation for those who experience it. In this future vision, we have closed racial and economic disparities and created an equitable, stable, and prosperous region. The path to this future will not be easy. It will require action and commitment from all levels of government and community. The RIC believes that we can and must do the work to make this vision real. The first step is to acknowledge that homelessness is an emergency requiring immediate action. A REGION IN CRISIS The longstanding homelessness crisis in the Bay Area— described by a global expert as “systemic cruelty”1— is particularly tragic because the crisis expanded during an economic boom in the wealthiest region in North America. In 2020, the homelessness crisis further deepened as a result of the COVID -19 pandemic: without sizable, coordinated action and investment, it will continue to destabilize our region as time, and the pandemic, goes on. In our nine-county Bay Area today, more than 35,0002 of our neighbors, a population larger than many of the region’s suburban cities and towns, lack housing or even the prospect of securing it - despite many working full-time. Seniors, people with disabilities and many people working demanding jobs live out of their vehicles, in tents, and in other situations not fit for human habitation because they simply cannot afford housing in the region that they call home. For some, this problem continues for generations. Many “essential” workers (e.g., home health aides, grocery store clerks, cleaning staff at medical facilities) are literally homeless, with tens of thousands more of these workers at-risk of becoming homeless. In particular, extremely low income (ELI) renters face significant housing insecurity: 50% receive neither housing subsidies nor rent protection, and another 34% have contr olled rents which are still unaffordable without subsidy. Doing nothing to address the Bay Area homelessness crisis is enormously costly, in economic as well as moral terms. Many of these costs to our society are in plain sight, and many are hidden. Confronted by human suffering on a daily basis, residents and businesses are leaving the region. In a recent Silicon Valley Leadership survey, 47% of respondents said that they had considered leaving the region as a result of the homelessness situation. As a result of the impacts that homelessness has on individuals and the community as a whole, the indirect costs of homelessness on healthcare, criminal justice, and social services are nearly $2 billion annually, based on estimates using real costs from Santa Clara county. We must think holistically as a region about our response to this crisis, and 1 Leilani Farha, United Nations Special Rapporteur, 2018. 2 Given the lack of PIT count in 2021, we created an estimate of the total unsheltered homelessness in the Bay Area. If we apply the unsheltered homelessness growth rate from 2017 -2019 in the Bay Area (~17%) to the unsheltered population in 2019, we estimate unsheltered homelessness to be ~30K. However, given the known impacts of COVID-19 on shelter capacity in the Bay Area and early evidence supporting a growth in homelessness, we estimated that unsheltered homelessness is likely closer to 35K in the Bay Area. EMERGENCY STATEMENT REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 4 recognize that the investment required to address unsheltered homelessness is small compared to the long -term social and economic costs of our current course. Figure 1: Breakdown of ELI Renter Households; Source: Terner Center for Housing Innova tion COVID-19 has made the region’s limited supply of congregate shelter unusable due to its primarily communal living arrangements, placing our most vulnerable neighbors at heightened risk of exposure. Housing is healthcare, a fact further underscored by the COVID pandemic. A person is unable to “shelter in place” when there is an inadequate supply of shelter and housing. The homelessness and COVID crises disproportionately harm Black, brown and Indigenous people of color (BIPOC). For example, African Americans comprise only 6% of San Francisco’s general population but make up 37% of the city’s homeless population. As these groups are also more vulnerable to becoming seriously ill or dying from COVID-19, the current situation puts our region’s low-income BIPOC population at ‘double jeopardy’ of becoming homeless and gravely ill as COVID cases surge across California and job losses continue to mount, disproportionately for BIPOC communities. In our region of unparalleled ingenuity, creativity, and affluence for many, a failure to address the homelessness crisis – a crisis that existed years before the COVID pandemic , will weaken our communities, drive people and business away from the region, exacerbate existing labor market instabilities, and altogether undermine the prospects for a vibrant, prosperous future for the Bay Area. Homelessness is no longer a challenge faced by a handful of Bay Area cities, it's a regional crisis. Similar to our pandemic response, we must act together as a region. We must lift up what works. We’ve witnessed communities rapidly and creatively providing interim and permanent housing options for unsheltered households in resp onse to the COVID-19 outbreak. We know given the will and coordinated action displayed by County Public Health Directors in response to the pandemic, that rapid and meaningful regional action is possible, and we must harness that momentum to fix our systems—systems that are clearly broken and that have failed to stop the tidal wave of people who have had no option but to live on the streets. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL IMPACT COUNCIL (RIC), URGE IMMEDIATE ACTION. THE BAY AREA’S EPIDEMIC OF UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS MUST BE ADDRESSED AS AN EMERGENCY. WE CALL UPON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES, THE REGION’S BUSINESS AND PHILANTHROPIC COMMUNITIES, AND OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS TO ACT WITH UNPRECEDENTED URGENCY AND COORDINATED ACTION, AS IF LIVES ARE AT STAKE - BECAUSE THEY ARE. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 5 SIGNATURES RIC Statement of Emergency Signatories Name Signature Andreas Cluver (Secretary-Treasurer, Alameda County Building Trades Council) David Chiu (California State Assembly member) Diana Reddy (City Councilmember, Redwood City) Erin Connor (Manager, Cisco Crisis Response) Hydra Mendoza (Chief of Strategic Relationships, Salesforce) CALL TO ACTION: SUMMARY REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 6 THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL IMPACT COUNCIL CALL FOR THE FOLLOWING EMERGENCY ACTIONS: ADDRESS THE UNSHELTERED CRISIS We must accelerate work to bring 75% of the unsheltered indoors by 2024 by improving existing systems & investing in the 1-2-4 system flow model, described below (see the sidebar on page 9 for details): (1) Fund the interim housing needed to bring unsheltered people indoors immediately and ensure that those who were temporarily housed during COVID-19 have a safe permanent housing option (2) Fund 2 housing solutions for every interim housing unit added to the homelessness system (4) Fund 4 preventative interventions for every interim housing unit added to the homelessness system To deliver on this ambitious goal, we will need to improve our existing systems and policies and secure more funding. This model is underpinned by our strategic pillars, which will guide our implementation of the 1-2-4 system flow model Figure 2: RIC strategic pillars underpins the 1-2-4 system flow model REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 7 LEAD WITH RACIAL EQUITY This plan and its proposed actions - including the priorities for implementation outlined below - must be grounded in closing racial disparities - currently reflected by the disproportionately high percentage of Black, brown, and Indigenous peoples who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. In particular: • The State of California should establish standards and best practices for measuring current racial equity levels and for demonstrating progress; the State should increase accountability for outcomes by tying funding to demonstrated progress toward closing racial disparities. • Private and philanthropic partners should actively prioritize funding interventions targeted to BIPOC experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. • All Counties should operationalize equity-based prioritization schemes, service provision, and rental assistance programs in the most vulnerable communities. Geographic targeting based on area deprivation index, high rates of poverty, lack of home ownership, high rates of eviction, rental burden, zip codes or some combination could be considered as possible ways to operationalize prioritized services. CALL FOR FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP These actions will require expanded Federal funding and partnership. The $1.9 trillion Biden-Harris Administration “American Rescue Act” coronavirus relief package was a positive first step. We call upon Congress to act immediately on the following: • Pass the Biden-Harris “American Jobs Plan,” an approximately $2 trillion infrastructure and recovery package that includes $213 billion “to produce, preserve, and retrofit more than two million affordable and sustainable places to live • Provide HUD-Housing Choice Vouchers to every eligible household, prioritizing people who are experiencing or are at-risk of homelessness. Currently, only 1 out of 4 eligible households receive a Housing Choice Vouchers • Allocate $44 billion annually to the Housing Trust Fund to help states and localities, which responded quickly and creatively to move individuals experiencing homelessness into non-congregate settings, to now acquire and convert available properties, including hotels, motels, and other opportunity sites, into permanent housing solutions so that no one is returned to living outdoors • Invest $70 billion to repair and rehabilitate existing public housing • Create innovative new funding strategies that facilitate cross-discipline investment and cross-jurisdictional collaboration • Expand Medicaid funding to include stable housing as part of holistic treatment plans In addition to these immediate actions, we call on the Federal government, in close coordination with the State, to provide new funding needed to ensure all local jurisdictions are able to implement plans to house 75% of our unsheltered population by 2024 by implementing a full range of prevention and housing options. We commit to working with Congress and the Biden-Harris Administration to identify and develop innovative, scalable solutions to homelessness and poverty. We look forward to quickly turning our attention to “Housing as Infrastructure” and working with our California Congressional delegation to achieve the requisite scale of federal investment in affordable housing to truly make homelessness in the United States an experience that is rare and brief, not one that persists for decades. LEAD WITH RACIAL EQUITY REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 8 OPERATIONALIZING THIS WORK The total 5-year cost of sheltering 75% of the Bay Area’s unsheltered population, while investing in the comprehensive system flow outlined by the 1-2-4 framework, is estimated at $6.5 billion, with $1.6 billion needed in 2021. Existing resources can (and are) being used to fund this approach. New resources may be required in jurisdictions where current plans are not consistent with the 1-2-4 approach; that is, where resources are insufficient to fund prevention, interim housing, and permanent housing solutions simultaneously and at scale. • The State of California should condition existing and new funds on imp lementing the three-pronged 1-2-4 framework, starting with a pilot project in the Bay Area in 2021 • The State should provide expanded technical assistance to local jurisdictions, to enable seamless implementation of the 1-2-4 framework in our region • Local jurisdictions will be provided with assistance from All Home that recognizes the unique local circumstances as they work to activate the 1-2-4 framework. All Home will also provide support for inter- jurisdictional coordination within and between the region’s counties • If new funds are required, this coalition will work to raise the necessary resources from the state and federal governments Our funding estimates reflect the cost of adding intervention capacity in a 1:2:4 ratio across interim housing, permanent housing solutions, and homelessness prevention interventions over time. Based on our high -level analysis, approximately $6.5 billion in total inve stment is required over 5 years, split roughly evenly between capital and operating costs. The cost estimates are designed using Bay Area (9-county) averages, and assume limited interim capacity is available to shelter the currently 35,000 unhoused individuals living in the region. We put forward the estimate with an understanding that the number of unsheltered people— and the costs to serve them— will continue to grow until we significantly reduce the inflow of individuals and households to homelessness. PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION We have identified eight priorities for focus as we implement this work, expanded on in the Additional Detail section: House & Stabilize Strategic Priority #1: Secure Shelter-In-Place (SIP) housing locations Strategic Priority #2: Streamline State funds and applications for housing and homeless services Strategic Priority #3: Prioritize extremely low income (ELI) households for housing resources Strategic Priority #4: Extend covenants of affordability to preserve affordable housing supply and fund ELI tenancy Prevent Strategic Priority #5: Extend eviction moratoriums Strategic Priority #6: Accelerate cash payments to people impacted by COVID-19 Strategic Priority #7: Provide targeted rental assistance to those impacted by COVID-19, who are most vulnerable to homelessness Strategic Priority #8: Accelerate targeted, data-informed regional homelessness prevention model OPERATIONALIZING THIS WORK REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 9 PLAN DETAILS THE COMPREHENSIVE 1-2-4 FRAMEWORK To ensure we can realize on our ambitions to reduce unsheltered homelessness, we need a model to operationalize across the Bay Area. The model outlined below will enable the region to move expeditiously toward disrupting homelessness and reducing the current level of unsheltered homelessness by 75% before 2024. We call for actions that accelerate progress toward this goal, which includes an interim target of housing 30% of today’s unsheltered population in 2021. Figure 3: Unsheltered homelessness reduction ambitions by year, ‘21- ‘24 Successfully housing the unsheltered population and bringing them to a permanent exit from homelessness requires designing and investing commensurately in an expansion of permanent affordable housing or housing subsidy options to create “system flow,” which is the movement of people off the streets and into stable housing (in particular, housing with requisite, needs-based services attached). A comprehensive “system flow” includes: • homelessness prevention, • interim housing options (as needed), • supportive housing, • and a broad set of flexible subsidies or deeply affordable housing options for those who do not need permanent supportive housing. We propose a flow that calls for capacity additions in the following ratio: 1 additional interim housing unit, 2 permanent housing solutions, and 4 prevention interventions. This model will add the capacity necessary to address the crisis in the near term. 1-2-4 FRAMEWORK Before the current pandemic conditions, several Bay Area counties were already exhibiting dramatic increases in their unsheltered homeless PIT counts from 2017-2019. Continuing on that trajectory is unacceptable. Our communities must do better at providing the dignity of a safe housing option, interim or permanent, for those who are living outdoors. The 1-2-4 Framework is an acknowledgement that an effective and sustainable plan to do better requires investment in multiple strategies at once – homelessness prevention, interim or emergency housing, permanent deeply affordable or permanent supportive housing, and housing subsidies. It is not enough to simply provide emergency shelter if there are (a) insufficient long-term housing options (“exits”) to provide outflow, and (b) insufficient focus on reducing inflow. We live in a region with a large population of highly rent-burdened low-income households, who lack access to an available supply of more affordable housing. We will never break the cycle of unsheltered homelessness without a significant investment in homelessness prevention (short-term interventions to assist households experiencing a crisis that may cause them to lose housing). “1-2-4” is not a prescription or a one-size- fits-all solution. It’s a ratio that illustrates proportionate investment in three strategies simultaneously. In order to reduce unsheltered homelessness rapidly, most cities or counties will need to frontload investment into interim housing options, such as leasing or purchasing motels, tiny homes, mobile homes or other temporary housing options. Our recommendation is that for every unit of interim housing that is created (“1”), two permanent housing options (“2”) such as a housing subsidy that can write down the cost of a market rate apartment or a PLAN DETAILS REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 10 The RIC workgroups have established a high-level cost assessment of the resources required to meet our goal of sheltering 75% of unsheltered people by 2024. We put forward the estimate with an understanding that the number of unsheltered people will continue to grow until we significantly reduce the inflow and increase the outflow, or exits. The estimate draws on cost and flow assumptions triangulated from various county-level sources and are taken as Bay Area (9-county) averages. These estimates reflect the cost of adding intervention capacity in a 1:2:4 ratio across interim shelter, permanent housing solutions, and homelessness prevention interventions over time. Based on these assumptions and analyses, approximately $6.5 billion in total investment is required across five years, split roughly evenly between capital and operating costs. Figure 4: Comprehensive System Flow Model Figure 5: 1-2-4 Framework Cost Outlook (30%/30%/15% scenario shown) Our recommendation is that for every unit of interim housing that is created (“1”), two permanent housing options (“2”) such as a housing subsidy that can write down the cost of a market rate apartment or a newly acquired or created affordable unit must be planned, so that people don’t linger for extended periods of time in interim housing. It is critical that people move from interim to permanent housing quickly, so that the interim options can be made available to others who still remain unhoused. Simultaneously, we recommend that each unit of interim housing should be matched with sufficient homelessness prevention investment to serve four households (“4”). Again, while we are rapidly moving people who are unsheltered either directly to permanent housing, perhaps with a subsidy, or first to interim and then as quickly as possible to permanent housing, the prevention investment will slow down the rate at which people are becoming homeless, and over time reach equilibrium once the correct balance of interim and permanent housing options is available in the community. Some cities or counties, may need very little investment in interim housing, e.g., if their unsheltered population is relatively small or if they have already made marked investment in emergency housing options. Those communities could choose to focus on rental subsidies and permanent housing to house people quickly and homelessness prevention to stop people from becoming homeless. The bottom line is that each community can right-size the ratio to reach equilibrium, but investing in only one option will not be sufficient to reduce homelessness in any community in the short-term given the high cost of rental housing and the time and cost of construction and acquisition of affordable housing in the Bay Area. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 11 STRATEGIC PILLARS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE These efforts are grounded in the RIC’s strategic pillars: to House and Stabilize, Prevent, and enable the region’s most vulnerable populations to Thrive (see figure 2). COVID-19 has only highlighted the urgency and action needed to address this widening gap. The process of convening the RIC has already yielded results, forging connections and building alliances among our members. We will work to identify, recognize, and scale best practices and successful models across the region, and propose bold regional solutions. These priorities work in concert with the 1-2-4 framework to improve the foundations of a healthy, responsive Bay Area homeless services system—one that will continue to evolve after addressing the urgent crisis of more than 35,000 Bay Area residents living outdoors. PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION: HOUSE & STABILIZE Strategic Priority #1: Secure Shelter-In-Place (SIP) housing locations Counties across the Bay Area have put in place measures for temporarily housing their at -risk and unhoused populations in Shelter-in-Place (SIP) housing, to provide shelter and safety during the COVID -19 pandemic. There is broad agreement that individuals who found shelter through these programs should remain housed, be entered into Coordinated Entry Systems (CES), and guided first to non-congregate interim and then to permanent housing (in some cases these individuals may go directly from SIP hotels to permanent housing if it is available and situationally appropriate). Some counties have already begun this process, but others lack a plan for these residents to remain housed. In many counties, the lack of interim and permanent housing options will pose a major barrier in achieving this goal, pointing to the need to expand housing voucher availability. Priority #1 aims to develop a framework for all Bay Area counties that provides a pathway for those who moved indoors during the pandemic to transition from interim housing into a range of suitable permanent housing solutions. Detailed call to action • The State of California and the region’s Cities and Counties, with Federal funding and partnership, should seek to retain as much of the Shelter-in-Place (SIP) housing (established in response to COVID-19) as possible, to be converted post-pandemic into interim housing for unsheltered individuals/households, while assisting people to transition quickly to permanent housing (Immediate, Ongoing). • The State must recognize that for Project Homekey (acquisition and conversion of hotels to house vulnerable populations) to be successful, bond financing for acquisition and rehabilitation projects is essential. Therefore, we call for a $10 billion state investment in affordable housing through passage of a new bond (SB 5). • All Home, in collaboration with regional partners and local jurisdictions, will identify and advocate for funding for housing vouchers or other housing solutions at all levels of government, ensuring funds meet the demand from each county for interim housing options, flexible rental subsidies, and permanent housing solutions needed to prevent people from returning to the streets. • Counties should identify locations or acquisition sites and make plans to implement interim housing options for individuals who cannot move directly into permanent housing, leveraging recent CEQA exemptions for emergency shelters and navigation centers, albeit non-congregate models. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 12 Strategic Priority #2: Streamline State funds & applications for housing & homeless services Four key state agencies contribute to the State's basic housing efforts, but there is not a well-coordinated plan to effectively use their collective financial resources to support affordable housing acquisition and development. Applicants for state funds for housing and homeless services are overburdened by duplicative application processes with varying timelines, eligibility criteria, and application requirements. The State Auditor commented on this complexity in November 2020, calling for the State to simplify its funding pools and award processes. Detailed call to action • The State of California should consolidate and streamline all affordable housing funding and application processes, coordinating between the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and the California Housing Finance Authority (CalHFA) to eliminate waste and inefficiencies and to reduce the time needed to access funding (no later than July 2021). • Existing state programs that fund services for people experiencing homelessness should, where possible, be consolidated into a joint funding pool with a single application process. This process should be jointly administered by California’s Departments of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Social Services (DSS). In cases where consolidation into a single pool is not possible, agencies shou ld align standards and funding processes as much as possible, in coordination with HCD and DSS. • CDLAC should avoid over-emphasizing cost containment in formulas affecting new construction projects especially through its inclusion in both the tiebreaker and as its own category, as it disadvantages Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) housing projects, ELI housing projects, and projects located in areas with higher construction costs, such as the Bay Area. While we fully support cost-containment and urge the State to creatively incentivize lower cost construction, this formula disadvantages housing production in parts of the state with some of the highest rates of homelessness. • The State should revise the opportunity map methodology to ensure that it does not de-prioritize BIPOC communities which tend to be overwhelmingly represented as “low resource” in HCD’s opportunity maps , that map high opportunity communities, defined by income, school performance and other factors. While we support the concept of encouraging new development in high opportunity areas, communities that have suffered historic underinvestment should not be left behind as there are longstanding housing needs that must be met. Strategic Priority #3: Prioritize ELI for housing resources In its well-intended efforts to serve all Californians, the state’s agencies, with increasing momentum, are targeting higher AMI categories, resulting in less funding for housing that is desperately needed to house ELI households. As a state and a region where all housing has been under-produced for decades, we must stop pitting the needs of one income group against another. What we do know is this – our 9-county Bay Area has produced only 9% of the housing units needed for very low income (VLI) households (below 50% AMI) based upon the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This coalition calls for a reversal of this trend and a prioritization of ELI households (below 30% REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 13 AMI) in funding for housing. We support appropriate market reforms to increase production at other affordability levels including expanding the supply of “missing middle” housing. Detailed call to action • The State of California should ensure that a significant portion of all publicly funded affordable housing projects are inclusive of people with extremely low incomes given that they are at the highest risk of becoming homeless, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. The State should reverse its trend emphasizing an average of 60% of AMI in projects using State funds and ensu re that at least 20% of new units are reserved for 30% of AMI or below and 20% are reserved for 50% of AMI or below. (Ongoing). • In particular, CDLAC should make new housing construction for extremely (ELI) and very-low income (VLI) households a priority. It should adjust its current stated preference of 60% of AMI and instead require that at least 20% of the units are 30% of AMI or below and 20% are at 50% of AMI or below. • Within the Homeless Set-Aside (provision of allocated units) - CDLAC should require that 25% of total units (minimum of 15) meet the homeless definition, not just the tax credit units. Strategic Priority #4: Extend covenants of affordability to preserve affordable housing supply and fund ELI tenancy A significant portion of the Bay Area’s affordable housing units are not permanently affordable. Instead these units have covenants, that if not extended, expire and the housing resets to market rate. This phenomenon displaces lower income tenants and puts them at risk of homelessness. Thousands of once affordable units have been lost in the Bay Area because affordable covenants were not renewed. In addition to the loss of existing affordable housing units, most affordable housing is not designed to be affordable by Bay Area residents with extremely low incomes (below 30% AMI). Given our region’s exorbitant housing costs, affordable housing developments typically house tenants with household incomes at higher levels (e.g. a development’s tenants have incomes that average 60% AMI). Because their incomes are lower, households at or below 30% of AMI require deeper subsidies. Similarly, formerly homeless individuals or families may have extremely low incomes and may also need supportive services (either short -term or longer-term) to remain housed and successfully thrive after having endured the hardship of being homeless for an extended time. Detailed call to action • The State of California should, with Federal funding and partnership, provide funding to secure affordable housing properties for which covenants of affordability are expiring and provide funding for existing complexes to more deeply subsidize rents and fund supportive services to serve ELI and formerly homeless individuals and families (no later than July 2021). REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 14 PRIORITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION: PREVENT Strategic Priority #5: Extend eviction protections In 2020, the COVID-19 crisis devastated the region, with a disproportionate impact on the lowest income individuals and families, particularly BIPOC households. The rent burden – already high –on the low income (< 50% AMI) and extremely low income (<30% AMI) populations was exacerbated by COVID-related job losses and financial hardship this year. To prevent a massive eviction crisis, eviction moratoriums were enacted at the local and state level s, including California’s AB 3088 in September 2020. In late January 2021, the California Legislature passed SB 91 to extend the state-wide eviction protection until June 30, 2021. Keeping people in their existing homes is critical to reducing spread of the coronavirus. Research led by Dr. Kathryn Leifheit of UCLA estimates that our current statewide emergency eviction protection law has already prevented 186,000 COVID -19 cases and 6,000 deaths, so we recommend minimally that eviction protections remain in place until at least 60 days after the end of the public health emergency is lifted. However, we also know that higher rates of COVID-19 related income and job loss have disproportionately impacted ELI households, particularly African American and Latinx households. These impacts are likely to linger for some time after the pandemic subsides and the economy begins to stabilize. If history is an example, homelessness began to increase three years after the 2008 Great Recession “ended” as unemployment remained stubbornly high for Blacks and Latinos. Detailed call to action • The State extended eviction protections for California’s renters and enacted a framework for its rental assistance program with SB 91. The State Legislature should monitor COVID-19 infection rates and rates of unemployment for the highest impacted groups. If both remain high that should be taken into account before allowing the current state-wide eviction protection to expire on June 30, 2021. The State should also take action to close loopholes in the current eviction protections and prevent landlords from evicting tenants for lease expirations or minor lease violations until the pandemic health emergency ends. • The Biden-Harris Administration acted by Executive Order to direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to extend the national eviction moratorium, which it did until March 31, 2021. The CDC later extended that eviction protection until June 30, 2021. We call on the CDC to further extend and improve the national eviction moratorium. The moratorium must be extended through the duration of the public health emergency, and it should be improved to address the shortcomings that have prevented some renters from making use of its protections. The moratorium should provide an automatic, unive rsal protection to keep more renters throughout the U.S. in their homes and it should apply to all stages of eviction. Federal agencies must also actively enforce its protections. An extension to the CDC order could prove to be vital to Californians if the CA Legislature fails to extend the state-enacted eviction protections beyond June 30, 2021. • All Counties should enact a universal eviction protections that last until at least 60 days after the County lifts its COVID-19 public health emergency (Immediate). Tenants should not be evicted during the pandemic for any reason, except for the protection of health and safety. Evictions for lease expirations, minor lease violations, move-in or Ellis Act evictions, or anything short of personal safety should not be permitted during the pandemic. • Counties and cities should consider imposing fines or penalties on property owners that continue to send Notices to Pay or Quit or 3-Day eviction notices to tenants for non-payment of rent, if the property owner REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 15 is knowingly using notices to intimidate or confuse tenants in an effort to encourage them to move out, despite the fact that non-payment of rent is not currently permissible as a grounds for eviction at this time. Strategic Priority #6: Accelerate cash payments to people impacted by COVID-19 While high-wage workers have experienced a 4.3 percent decrease in employment during the pandemic, low-wage workers have suffered a 26.9 percent decrease, a historically unprecedented divide during a recession. With the pandemic wearing on and economic recovery slow, ELI and minority households are being hit hardest, many with insufficient income to cover their basic needs as a result of pandemic-related job loss. Substantial evidence shows that direct cash assistance is the most effective, responsive, and targeted way to support ELI households and prevent them from becoming homeless. Priority #6 advocates for recurring cash payments and enhanced unemployment benefits for ELI households at the federal level. In the absence of further federal intervention, Priority #6 intends to highlight a path for California to expand and enhance refundable tax credits to provide additional income to ELI households. This priority also acknowledges the major intersection between ELI households and the unbanked population (individuals not served by banks due to financial or identity barriers) in California and aspires to address barriers to households claiming their benefits, so they have the resources needed to weather the pandemic. Detailed call to action • RIC Coalition joins income security advocates, in coalition with the Economic Security Project (initiative aimed at bolstering economic security for all Americans), calling for federal recurring cash payments of $2,000 quarterly through 2021 or until the employment rate stabilizes. • The State of California should approve the Governor's proposed Golden Gate Stimulus of $600 for California residents who qualify for the state Earned Income Tax Credit on their 2019 tax returns. • Federal government should extend emergency unemployment insurance programs through September 2021 while providing a $600 per week unemployment insurance supplement. • If the Federal effort described above is unsuccessful, state legislators should pass legislation to extend and expand refundable tax programs to maximize income for ELI households. Refundable tax programs are specifically highlighted because they do not impact household income eligibility for public benefit programs. This may include: o Removing the earnings requirement and age parameters for the Child Tax Credit (tax credit for parents with dependent children) o Doubling the California Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable cash back credit for qualified low -to- moderate income working Californians) for workers without children • Address the barriers faced by under- and un-banked populations in accessing benefits by offering no-fee checking accounts or other distribution methods. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 16 Strategic Priority #7: Provide targeted rental assistance to those impacted by COVID-19, who are most vulnerable to homelessness Priority #7 aims to prevent the impending wave of evictions that could occur when the mora toriums eventually are lifted. We must ensure that the number of people becoming homeless in the Bay Area does not accelerate due to pandemic-related income loss and the inability to keep up with rent. SB 91 averted an immediate crisis by extending eviction protections until June 30, 2021. California also received $2.6 billion in federal rental assistance from the in the form of U.S. Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds. Counties and cities with populations of >200,000 received roughly $1.1 billion and the State received roughly $1.5 billion. But still, millions of California renters will be burdened by amassed rental arrearages, small claims court judgments and lingering unemployment that will hobble them financially for an extended period of time. Detailed call to action • The State of California created a block grant program to distri bute its $1.5 billion portion in new COVID- response rental assistance. Although the framework for the State’s program is complex, for tenants who have cooperative landlords it offers an opportunity not only to have the program pay the landlord 80% of the rent arrearage, but to have the other 20% forgiven if the landlord wishes to participate. However, for tenants whose landlords refuse to participate, it permits only 25% of their arrearage to be paid. The State has made an effort to prioritize based on equity and to households earning at or below 50% AMI. The recent Biden- Harris “American Rescue Act” package included an additional $30 billion in ERAP funds. We urge the State to improve upon its current framework for rental assistance (enacted in SB 91) to ensure equal outcomes for all tenants and to implement the targeting strategies outlined below. • The statutory language that authorized the ERAP allocation allows assistance to be provided to households earning up to 80%AMI, but indicates that households at o r below 50% of AMI as well as those which have a household member who has been unemployed for 90 days or more should be prioritized. With hundreds of thousands of Californians behind on rent, there will be a gravitational pull to assist people at the full range of allowable income levels. However, in order to prevent a massive surge in homelessness later in 2021 -2022, rental assistance must be targeted to those most at risk of homelessness. Local rental assistance programs should prioritize the following: o ELI households (<30% AMI) o Households with severe rent burden (>50% of income spent on rent) o Households or individuals who have had a previous experience of homelessness o Census tracts or zip codes with high rates of housing insecurity or homelessness, hig h rates of eviction, high rates of COVID-19 infection, high rates of poverty and/or a high area deprivation index o Hard to reach communities (e.g., those who have language barriers and people who are in informal living arrangements); and o Groups that don’t have access to other benefit programs (e.g., undocumented immigrants) • Any new or expanded rental assistance program should include the following elements: o Low-barrier flexible cash assistance, including acceptance of self-certifications regarding income, housing and, employment status. Programs should permit payment directly to the household if the REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 17 landlord refuses to accept rental payment from the program or fails to respond within the prescribed time period o Access to landlord mediation or legal services as needed o Effective and culturally relevant outreach: ▪ Partner with, and build capacity of, BIPOC led community organizations located in and serving impacted communities while expanding the ecosystem of organizations providing program services ▪ Co-design outreach processes with CBOs that serve the hardest hit communities and offer access at common intersections with people at-risk of homelessness including food pantries, schools/day care, housing court, community health clinics, institutional discharging or correctional system release. Coordinate with COVID-19 vaccination outreach efforts to maximize efficiency. ▪ Work with community groups representing tenants and people who have experienced homelessness, to inform prioritization and policies. • Tackle racial disparity o Collect and publicly report disaggregated data on households served by race, ethnicity, and zip code. o Remove barriers that disproportionately impact BIPOC: accept applications by all methods - online, phone, in-person; do not limit assistance to one-time only; be explicit on all materials that information regarding immigration status will not be asked for nor shared at any time during the process. • Fill gaps caused by ERAP funding constraints with other sources of public (e.g., CDBG -CV or ESG-CV) or private funds to offer more holistic housing stabilization plans to families and individuals. See “Local Strategies to Protect Tenants and Prevent Homelessness in Bay Area COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Programs (ERAPs)” for more detailed recommendations. Strategic Priority #8: Accelerate targeted, data-informed regional prevention model Prior to the pandemic, the Bay Area had the distinction of having more than 35,000 people who were homeless. With massive job and income loss among low wage workers due to the pandemic, many of whom were severely rent - burdened, we can expect that poverty and homelessness will rise in 2021. In 2019, two to three people were becoming homeless for every one person who was successfully assisted to move from homelessness to housing in the Bay Area. We desperately need a regional homelessness prevention system to slow down the rate at which people are becoming homeless; this starts by coordinating resources and s ervices within the region. Priority #8 aims to build upon prevention efforts and infrastructure that already exist and to create a program for coordinated service delivery. All Home has launched a pilot in three cities - Oakland, Fremont and San Francisco - to facilitate a research and data-informed approach that focuses on using new federal ERAP funding to target those who are most vulnerable to homelessness. The pilot is intended to extend into Contra Costa County later in 2021, in advance of full implementation and coverage of all nine Bay Area counties within three years. Ultimately, the goal is to blend public and private funds and bring about a higher degree of coordination among anti-eviction/displacement, rental subsidy, homelessness prevention, diversion, and rapid-rehousing programs in the region. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 18 Detailed call to action • Since September 2021, All Home in partnership with RIC members and others has embarked on a consensus- building design process to launch its homelessness prevention pilot. In order to maximize the opportunity to align federal ERAP funding with homelessness prevention efforts, All Home accelerated its regional homelessness prevention efforts to launch by April 2021. The pilot is a work in progress to build consistency in best practices for risk assessment and service delivery, using a common data platform and evaluation framework. Initially the regional homelessness prevention program model will include the following services: o Financial assistance – flexible cash assistance, rental arrears, rental assistance, security deposit, move-in expenses, reunification or relocation expenses, transportation expenses o Eviction prevention/legal assistance o Utility assistance o Housing problem-solving o Landlord mediation and connecting residents to advocacy organizations o Linkages to other community resources and public benefit programs • As the program reaches its full implementation, the following services will also be provided: o Assistance with housing search, placement, and stabilization, including limited term rental subsidies and case management o Financial counseling o Income stabilization through workforce development partnerships • Implement a three-county pilot regional homelessness prevention system that is rolled out with an eye toward regional expansion to all nine Bay Area counties. The pilot offers the following elements: o Emphasis on reducing racial and ethnic disparities among households that are experiencing homelessness for the first time through targeted financial assistance and program design: ▪ Targeting resources to racial/ethnic groups facing high rates of homelessness (in the Bay Area, Black, Indigenous, Latinx and Pacific Islander communities) and groups that don’t have access to other benefit programs. ▪ Meeting non-traditional needs, for instance offering interventions that stabilize support networks or kinship networks, as defined by marginalized communities, to include chosen families. ▪ Addressing funding/program gaps that exist for undocumented immigrants. ▪ Ensure effective and culturally relevant outreach as described above in Strategic Priority #7. ▪ Reducing barriers to long-term success by connecting households to economic mobility programs and eliminating limitations on “one-time only” assistance because an ELI household may encounter one or more periods of economic shock on the way to getting back on their feet. o Common program elements as discussed above. o New, web-based data platform for applicants and service providers which includes: ▪ Online financial assistance application portal REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 19 ▪ Evidence-based risk assessment tool that promotes effective and efficient targeting of services to those who are at highest risk3 of homelessness. o Back-end service provider module for case management, management approvals and fund disbursements. o Consistency in staff training in housing problem-solving/diversion techniques and learning collaboratives to promote cross- county collaboration and sharing of useful resolution ideas. • Evaluate program efficacy of the initial three-county level programs and adapt as necessary to expand to the regional scale within three years. • All Home, in collaboration with regional partners and local jurisdictions, will work to identify and collaborate with a regional entity with the capacity to manage a regional homelessness prevention system for the long- term. In 2020, the Bay Area Housing and Financing Authority (BAHFA) was established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC. BAHFA is positioned to provide a powerful new set of financing and policy tools to improve housing affordability and may be well suited to play this role in the future. • Combine public and private funding streams to maximize the prevention system’s function and flexibility At the federal, state and local levels, there are many programs that support homelessness prevention, each having slightly different eligibility and other requirements – Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG and ESG-CV), Community Development Block Grants (CDBG and CDBG -CV), new U.S. Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), State Homeless, Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP), CalWorks Homeless Assistance Program, local tax measure funds that are required to be spent on homelessness prevention. These funding streams should be streamlined so that they can be used more flexibly and holistically to keep people housed. Currently, private and philanthropic funds are used to fill gaps and provide the flexibility for the program to meet each household’s needs. The goal of a regional homelessness prevention program is to leverage these funds in the creation of a public -private partnership that weaves together a stronger, more viable safety net that is truly available and capable of preventing a household from becoming homeless or quickly assisting with the resources necessary to find alternative housing, regardless of where one lives in the Bay Area. 3 Female Head of Household, pregnancy, child younger than two, history of public assistance, eviction threat, high mobility in last year, history of protective services, high conflict in household, disruptions as a child (e.g. foster care, shelter hist ory as youth), shelter history as an adult, recent shelter application, seeking to reintegrate into community from an institution, high number of shelter applications. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 20 IMPACT METRICS & TRACKING We have developed a series of impact metrics to track progress against our 8 strategic priorities, while systematically advancing All Home’s vision and informing forthcoming work. These metrics will be reviewed on a regular cadence and progress will be shared back to counties, stakeholders, and RIC members. • Overall- Reduce unsheltered homelessness by 75% by 2024, overall homelessness by 75% by 2030 • System flow– % of new episodes, PIT count, eviction rate, # of days between shelter and permanent exits • Availability- # of interim housing units, # of permanent housing solution units, # of prevention interventions by 2024 and 2030, utilization rate over time (match of resources available to interventions needed in each category • Diversity- Homelessness population segmentation and population comparison by race/gender/age to reduce disparity • Employment- ELI unemployment rate, income levels • Data- Consistency in format and metrics across region, clear indicators of coordinated efforts among Bay Area counties • Revenue- Match of funding available with needs to implement priorities Furthermore, we will track stakeholder perceptions of progress through an annual survey to RIC members to measure the extent to which they believe goals are being met. We will also convene counties on a quarterly basis, and other stakeholder groups on an ad hoc basis, to review progress and identify barri ers to be mitigated. We will also draw on those with lived experience to understand their perceptions of system efficacy (access to resources, employment opportunities, etc.) and provide real-time tracking. HomeBase research finds that a regional data sharing system would enhance the ability of jurisdictions and care providers to conduct local planning, measure outcomes and investment impacts, and support care and support coordination. Data enrichment options that allow identifiable client -level data sharing across jurisdictions would have an even greater impact by creating opportunities to coordinate across systems of care —ensuring individuals have continuity without having to restart the process of seeking help every time they transition to a new location. Therefore, it may be helpful to establish a regional data sharing system utilizing existing research and tools developed by Homebase to enhance the ability of jurisdictions and care providers to conduct local planning, measure outcomes and investment impacts, and support care and support coordination across cities and counties. Cumulatively, advancement across these metrics will enable the broader social change we are committed to enacting: increasing racial equity, inclusivity of all communities, greater economic and social mobility, shifting our paradigm to recognize ELI people’s value, and highlighting regionalism as imperative to driving progress. REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 21 LETTER FROM THE CO-CHAIRS The Regional Impact Council (RIC) convened in 2020, when our members - from across the Bay Area - organized around the belief that homelessness can be rare, brief, and non-recurring for those that experience it. We believe a coordinated regional response is needed to advance system level changes to solve poverty, housing insecur ity, racial inequity and homelessness crisis facing our region and state. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the already large chasm in economic equality and mobility in the Bay Area, impacting vulnerable communities that are disproportionately Black, brown, Indigenous and low income. As a region our experience of COVID-19 is unequal. For affluent professional workers, the recession’s direct economic impact has been minimal. Indeed, the wealth of some in the professional class has gone up since the pande mic. For Black, brown and Indigenous communities and extremely low-income populations, this recession is worse than the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2010. The true impact of historic unemployment, racial injustice, and the continued economic pressure on small businesses will be an uphill challenge. The magnitude of these changes has forced us to explore systemic solutions previously deemed too bold. We must seek new solutions and advance them more quickly than what the Bay Area’s jurisdictions have tried before. The RIC complements existing efforts around homelessness and housing by bringing together key stakeholders, and policymakers across a diversity of communities and sectors including representatives from the state legislature, local government, non-profit organizations ’s the business community and private philanthropy with their collective assets to achieve population-level regional outcomes. The urgency has never been greater, and we are eager to get to work. We view the Bay Area’s regional response to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of what our region can accomplish when we join together to address a shared challenge. After the current public health crisis, we will remain committed to our goals: house and stabilize those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, prevent future episodes of homelessness, and create economic prosperity across the region so that ELI individuals and families can thrive in the Bay Area. Derecka Mehrens Chief Executive Officer, Working Partnerships USA Jonathan Fearn Senior Development Director, Greystar Joshua Simon Chief Executive Officer, East Bay Asian Location Development Corporation Sherilyn Adams Executive Director Larkin Street Youth Services INTRODUCTION TO THE REGIONAL IMPACT COUNCIL REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 22 RIC MEMBERS . Amie Fishman, Executive Director, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Andreas Cluver, Secretary-Treasurer, Alameda County Building Trades Council Ariane Hogan, Associate Director of Local Government Affairs, Genentech Belia Ramos, Supervisor, Napa County 5th District Candace Andersen, Supervisor, Contra Costa County Cindy Chavez, Supervisor, Santa Clara County Dave Cortese, State Senator, California David Chiu, State Assemblymember, California Diana Reddy, City Councilmember, Redwood City Diane Burgis, Chair, Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County Eddy Zheng, Founder & President, New Breath Foundation Erin Connor, Manager, Cisco Crisis Response Hydra Mendoza, VP, Chief of Strategic Relationships Office of the Chair and CEO, Salesforce Jake MacKenzie, Board Member, Greenbelt Alliance Jennifer Loving, Chief Executive Officer, Destination Home Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, City of Berkeley; President, Association of Bay Area Governments Jim Spering, Supervisor, Solano County Jim Green, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Salesforce Jim Wunderman, CEO, Bay Area Council REGIONAL IMPACT COUNCIL MEMBERS Derecka Mehrens, Chief Executive Officer, Working Partnerships USA Jonathan Fearn, Senior Development Director, Greystar Joshua Simon, Chief Executive Officer, EBALDC Sherilyn Adams, Executive Director, Larkin Street Youth Services The RIC is a coalition across the nine-county Bay Area. The council includes 85 leaders that work in state and local legislation, direct service provision, affordable housing, labor, economic mobility, racial equity and private sector businesses. Our collective goal: Share, develop and mobilize against regional solutions to House and Stabilize, Prevent, and enable our most vulnerable populations to Thrive. Keith Carson, Supervisor, Alameda County District 5 Ken Cole, Director, Human Services Agency, San Mateo County Libby Schaaf, Mayor, City of Oakland Liz Ortega-Toro, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Alameda Labor Council London Breed, Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Matt Franklin, President, MidPen Housing Corporation Melissa Jones, Executive Director, Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative Nicole Taylor, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Community Foundation Robert Powers, General Manager, BART Rosanne Foust, President & CEO, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) Sam Liccardo, Mayor, City of San Jose Scott Weiner, State Senate, California Susan Gorin, Supervisor, Sonoma County Therese McMillan, Executive Director, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Warren Slocum, Supervisor, San Mateo County CO-CHAIRS STEERING COMMITTEE REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 23 Angela Jenkins, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Kaiser Permanente Lindsay Haddix, Housing Initiatives Program Manager, Facebook Marc Trotz, Consultant Margot Kushel, MD, UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Ophelia Basgal, Vice-Chair, San Francisco Foundation Board Tramecia Garner, Associate Director for Housing and residential Programs, Swords to Plowshares Will Dominie, Impact Manager, BARHII William Rogers, CEO, SF-Marin-San Mateo Goodwill WORKGROUP CO-MODERATORS Adrian Covert, Vice President of Public Policy, Bay Area Council Alan Dones, Managing Partner, Strategic Urban Development Alliance Amy Sawyer, Policy Advisor on Homelessness. Office of Mayor London Breed Brandy Jenkins-League, Program Manager, Bay Area Community Services (BACS) Bruce Ives, CEO, LifeMoves Carolina Reid, Assistant Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, UCBerkeley Cynthia Nagendra, Executive Director, UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Daniel Saver, Assistant Director for Housing and Local Planning, MTC/ABAG Darnell Cadette, Director, Community, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative David Low, Policy & Communications Director, Destination Home Donna Allen, Pastor, New Revelation Church Heather Hood, Vice President and Market Leader -Northern California, Enterprise Community Partners Jackie Downing, Executive Director, Crankstart Jacky Morales-Ferrand, Director of Housing, City of San José Jamie Almanza, Executive Director, Bay Area Community Services Katherine Harasz, Executive Director, Santa Clara County Housing Authority Kelly Dearman, Executive Director, SF in Home Supportive Services Public Authority Kerry Abbott, Director, Homeless Care and Coordination, Alameda County Kris Stadelman, Director, NOVA Workforce Board Lavonna Martin, Director, Health, Housing, and Homeless Services, Contra Costa County Louise Rogers, Chief, San Mateo County Health System Malcolm Yeung, Executive Director, Chinatown Community Development Center Maryann Leshin, Deputy Director, Housing and Community Development Department, City of Oakland Michael Gause, Ending Homelessness Program Manager, Sonoma County Nevada Merriman, Director of Policy, MidPen Housing Corporation Pedro Galvao, Policy Director, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) Peter Radu, Homeless Policy Director, Office of the Mayor, City of Oakland Randy Tsuda, President & Chief Executive Officer, Alta Housing Shola Olatoye, Director, Housing & Community Development, City of Oakland Sparky Harlan, CEO, Bill Wilson Center Tim Chan, Group Manager - Station Area Planning, BART Vaughn Villaverde, Associate Director of Health Policy, Working Partnerships USA Vivian Wan, Chief Operating Officer, Abode Services William Pickel, Chief Executive Officer, Brilliant Corners Zak Franet, Youth Policy & Advisory Committee Member, City and County of San Francisco TECHNICAL COMMITTTEE REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 24 Tomiquia Moss, Chief Executive Officer Ken Kirkey, RIC Project Lead, Chief Partnership Officer Charlie Sun, Chief of Staff Gail Gilman, Chief Strategy Officer Jay Banfield, Chief Economic Mobility Officer Joanne Karchmer, Chief Impact Officer Terrance Thompson, Director, Regional Homelessness Prevention System ALL HOME STAFF REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 25 The Co-Chairs wish to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of everyone that has contributed to developing the Regional Action Plan and that continue to support the Regional Impact Council . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 26 AB – 15 - COVID-19 relief: Tenancy: Tenant Stabilization Act of 2021 This bill would extend the definition of “COVID-19 rental debt” as unpaid rent or any other unpaid financial obligation of a tenant that came due between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. The bill would also extend the repeal date of the act to January 1, 2026. The bill would make other conforming changes to align with these extended dates. By extending the repeal date of the act, the bill would expand the crime of perjury and create a state-mandated local program. (CA legislature) AB – 16 - Tenant, Small Landlord, and Affordable Housing Provider Stabilization Act of 2021 This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact the Tenant, Small Landlord, and Affordable Housing Provider Stabilization Act of 2021 to address the long-term financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on renters, small landlords, and affordable housing providers, ensure ongoing housing stability for tenants at risk of eviction, and stabilize rental properties at risk of foreclosure. This bill would include legislative findings and declarations in support of the intended legislation. (CA legislature) AB – 3088 - Tenancy: rental payment default: Mortgage forbearance: state of emergency: COVID-19 This bill, the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020, would, among other things, until January 1, 2023, additionally apply those protections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust that is secured by residential real property that is occupied by a tenant, contains no more than four dwelling units, and meets certain criteria, including that a tenant occupying the property is unable to pay rent due to a reduction in income resulting from the novel coronavirus. (CA legislature) AMI - Average Monthly Income Most federal and State housing assistance programs set maximum incomes for eligibility to live in assisted housing, and maximum rents and housing costs that may be charged to eligible residents, usually based on their incomes. HUD’s limits are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI) CA BCSHA - California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency assists and educates consumers regarding the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of professionals and businesses in California. CalHFA – California Housing Finance Agency Established in 1975, CalHFA was chartered as the state's affordable housing lender. The Agency's Multifamily Division finances affordable rental housing through partnerships with jurisdictions, developers and more, while its Single Family Division provides first mortgage loans and down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers. CEQA – CEQA – California Env. Quality Act CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. GLOSSARY REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 27 The purpose of CEQA is to: Disclose to the public the significant environmental effects of a proposed discretionary project, through the preparation of an Initial Study (IS), Negative Declaration (ND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (CA Office of Planning and Research) CDBG-CV – CARES Relief Community Development Block Grants Congress provided $5 billion in the CARES Act for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to states, metropolitan cities, urban counties, and insular areas. (HUD) CDLAC – California Debt Limit Allocation Committee CDLAC’s programs are used to finance affordable housing developments for low-income Californians, build solid waste disposal and waste recycling facilities, and to finance industrial development projects (CA State Treasurer’s Office) ESG-CV – CARES Relief Emergency Solutions Grants These special ESG-CV funds are to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID- 19) among individuals and families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance. The funds will also support additional homeless assistance and homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. (HUD) HCD - California Department of Housing and Community Development The California Department of Housing and Community Development awards loans and grants to public and private housing developers, nonprofit agencies, cities, counties, state and federal partners. This money supports the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership homes, provides permanent supportive housing options as well as stable, safe shelter for those experiencing homelessness. (HCD) HUD – US Department of Housing and Urban Development LI, VLI, ELI – Low Income, Very Low Income and Extremely Low Income Low-income applicants earn less than 80% of the area median Very low-income applicants earn less than 50% of the area median Extremely low-income earn less than 30% of the area median NGO – Non-government Organization PHA – Public Housing Authority The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers Federal aid to local housing agencies (HAs) that manage the housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. HUD furnishes technical and professional assistance in planning, developing and managing these developments. (HUD) PSH – Permanent Supportive Housing Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a model that combines low-barrier affordable housing, health care, and supportive services to help individuals and families lead more stable lives. PSH typically targets peopl e who are REGIONAL ACTION PLAN | 28 homeless or otherwise unstably housed, experience multiple barriers to housing, and are unable to maintain housing stability without supportive services. (National Health Care for the Homeless Center) TCAC – California Tax Credit Allocation Committee The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) administers the federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs. Both programs were created to promote private investment in affordable rental housing for low- income Californians. (CA State Treasurer’s Office) Section 8 / HCV – Section 8 Housing Vouchers The housing choice voucher program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. Expanded rental assistance like the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is a substantial component of any strategy to address the severe housing shortage and instability faced by ELI renters. Seventy-three percent of current HCV recipients are extremely low-income (HUD, 2018). APRIL 27, 2021 Meeting with Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Regional Action Plan (RAP) Briefing 1 All Home -who we are All Home is a Bay Area organization advancing regional solutions that disrupt the cycle of poverty and homelessness, redress the disparities in outcomes as a result of race, and create more economic mobility opportunities for extremely low -income (ELI) individuals and families within the Bay Area. We are working across regions, sectors, and silos to advance coordinated, innovative service delivery and build coalition -supported momentum to challenge the long -standing systems that perpetuate homelessness. 2 Contra Costa fact sheet 2,277 PIT count (2020) 85k Total ELI individuals1 (2018) 41%% of renter HHs in labor force (2017) •Monthly ELI income threshold: $2,500 •Median (MFR) rent as a % of income: 94% •COVID-related job loss: 23,700 (73% BIPOC, 53% low income) •In CA, 41% of ELI renter HHs are in the labor force Source: Terner Center analysis of 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year PUMS data and and unemployment statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Survey (June 2020) 1. Rough estimate based on 30k ELI renter households and 2.86 average persons per HH 707 (31%) Unsheltered 2019 697 (31%) PIT Count, sheltered vs. unsheltered 1,326 (65%) 2018201620152017 668 (29%) 2020 Sheltered1,730 2,030 1,607 2,234 2,295 911 (57%) 696 (43%) 2,277 704 (35%)620 (36%) 1,110 (64%) 1,537 (69%) 1,627 (71%) 1,570 (69%) 3 Phase I (Regional Action Plan) First-of-its-kind regional plan tackling homelessness and housing insecurity (Spring 2021) Phase 2 Regional goals for systems change to truly disrupt homelessness and improve economic and social mobility for ELI individuals (early 2022) A roundtable of policymakers, key affordable housing, social equity and economic mobility stakeholders, housing and homelessness service providers, and business and philanthropic partners The Regional Impact Council 4 Regional Action Plan: Reduce unsheltered homelessness by 75% by 2024 2022 2024Today <10K 2021 2023 -10K ~35K -10K -5K -75%The RAP aims to dramatically reduce the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness over next three years The Regional Action Plan lays out a roadmap for reaching this goal through: Implementing a 1-2-4 Framework: a new, integrated approach to allocating scarce housing resources Leading a coalition to advocate for policies, programs and funding to achieve this goal 5 The RAP identifies 8 priorities to advance towards the 75% goal 1-2-4 Flow Ensure Shelter-In-Place (SIP) residents remain housed Streamline State funds and applications for housing Prioritize ELI for housing resources 1 2 3 Extend eviction moratoria Provide income-targeted rental assistance to those impacted by COVID-19 Accelerate targeted, data- informed regional prevention model Accelerate cash payments to people impacted by COVID-19 Extend covenants of affordability 5 6 7 8 +1 Interim Housing Units +2 Permanent Housing Solution Units +4 Prevention Interventions RAP strategic priorities 4 61. e.g., includes Permanent Supportive Housing, rapid re-housing, flexible subsidy pools and shallow subsidies, Section 8, group housing, and other long-term housing solutions People At- Risk of Becoming Homeless (Inflow) People Exiting Homelessness (Outflow) To achieve a 75% reduction, we must simultaneously invest in 3 interventions: For each addition to interim housing, 2x permanent housing solutions and 4x homelessness prevention 1-2-4 Framework Currently housed +4x +1x +2x Unhoused/rehoused Permanent Housing Solutions1 Flexible subsidies and supportive housing Homelessness Prevention Prevent at-risk households from experiencing homelessness through strategies such as rental assistance Unsheltered Interim Housing Variety of typologies incl. nav-centers, tiny homes, shelter beds, etc. 7 1-2-4 Framework | Illustrative modeling for Contra Costa County ~1.2K (75% of today) Total brought indoors by 20243 ~1.5K Total new prevention interventions 1. Includes PSH, RRH, flexible subsidy pools, shallow subsidies, Sec8 vouchers, group housing, etc. 2. Includes a variety of typologies incl. nav-centers, tiny homes, emergency / interim shelter beds, etc. 3. "Brought indoors" defined as brought from unsheltered to interim housing or permanent housing solutions Sources: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa County documents and experts, including Contra Costa COVID System Modeling (10.21.2020), and Bay Area Council Economic Institute Homelessness Report ~157 ~157 ~79 ~314 ~314 ~157 ~628 ~628 ~314 ~1,099 20222021 20242023 2025 ~1,099 ~550 No new capacity added in 2024 and 2025 Prevention interventions Permanently housed1 Interim housing2 Brought indoors Illustrative, top-down model 8 Funding to come from multiple sources (federal, state, local) Key assumption: Model scenario assumes current unsheltered population will have increased due to COVID impacts by 30% from th e 2020 unsheltered PIT count (1,570*1.3 = 2,041). E.g., the 1.5K brought indoors is 75% of 2k Note: Cost estimates based on ranges from various Bay Area sources ; capital costs include construction costs and assume no land costs; operating costs include services provided and subsidies; no discounting applied; scenario modeled is 30%/30%/15% scena rio housing 75% of unsheltered before 2024; construction timelines and funding pools assumed flexible to timeline shown Sources: San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa County documents and experts, including Contra Costa COVID System Modeling (10.21.2020), and Bay Area Council Economic Institute Homelessness Report ~$58M ~$58M ~$29M ~$35M ~$35M ~$14M ~$28M ~$35M 2021 ~$86M 2022 2023 2024 ~$72M 2025 ~$64M ~$35M ~$35M Operating Capital required 1-2-4 Framework | Illustrative cost estimates for Contra Costa County Illustrative, top-down model No new capacity added in 2024 and 2025 9 How All Home can support Contra Costa We can help you get to a 75% reduction in unsheltered homelessness via implementation of the 1-2-4 Framework Evaluate. Understand CCC’s current system modeling efforts (e.g., baseline system inventory, spend, and pipeline) and compare to the 1-2-4 Framework Align All Home will work with county staff to develop a plan for optimal investments across the three key solution types of the 1-2-4: prevention, interim, and permanent housing Advocate All Home will work with federal, state, & regional partners (county, private sector, nonprofit, & philanthropic) to help ensure the total funding pool is sufficient and flexible enough to meet housing & homeless service needs in Contra Costa In addition, All Home is already engaged in specific programmatic activity within Contra Costa: Regional Homelessness Prevention System: Contra Costa is one of 3 pilot counties in the Bay Area Providing capacity-building grants to community organizations working on homelessness prevention ($3M across 3 pilot counties in 2021) Direct advocacy for homelessness & housing services (e.g., Homekey funding) 3 2 1 10 For discussion Feedback on the RAP •Do the 75% reduction goal and implementation recommendations (1-2-4 flow, 8 priorities) resonate? Any questions / concerns? •Is this something the Contra Costa BOS could support? Potential Next Steps •Meet with Contra Costa County staff to kickoff 1-2-4 implementation plan •Meet with Measure X Advisory Board to discuss funding allocations •Anything else? www.allhomeca.org To get in touch with us, please reach out to Nahema Washington at: nwashington@allhomeca.org RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4500 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on the north and south side of Camille Avenue (Road No. 4334B), beginning 150 feet west of the west curbline of Ironwood Place (Road No. 4337AN) and extending westerly a distance of 50 feet, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Alamo area. (District II) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: A resident contacted Supervisor Andersen's office seeking parking restrictions on the subject roadway. When referred to the Traffic Section of the Public Works Department, it was stated that the Sanitary District supported the parking restrictions to better allow their trucks ingress and egress on the no outlet roadway. If adopted, the parking restrictions will be indicated with curbs painted red over the sections described. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, parking will remain unrestricted. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Monish Sen, 925-313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, 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:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on portions of Camille Avenue (Road No. 4334B), Alamo area. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Resolution 2021/4500 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4500 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on April 27, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2021/4500 ABSTAIN: Supervisorial District II SUBJECT: Prohibit stopping, standing or parking of vehicles at all times on portions of Camille Avenue (Road No. 4334B), Alamo area. The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on recommendations by the County Public Works Department's Transportation Engineering Division, and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 - 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22507 and Section 21458 of the California Vehicle Code, stopping, standing, or parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the north and south side of Camille Avenue (Road No. 4334B), Alamo, beginning 150 feet west of the west curbline of Ironwood Place (Road No. 4337AN) and extending westerly a distance of 50 feet. MS:kh Orig. Dept: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen, 313-2187 cc: California Highway Patrol Sheriff Department TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2021/4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4501 to prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on the south side of Loring Avenue (Road No. 2294D), beginning at point 71 feet east of the eastern curbline prolongation of West Street (Road No. 2295AH), and extending easterly a distance of 70 feet, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Crockett area. (District V) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District Captain John Angell contacted the Public Works Department's Transportation Engineering Division to request parking prohibitions at a location across the street from District Fire Station #78 located at 746 Loring Avenue in Crockett. Traffic Engineering staff responded by conducting a site visit with Captain John Angell to assess the ingress and egress clear space requirements for their newly-purchased ladder fire truck. District Fire Chief Dean Colombo submitted a letter to the Public Works Department requesting “Red Zone” for a small segment of Loring Avenue on the opposite street side of the fire department station to improve response time for the ladder truck. A copy of the District letter is attached. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Monish Sen, 925-313-2187 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Prohibit stopping, standing, or parking at all times on a portion of Loring Avenue (Road No.2294D), Crockett area. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Parking will remain unrestricted at this location, possibly leading to fire response delays and property damage. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Traffic Resolution 2021/4501 Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District Letter MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Traffic Resolution No. 2021/4501 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Traffic Resolution on April 27, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2021/4501 ABSTAIN: Supervisorial District V SUBJECT: Prohibit stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles at all times on a portion of Loring Avenue (Road No. 2294D), Crockett area. The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors RESOLVES that: Based on recommendations by the County Public Works Department's Transportation Engineering Division, and pursuant to County Ordinance Code Sections 46-2.002 - 46-2.012, the following traffic regulation is established: Pursuant to Section 22507 and Section 21458 of the California Vehicle Code, stopping, standing, or parking is hereby declared to be prohibited at all times on the south side of Loring Avenue (Road No. 2294D), beginning at point 71 feet east of the eastern curbline prolongation of West Street (Road No. 2295AH) and extending easterly a distance of 70 feet, Crockett area. MO:kh Orig. Dept: Public Works (Traffic) Contact: Monish Sen, 313-2187 cc: California Highway Patrol Sheriff Department TRAFFIC RESOLUTION NO. 2021/4501 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/129 accepting completion of improvements for subdivision SD14-09389 for a project developed by Laurel Ranch III, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord area. (District IV) FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The developer has completed the improvements per the Subdivision Agreement, and in accordance with the Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The completion of improvements will not be accepted. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Renee Hutchins - Records, Karen Piona- Records, Cinda Tovar- Design & Construction, Chris Lau - Maintenance, Ronald Lai, Engineering Services, Chris Hallford -Mapping , Michael Mann- Finance, Michelle Mancuso- Watershed Program, Flood Control, Laurel Ranch III, LLC, Developers Surety & Indemnity Company C. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Accepting completion of improvements for subdivision SD14-09389, Concord area. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2021/129 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed: Resolution No. 2021/129 Recorded at the request of:Clerk of the Board Return To:Public Works Dept- Simone Saleh THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE:John Gioia, District I SupervisorCandace Andersen, District II SupervisorDiane Burgis, District III SupervisorKaren Mitchoff, District IV SupervisorFederal D. Glover, District V Supervisor NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/129 IN THE MATTER OF accepting completion of improvements for subdivision SD14-09389 for a project developed by Laurel Ranch III, LLC, as recommended by the Public Works Director, Concord area. (District IV) WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has notified this Board that the improvements in subdivision SD14-09389 have been completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement with Laurel Ranch III, LLC heretofore approved by this Board in conjunction with the filing of the Subdivision Map. WHEREAS, these improvements are approximately located near Bailey Road and Myrtle Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the improvements have been COMPLETED as of April 27, 2021, thereby establishing the six-month terminal period for the filing of liens in case of action under said Subdivision Agreement: DATE OF AGREEMENT: July 9, 2019 NAME OF SURETY: Developers Surety and Indemnity Company BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the payment (labor and materials) surety for $431,500.00, Bond No. 706862S issued by the above surety be RETAINED for the six month lien guarantee period until October 27, 2021 at which time the Board AUTHORIZES the release of said surety less the amount of any claims on file. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the widening of Bailey Road is ACCEPTED and DECLARED to be a County road as shown and dedicated for public use on the map of subdivision SD14-09389 filed July 24, 2019, in Book 541 of FINAL Maps at page 22, Official Records of Contra Costa County, State of California; and as conveyed by separate instrument recorded on July 24, 2019, in DOC-2019-0115205-00 of Official Records. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the beginning of the warranty period is hereby established, and the $8,630 cash deposit (Auditor's Deposit Permit No. 786426, dated May 28, 2019) made by Laurel Ranch III, LLC, and the performance/maintenance surety bond rider for $854,370.00, Bond No. 706862S issued by Developers Surety and Indemnity Company be RETAINED pursuant to the requirements of Section 94-4.406 of the Ordinance Code until release by this Board. 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Larry Gossett- Engineering Services, Randolf Sanders- Engineering Services, Renee Hutchins - Records, Karen Piona- Records, Cinda Tovar- Design & Construction, Chris Lau - Maintenance, Ronald Lai, Engineering Services, Chris Hallford -Mapping , Michael Mann- Finance, Michelle Mancuso- Watershed Program, Flood Control, Laurel Ranch III, LLC, Developers Surety & Indemnity Company RECOMMENDATION(S): As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute a right of entry agreement with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Grantor), authorizing the District’s use of a portion of Grantor-owned property identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 159-250-020, 159-140-050, and 159-140-057 (Property), for access purposes in connection with the District’s Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez area. Project No.: 7520-6B8285 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the District, approved the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project) for the purpose of restoring and enhancing wetlands and associated habitats in Lower Walnut Creek and providing sustainable flood management, while allowing opportunities for public access and recreation. The South Reach portion of the Project generally consists of transporting soil APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Angela Bell, 925. 957-2451 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: Paul Detjens, Flood Control District C. 4 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Right of Entry with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Martinez area. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) from the North Reach to the South Reach, constructing levees and access roads, removing existing levees, excavating tidal channels, and planting native vegetation. On November 19, 2019, the Board adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project (State Clearinghouse No 2019099043). The Grantor is the owner of real property identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 159-250-020, 159-140-050, and 159-140-057 located in the Martinez area. The Property includes a concrete access road that the District has openly used for many years in order to access and maintain Pacheco Creek, Walnut Creek and the levee in the area. The Project requires the District to acquire a permanent nonexclusive Access Easement over and across the Property. The Public Works’ Real Estate Division is acquiring the Right of Entry in parallel with the required valuation and acquisition process for the Access Easement. The Right of Entry will convey necessary land rights to allow the District to award a contract for Project construction while Real Estate and the Grantor continue to negotiate terms and compensation for the acquisition of the Easement. As a condition of, and as partial consideration for, the rights granted under the Right of Entry, the Grantor is requiring the District to indemnify Grantor from liabilities that arise from the District’s use of the Easement area under the Right of Entry. The risk to the District can be mitigated by requiring the Project construction contractor to indemnify and defend the District from liabilities that arise during construction. Flood Control staff recommend that the Board approve execution of the Right of Entry so that Project construction can proceed as planned. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval, the District will not have all of the necessary property rights in order to construct the Project. ATTACHMENTS Right of Entry APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Angela Bell, 925. 957-2451 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 5 To:Contra Costa County Flood Control District Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Right of Way contract, Grant of Easement and Temporary Construction Easements with Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc., d/b/a Conco, Martinez area RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) As the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the District, a Right of Way Contract (Contract) with Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. (dba Conco), (”Conco”) to acquire a permanent easement (“Easement”) and temporary construction easements (“TCEs”) within Conco-owned property, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 159-250-006, -018, -019, -021, and -022, in connection with construction and maintenance of the District’s Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project, Martinez area. Project No.: 7520-6B8285.; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to ACCEPT the Easement and TCEs on behalf of the District. APPROVE payment in the amount of $49,900, for said Easement and TCEs; and AUTHORIZE the Auditor-Controller to issue a check in said amount payable to Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. (dba Conco), 5141 Commercial Circle, Concord, CA 94520, to be forwarded to the Real Estate Division for delivery. DIRECT the Real Estate Division to have the above referenced Easement recorded in the Office of the County Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Flood Control Zone 3B funds (Fund 252000) BACKGROUND: In 2019, the County Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the District, approved the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Project (Project) for the purpose of restoring and enhancing wetlands and associated habitats in Lower Walnut Creek and providing sustainable flood management, while allowing opportunities for public access and recreation. The South Reach portion of the Project generally consists of transporting soil from the North Reach to the South Reach, constructing levees and access roads, removing existing levees, excavating tidal channels, and planting native vegetation. On November 19, 2019, the Board adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project (State Clearinghouse No 2019099043). Conco (Grantor) owns property within the South Reach located between the Pacheco and Walnut Creeks and identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 159-250-006, -018, -019, -021, and -022 (Property). The Project requires the District to acquire five (5) temporary easements and one permanent access easement in the Property (Easements). On February 2, 2021, this Board approved a Right of Entry for said Easements. The Public Works Real Estate Division and the Grantor have negotiated the terms and compensation for the acquisition of the Easements. As a condition of, and as partial consideration for, the rights granted under the Easements, the Grantor is requiring the District to indemnify Grantor from liabilities that arise from the District’s use of the Easement areas under the Grant of Easement and Temporary Construction Easements. The risk to the District can be mitigated by requiring the Project construction contractor to indemnify and defend the District from liabilities that arise during construction. Flood Control staff recommend that the Board approve execution of the Contract and accept the Easements so that Project construction can proceed as planned. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval, the District will not have all of the necessary property rights in order to maintain the Without approval, the District will not have all of the necessary property rights in order to maintain the Project in perpetuity. ATTACHMENTS Right of Way Contract Grant of Easement Temporary Construction Easement RECOMMENDATION(S): DENY claims filed by EE, a minor (2) and Melissa Landreth. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: E.E., a minor (2): Personal injury claims related to birth injury in the amount of $10,000,000 each. Mellissa Landreth: Personal injury claim for a trip and fall in the amount of $1,000,000. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: * APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Risk Management I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Claims RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Government Code section 53232.3(d) requires that members of legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging ex cetera). The attached reports were submitted by the Board of Supervisors members in satisfaction of this requirement. Districts I, IV and V have nothing to report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Board of Supervisors will not be in compliance with Government Code 53232.3(d). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Joellen Bergamini 925.655.2000 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 7 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ACCEPT Board members meeting reports for March 2021 ATTACHMENTS District II March 2021 Report District III March 2021 Report Supervisor Candace Andersen – Monthly Meeting Report March 2021 Date Meeting Location 1-5 Daily Staff meeting Zoom Meeting 2 BOS meeting Zoom Meeting 3 Orinda State of City Zoom meeting 3 Mental Health Comm Zoom meeting 4 Co Connection MPL Zoom meeting 4 East Bay EDA Zoom meeting 5 EBRCSA Zoom Meeting 8-12 Daily Staff meeting Zoom Meeting 8 Internal Operations Zoom Meeting 9 BOS meeting Zoom Meeting 10 CCCERA Zoom meeting 10 JJCC Zoom Meeting 11 CCHS Briefing phone call 11 East Bay EDA Zoom meeting 12 Joint Conf Comm Zoom meeting 12 Reimagining Youth Justice Zoom meeting 15 Alamo Liaison Zoom meeting 15-18 Staff meeting Zoom meeting 16 TRAFFIX Zoom meeting 18 CCCTA Zoom meeting 18 COVID Adhoc Zoom meeting 18 ABAG Zoom meeting 22-26 Staff meeting Zoom meeting 22 Family & Human Serv Zoom meeting 22 Public Protection Zoom meting 23 BOS meeting Zoom meeting 24 CCCERA Zoom meeting 24 RIC Steering Comm Zoom meeting 25 CCHS Briefing phone call 25 CCCSWA Zoom meeting 29-31 Staff meeting Zoom meeting 30 BOS meeting Zoom meeting Date Meeting Name Location 1-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 3-Mar Martinez Office Martinez 4-Mar Meeting with Health Services Via Phone 4-Mar Contra Costa Mayors Conference Web Meeting 5-Mar Family Justice Center Board Meeting Web Meeting 8-Mar Internal Operations Committee Meeting Web Meeting 8-Mar Legislation Committee Meeting Web Meeting 9-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 9-Mar Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Meeting Web Meeting 9-Mar Housing Aurthority Meeting Web Meeting 10-Mar Airport Committee Meeting Web Meeting 11-Mar Meeting with Health Services Via Phone 11-Mar East Contra Costa Regional Fee & Finance Authority Meeting Web Meeting 11-Mar State Route 4 Bypass Authority Meeting Web Meeting 11-Mar Transplan Meeting Web Meeting 12-Mar Delta Counties Coalition Meeting Via Phone 15-Mar Martinez Office Martinez 18-Mar Meeting with Health Services Via Phone 18-Mar Martinez Office Martinez 18-Mar Delta Protection Commission Meeting Web Meeting 22-Mar Family and Human Services Committee Meeting Web Meeting 23-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 24-Mar Martinez Office Martinez 24-Mar Regional Impact Council Steering Committee Web Meeting 24-Mar Tri Delta Transit Meeting Web Meeting 25-Mar Meeting with Health Services Via Phone 25-Mar Non-Profit Roundtable Relaunch Web Meeting 29-Mar East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Web Meeting 30-Mar Board of Supervisors Meeting Web Meeting 30-Mar Press Conference Concord 30-Mar Martinez Office Martinez Supervisor Diane Burgis - March 2021 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County Purpose Meeting Board Letters for CAO Meeting Community Outreach Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Board Letters for CAO Meeting Board Letters for CAO Meeting Meeting Meeting Board Letters for CAO Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Community Outreach Board Letters for CAO Supervisor Diane Burgis - March 2021 AB1234 Report (Government Code Section 53232.3(d) requires that members legislative bodies report on meetings attended for which there has been expense reimbursement (mileage, meals, lodging, etc). * Reimbursement may come from an agency other than Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/147 proclaiming May 2021 as "Bike to Wherever Days" in Contra Costa County, and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to sign a memorandum requesting County Department Heads to participate in outreach efforts to their employees for Bike to Wherever Days. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and 511.org provide outreach materials, distributed through existing County procedures. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Robert Sarmiento (925) 655-2918 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: Jody London C. 8 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021 Bike to Wherever Days BACKGROUND: Historically, Bike to Work Day has been held each May to encourage County commuters to try bicycling to work and to consider regularly commuting by bicycle. Examples of incentives offered to past participants include a raffle for prizes and energizer stations with refreshments and educational materials for bicycle commuters. Bicycling provides excellent exercise and is a non-polluting and energy-efficient form of transportation. Due to COVID-19, last year Bike to Work Day was rebranded as Bike to Wherever Days, which promoted bicycling for any purpose, and was extended to take place throughout the month of September. In 2021, Bike to Wherever Days will take place throughout National Bike Month in May and will continue to promote bicycling for any purpose. All nine Bay Area counties will be participating in 2021 Bike to Wherever Days at some level. May 21, 2021 has been designated as "Bike to Wherever Day," when special bicycling festivities will take place around the Bay Area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, with the help of financial donations from event sponsors and volunteers, will primarily fund Bike to Wherever Days in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additional information on the event is available at this website: https://bayareabiketowork.com. Attached is a draft transmittal memo (Exhibit A) from the County Administrator to all departments requesting that they encourage their employees to participate in Bike to Wherever Days. With the Board's approval, posters and other outreach materials will be distributed to County departments for their use in outreach to County employees. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will not encourage its employees to participate in Bike to Wherever Days. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/147 Bike to Wherever Memo 2021 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE: NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/147 IN THE MATTER OF PROCLAIMING MAY 2021 AS "BIKE TO WHEREVER DAYS," WHEREAS, breathing clean air is vital to healthy lungs and life; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa encourages its employees and citizens to bicycle in order to improve air quality and promote the health benefits of bicycling; and WHEREAS, the County of Contra Costa acknowledges that bicycling to work is a viable commute mode to improve the "livability" of communities by reducing traffic noise and congestion; and WHEREAS, Bike to Work Days have proven effective in converting drivers into bicyclists and educating citizens about the public health benefits of bicycling to work regularly; and WHEREAS, due to COVID-19, Bike to Work Day has been rebranded as "Bike to Wherever Days" in 2021; and WHEREAS, Bike to Wherever Days will take place for the entire month of May; and WHEREAS, Bike to Wherever Days encourages bicycling for all types of trips; and WHEREAS, National Bike Month and California Bike Commute Week are in May; and WHEREAS, all nine Bay Area counties are participating in Bike to Wherever Days in May 2021. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims May 2021 as "Bike to Wherever Days" in Contra Costa County. Contact: Robert Sarmiento (925) 655-2918 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: Jody London County of Contra Costa Office of the County Administrator MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2021 TO: All Departments FROM: Monica Nino, County Administrator SUBJECT: 2021 BIKE TO WHEREVER DAYS Pull out your bike, pump up the tires, and leave your car in the garage! May is National Bike Month, celebrated in the Bay Area as “Bike to Wherever Days”1. The goal of Bike to Wherever Days is to encourage Bay Area residents to ride their bikes for all types of trips, including commute trips, recreational trips, and shopping trips. All nine Bay Area counties will be participating in Bike to Wherever Days at some level. Free Bike to Wherever Days tote bag will be available at your local County library during the month of May, while supplies last. County Departments are encouraged to participate in outreach efforts to promote the event, including distributing and posting a flyer (attached) promoting an interdepartmental bike competition (described in the next paragraph). More information on Bike to Wherever Days can be found in the following website: https://bayareabiketowork.com. Additional biking resources can be found in the following 511 Contra Costa website: 511contracosta.org/biking. 511 Contra Costa has developed a bike safety quiz (http://tiny.cc/511CCBikeSafetyQuiz) that all County employees, including bicyclists and drivers, are encouraged to take. 511 Contra Costa will award prizes to 1 Typically, “Bike to Work Day” takes place on the second Thursday in May. However, due to COVID-19, 2021 Bike to Work Day has been rebranded as “Bike to Wherever Days” and will run for the entire month of May. A special “Bike to Wherever Day,” when special bicycling festivities will be held around the Bay Area, will take place on May 21. ten randomly selected employees who take the survey. County Departments are being asked to encourage their staff to ride a bike as often as possible during Bike to Wherever Days. A County employee interdepartmental bike competition has been created to see which department will have the highest total number of individual days employees had ridden a bike during Bike to Wherever Days. At the conclusion of the event, each participant can record the days he/she biked during Bike to Wherever Days in a survey (http://tiny.cc/CCC2021BTWDSurvey).2 Staff from the Department of Conservation and Development will tally the total number of individual days participants had ridden a bike by department and will award prizes to the department that had the greatest number of days of employee participation in Bike to Wherever Days. 3 An additional prize will be awarded to the individual participant with the greatest number of days biked during Bike to Wherever Days.4 All participants are encouraged to post photos of their bike ride and the destinations they biked to on social media, using the hashtag #CCC2021BTWD. A separate Bay Area-wide bike competition will also be taking place for the entire month of May. Information on this competition can be found in the following website: https://www.lovetoride.net/bayarea/pages/info?locale=en-US. In addition to registering as an individual for the competition, you have the option to register as a team, so feel free to gather your family, friends, and coworkers. After each bicycle ride, you record your ride and miles on the competition website and earn points. Additional points can be earned when you encourage others to participate in the competition. Prizes are offered to individuals and teams who have accumulated the most points at the conclusion of the competition. Staff from the Public Works Department 5 have volunteered to tune up bikes to help you get ready for Bike to Wherever Days. Services include help fixing a flat, adjusting brakes and gears, and maintaining bike chains. For more information on 2021 Bike to Wherever Days, please contact Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development, at robert.sarmiento@dcd.cccounty.us or (925) 655-2918. 2 Once a survey is submitted, it cannot be modified. Surveys will be accepted through Friday, June 11. 3 Each department’s Bike to Wherever Days employee participation will be weighted based on the total number of employees in the department. 4 If multiple participants have the same greatest number of days biking during Bike to Whatever Days, the prize will be raffled to one winner. 5 Contact Lawrence Leong- larry.leong@pw.cccounty.us or (925) 313-2026. Tune-ups are available by appointment only. [Type here] Supervisor Candace Andersen ARE YOU READY FOR THE CHALLENGE? Take part in the interdepartmental “Bike to Wherever Days” Challenge during the month of May! Prizes awarded to the department and individual that has the most participation! Log your Bike to Wherever Days rides at http://tiny.cc/CCC2021BTWDSurvey.* For more information on Bike to Wherever Days, visit https://bayareabiketowork.com, or contact Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development, at robert.sarmiento@dcd.cccounty.us or (925) 655-2918. Supervisor Karen Mitchoff *Once a survey is submitted, it cannot be modified. Surveys will be accepted through Friday, June 11. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Teresa (925) 252-4500 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Wendy Mascitto, Deputy cc: C. 9 To:Board of Supervisors From:Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Recognizing Gennie McNeal ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/152 In the matter of:Resolution No. 2021/152 In the Matter of honoring Gennie McNeal for his service to the United States of America and recognizing and wishing him well on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of his birth. Whereas, WWII Veteran Gennie McNeal served in the United States Army from November 1942 to October 1945; and Whereas, Gennie served as an Engineer in the United State Army with Company F, 392nd Engineer Regiment; and Whereas, during WWII, Mr. McNeal served in Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe; and Whereas, Gennie McNeal had a full professional life following his service in WWII with employment at Mare Island, the Southern Pacific Railroad, the United States Post Service, longshoreman, security guard at Eastmont Mall and 15 years at Oakland Technical High School before retiring in 1985; and Whereas, Gennie McNeal is a resident of Antioch, residing in the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors District 3; and Whereas, Gennie was married for 75 years to the love of his life, Stevie McNeal, who passed away last year at the age of 96; and Whereas, Gennie McNeal served our country with commitment and pride; and Whereas, he celebrated his 100th birthday on April 6, 2021; and Now therefore be it resolved that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor recognizes Gennie McNeal for his military service and wishes him the very best as he celebrates 100 years of life. ___________________ DIANE BURGIS Chair, District III Supervisor ______________________________________ JOHN GIOIA CANDACE ANDERSEN District I Supervisor District II 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator By: ____________________________________, Deputy RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-15 amending the County Ordinance Code to exclude from the merit system the new classification of Associate Medical Direct-Exempt and include in the list of classifications excluded from the merit system. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: There has been a significant increase in demand for various healthcare services over the past year due to COVID-19, resulting in a need for additional clinical leadership to help in the day-to-day management of different service areas; most notably, ambulatory care and inpatient care. A classification study was completed, during which comparable management classifications were identified in similarly structured external agencies. We found that all comparable organizations that currently have a Medical Director classification, also have some form of Associate/Assistant/2nd level Medical Director in place to support the overall management functions of organization. While Contra Costa County Health Services has been operating without this 2nd management level up to this point, with the increased healthcare demands since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, this APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Gladys Reid (925) 655-2122 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia WongTam, Lauren Ludwig C. 10 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ann Elliott, Human Resources Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-15 Amending the County Ordinance Code to Exclude Associate Medical Director-Exempt BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) organizational structure is no longer sustainable to maintain operations within the department. The Health Services Department is requesting to establish the classification of Associate Medical Director-Exempt, which is intended to add an additional layer of executive management to support the current Medical Director classification. This request also includes adding two positions; one of which will be assigned to support ambulatory care, and the other to support inpatient care. These new Associate Medical Director positions will help improve access to vital services, increase visits, oversee quality and improvement projects, manage physician and clinic service lines, support telehealth services, etc. This has been identified by the Chief Executive Officer, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Health Centers & Detention Health, as operationally critical in order to continue providing quality care to the communities we serve. A salary study was conducted to determine the salary range for this new classification, which is in line with Contra Costa County's general salary structure for progression from one management level to the next. In addition, when comparing to similar classifications in external agencies, the suggested salary for the Associate Medical Director-Exempt will fall directly in line with both the mean and median in the field as a whole, allowing Contra Costa County to remain competitive in recruiting and hiring highly qualified talent for these new positions. In order to offset the cost of establishing and adding two positions, the department will be eliminating three vacant clinical positions (one Hospitalist-Exempt position and two Primary Care Provider-Limited-Exempt positions), which will ultimately result in an annual cost savings to the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Health Services Department will have insufficient executive staff to properly maintain operational functions, which will result in decreased availability of critical health care services to the communities of Contra Costa County. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Number 2012-15 Associate Medical Director-Ex MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance No. 2021-15 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-14 amending the County Ordinance Code to retitle the classification of Departmental Personnel Officer-Exempt to Departmental Human Resources Officer I - Exempt and exclude from the merit system the new classification of Departmental Human Resources Officer II - Exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with retitling or exempting this class from the Merit System. BACKGROUND: The exempt classification of Departmental Personnel Officer was created on December 11, 2018. Since the establishment of the classification, positions have been added in four County departments: Employment and Human Services (EHSD), Health Services Department (HSD), Public Works, and the Library. The positions in EHSD and HSD manage teams that serve the two largest departments in the County. The scope of responsibility is greater than the positions in smaller departments with less complicated needs. Additionally, HSD is the only County department with delegated authority to conduct recruitments for classifications that exist only within that department. Contra Costa APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Tina Pruett (925) 655-2179 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia WongTam, Lauren Ludwig, Eric Suitos, Exec Asst to County Counsel C. 11 To:Board of Supervisors From:Ann Elliott, Human Resources Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance 2021-14 Amending the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code to Retitle and Establish BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) County Human Resources Department contracted with CPS HR Consulting to conduct a study of the staffing needs of the personnel units in both EHSD and HSD. This study was completed over a two-year period and included a recommendation that the County “should add a first line supervisor position to assist in the day to day management of staff. This will allow the Departmental Personnel Officer to focus on the programmatic requirements that have been delegated as unmet work requirements and management oversight of the division, and provide guidance in the Personnel arena at the departmental level, while providing a position that can focus on appropriate work distribution and supervisory guidance in addition to helping the current supervisor with backlogged projects/requirements and assist with running the day to day operation of the Personnel Division." The expectation will be that this lead departmental human resources position will provide greater leadership and effectiveness and accountability for accuracy in all functions of the departmental human resource function. Both EHSD and HSD have vacant positions in the Departmental Human Resources Supervisor classification that need to be filled in order to properly support the departmental HR functions. At the time that the supervisor classification was established, the salary allocation was based solely on internal salary structures, and established at a rate that would not result in requiring analysis of other salaries within the job family. Following a failed recruitment, and feedback from candidates who declined to apply, Human Resources conducted a salary survey for the Departmental HR Supervisor. The results of that salary survey supported a reallocation that would have created compaction between the Departmental Human Resources Supervisor and the Personnel Officer classification. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved the impacted departments will not have the appropriate classification structure. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 2021-14 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2021-14 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-13, allowing community members to care for found dogs and cats and establishing new leash restrictions. FISCAL IMPACT: The Department does not project any fiscal impact due to the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 2021-13 amends Division 413 of the county Ordinance Code to allow community members and nonprofit organizations to care for dogs and cats they find at large until the animal’s owner can be identified and informed that their animal has been located. The ordinance requires finders of animals to take certain steps to help identify the found animal’s owner and to provide humane treatment for the animal. Division 413 prohibits dogs from being “at large.” Ordinance No. 2021-13 provides that a dog will be deemed to be “at large” if it is on a leash that is longer than six feet or that is extendable or retractable. A long, retractable, or extendable leash allows a dog to get too far away from its handler, which does not allow for effective APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Arturo Castillo 925-608-8470 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 12 To:Board of Supervisors From:Beth Ward, Animal Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ADOPT Ordinance No. 2021-13, allowing community members to care for found dogs and cats and establishing new lease restrictions. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) control of the dog. In addition, animals and people can get tangled up in the cord of a long, retractable, or extendable leash, which can cause safety issues. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Unless the County Ordinance Code is revised, the Animal Services Department will continue to be required to impound found animals until their owners are notified and can claim their animals. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Ensuring that a dog is walked on a leash that is six feet or less could reduce dog bites to children due to helping to ensure more effective control. It could also reduce the possibility of injury from getting entangled in the leash. According to Consumer Reports and the Consumer Union’s analysis of statistics collected in 2007, there were 16,564 hospital treated injuries associated with pet leashes. 10.5% of those injuries were to children ten years of age and younger. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 2021-13. MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Ordinance 2021-12 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-13 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-13 AT LARGE DOGS AND CARING FOR FOUND DOGS AND CATS The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code): SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance amends Division 416 of the County Ordinance Code to clarify when a dog is deemed to be “at large” and to allow community members to care for found dogs and cats under Animal Services Department guidelines. SECTION II. Section 416-4.402 is amended to read as follows: 416-4.402 Animals at large. (a) No person owning, possessing, harboring, or controlling an animal may allow the animal to be at large. (b) As used in this section, an “at large” animal means any of the following: (1) A dog that is on public property or common areas of private property and is not under effective restraint of a leash. A dog is not “under effective restraint of a leash” if the leash: (A) is not made of sufficient material and strength to restrain the dog; (B) is longer than six feet; (C) is extendable or retractable; or (D) is not held in a manner that prevents the dog from being at large or causing injury to another animal or person. A dog is not required to be under restraint by a leash if the dog is on private property owned by, or in the possession of, the person owning or controlling the dog. (2) An animal other than a dog or a cat that is not in the immediate presence and under the effective control of a person. (3) An animal that is tethered or leashed: (A) for longer than fifteen minutes on any street or other public place not set aside for tethering or leashing; or (B) in such a way as to block a public walkway or thoroughfare. (4) An animal on private property or in any public building without the consent of the owner or occupant. (5) An animal in any place or position with the capacity to injure persons or property. (6) An animal that fights, bites, or causes harm to a person or other animal unless the person or other animal has entered, without permission, private property owned by or in the possession of the person owning or controlling the offending animal and the private property is properly fenced and posted as to the presence of the offending animal. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-13 2 (7) An animal that: (A) is not on the private property owned by, or in the possession of, the person owning or controlling the animal; and (B) is not wearing a required license tag. (8) An animal that is left at any place without provision for its care. (c) Exemptions. A working, hunting, obedience, tracking, or show dog that is performing acts such as herding and is under the control and supervision of the dog’s owner or handler is not “at large” while performing these acts. Dogs being exercised under the control of their owners in public areas designated for animal exercise are not at large. (d) Females in Heat. In the case of female dogs or cats in heat and for the purposes of Food and Agricultural Code Section 30954, “at large” means outside a house, vehicle, or other secure enclosure adequate to prevent unplanned male access. (e) Animals in Vehicles. (1) A dog or other animal in or on a vehicle is deemed to be on the property of the vehicle’s operator. Except as otherwise provided in Vehicle Code Section 23117, no dog or other animal may be transported on any public thoroughfare in a vehicle unless the dog or animal is: (A) totally enclosed within the vehicle; (B) within a secured container carried on the vehicle; or (C) securely cross-tethered to the vehicle to prevent the animal from falling out of or off the vehicle and to prevent injury to the animal. (2) No dog or any other animal may be left completely enclosed in a parked vehicle without adequate ventilation, or left in such a way that subjects the animal to high temperatures that negatively affect the animal’s health and welfare. (Ords. 2021-13 § 2, 80-97 § 2). SECTION III. Section 416-8.002 is amended to read as follows: 416-8.002 Impoundment required. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all animals, including dogs and cats, that are abandoned, found at large, taken into custody by the animal services director, or otherwise found to be in violation of Division 416 of this code, will be taken up and impounded, and are subject to destruction by humane injection. (b) A person who finds a stray domestic animal at large, whose owner is unknown or cannot be immediately contacted, may temporarily retain and care for that animal. Within eight hours after finding the animal, or as soon as the animal services department opens for business if the department is closed when the animal is found, the person retaining the animal must: (A) notify the animal services department that they have the animal in their possession; (B) provide to the department a description and photograph of the animal; (C) ORDINANCE NO. 2021-13 3 have the animal scanned for a microchip; and (D) state their name, where the animal was found, and where the animal will be held until its owner is located. (c) The finder of an at-large animal is obligated to provide the animal humane treatment. (d) When the owner of a found animal is located, the person holding the animal shall either immediately surrender the animal to the animal services department for impoundment or return the animal to the owner. The finder shall not charge the owner for compensation except to recover a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the animal as permitted by Civil Code Section 2080. If no owner is located within 30 days, or the owner does not claim the animal within the time provided in Section 416-8.006, then the finder may claim ownership of the animal or provide the animal for adoption by a new owner. (Ords. 2021-13 § 3, 80-97 § 2). SECTION IV. Section 416-8.006 is amended to read as follows: 416-8.006 Holding period—Notice. (a) Impounded animals shall be kept at a facility of or authorized by the animal services department for the time required by the Food and Agriculture Code, including Sections 31128, 31752, and 31753, except for rabies control purposes and as follows: (1) Impounded stray dogs or cats with valid licenses shall be held 10 days after written notice is mailed or otherwise given to the owner, if the owner is identified. (2) Impounded stray horses, mules or burros shall be held for five days. These animals, if unclaimed after that period, shall be disposed of in such a manner as the board of supervisors specifies by resolution. Bovines shall be delivered to a state inspector as provided in Food and Agriculture Section 17061. (b) An animal found at large and retained under Section 416-8.002(c) shall not be deemed impounded unless the finder has delivered the animal to the animal services department. (c) If the owner of an impounded animal, other than a dog or cat with a valid license, is identified, the animal services department will notify the owner by telephone or mail within two days after the animal is identified and will hold the animal for at least five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays when the animal services department is closed) after notice is mailed or otherwise given. (d) If the finder of an at large animal, as provided in Section 416-8.002(c), identifies the animal’s owner, then the finder shall either: (A) notify the owner of the animal’s location within two days after identifying the owner; or (B) notify the animal services department of the owner’s identification, and the department shall then notify the owner. (e) The animal services director may dispose of an animal unclaimed after the holding period expires by humanely destroying the animal by injection, transferring the animal to an ORDINANCE NO. 2021-13 4 animal-related nonprofit organization, or by placing the animal in an adoptive home. No live animal shall be released for teaching or experimental purposes. (Ords. 2021-13 § 4, 80-97 § 2). SECTION V. Section 416-8.016 is amended to read as follows: 416-8.016 Adoption. (a) The department may put an impounded animal up for adoption if the animal services director finds that allowing the animal to be adopted is not contrary to law, department policy, or the public interest. A dog or cat may be adopted solely for the purpose of serving as a pet and only after the animal has been licensed, neutered or spayed, and vaccinated against rabies. (b) If the owner of a found animal is not located, and the finder of the animal, as provided in Section 416-8.002(c), is an animal-related nonprofit organization that identifies a person willing to adopt the animal, then the finder must provide all appropriate vaccinations to the animal, implant a microchip in the animal, spay or neuter the animal, and provide license information to the new owner at the time of adoption. The finder may pass along the costs incurred for these procedures to the new owner. (c) Fees for the adoption of animals from the animal services department will be established by resolution of the board of supervisors. (Ords. 2021-13 § 5, 80-97 § 2). SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage must 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: MONICA NINO, ____________________________ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair and County Administrator By: _________________________ [SEAL] Deputy KSK: H:\Animal Services\Ordinance Revisions\2021 Amendments Final.docx RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignations of Frank Napoli, Local Committee Walnut Creek seat and Ron Tervelt, Local Committee Clayton seat on the Advisory Council on Aging, and Direct the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancies, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Department Director. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Frank Napoli was appointed to the Local Committee Walnut Creek seat March 19, 2019. The seat expires September 30, 2021. Mr. Napoli submitted his resignation to pursue other obligations. Ron Tervelt was appointed to the Local Committee Clayton seat July 29, 2014. The seat expires September 30, 2021. Mr. Tervelt submitted his resignation as he is moving out of the County. The Advisory Council on Aging (Council) provides a means for countywide planning, cooperation, and coordination for individuals and groups interested in improving and developing services and opportunities for the older residents of the County. The Council provides leadership and advocacy on behalf of older persons as a channel of communication and information on aging. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Lauren Hull, Deputy cc: C. 13 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Advisory Council on Aging Resignations CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Council would not be able to conduct routine business. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.13 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Advisory Council on Aging Seat: Local Committee Walnut Creek A ppointments will be made after May 11, 2021 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 27, 2021. · cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M:\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to $:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~ By:~~ Deputy Clerk Contra Costa County NOTICE C.13 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Advisory Council on Aging Seat: Local Committee Clayton A ppointments will be made after May 11, 2021 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 27, 2021. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to Minutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M :\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M:\1-Committee Files and Applications I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Andw:= By :~~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT revisions to the Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws to provide more detail regarding the process for subsequent appointments of Supervisorial and At-Large members and alternates, and allow unscheduled vacancies prior to October 1, 2021, to be filled using the current recruitment pool; ACKNOWLEDGE resignation of Donna Colombo as District II Alternate; and, APPOINT Steven Bliss as the District II Alternate to the Measure X Community Advisory Board. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative action, no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The voters passed Measure X, a ½ cent sales tax levied countywide (exempting food sales), in November 2020. Collection of the sales tax began April 1, 2021 and will be available for distribution in FY 2021-22. The Board of Supervisors approved the creation of a 17-member Community Advisory Board to recommend funding priorities of annual revenue received under Measure X funds, directed the County Administrator to return to the Board of Supervisors with a process to move forward in soliciting applications and seating members on the Community Advisory Board, and further APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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) 655-2047 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Lauren Hull, Deputy cc: Jami Morritt, Clerk of the Board C. 14 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws and Appointment of District II Alternate BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) directed that the Advisory Board be a Brown Act body that is staffed by the County Administrator's Office. On March 9, the Board of Supervisors approved Bylaws recommended by the Finance Committee. Following the application period, the Clerk of the Board forwarded applications to all Board members for selection of nominees. On March 29, the Finance Committee invited each applicant wishing to make a public comment regarding their qualifications to do so. The Finance Committee discussed the expertise and perspectives of the applicants and the desire to include more voices on the Measure X Community Advisory Board by including alternates. The Finance Committee recommended revisions to the bylaws to formally allow the use of five Supervisorial District Alternates and five At-Large alternates (attached). At the conclusion of the comment period, the Committee made nominations to the Board of Supervisors which were adopted on April 6, 2021. The Bylaws adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2021, had limited information regarding how subsequent appointments are to be made. The attached bylaw revisions allow for use of the initial recruitment pool through September 30, 2021 and provide greater detail regarding the process for subsequent appointments of Supervisorial and At-Large members and alternates. Using the current recruitment pool, Supervisor Andersen is nominating Steven Bliss (Lafayette) as the District II Alternate to the Measure X Community Advisory Board to replace Donna Colombo, who resigned. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws will not be clarified and the District II alternate nomination will be delayed. ATTACHMENTS Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws (current) Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws (Redlined) Measure X Community Advisory Board Bylaws (Revised)     CONTRA COSTA COUNTY   MEASURE X COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD    BYLAWS  (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2021)    Article I – Purpose    A. The Measure X Community Advisory Board (the “Advisory Board”) was established by the Board of  Supervisors on February 2, 2021 to advise the Board of Supervisors on the use of Measure X transactions  and use tax funds. The main responsibilities of the Advisory Board are:  1. Overseeing an annual assessment of community needs, focusing primarily on the priority areas  identified in the Needs Assessment, including emergency response (fire/medical), health care, safety  net services, preventative care, affordable housing, and supports for early childhood, youth, families,  and seniors.  2. Creating detailed priority lists of the top ten service gaps (county‐ and community‐provided) based on  the results from the needs assessment.   3. Using the assessment to make general funding priority recommendations to the Board of Supervisors  on 95% of the revenue generated by Measure X.  4. Providing an annual report on the outcomes and impact of allocated funds.   5. The Advisory Board committee shall initially meet as needed and thereafter shall meet quarterly.  Article II – Membership    A. Composition:    1. The Advisory Board shall consist of 17 members, composed of 10 Supervisorial District appointees  (2 per Supervisorial District) and seven (7) At‐Large appointees.    2. The Advisory Board shall include ten (10) alternates. Alternate members have made a commitment  to attend the meetings and gain the understanding of the issues and each other’s viewpoints  needed to reach agreement on recommendations. Alternate members are expected to attend all  regular Advisory Board meetings and may participate fully, except that they may not vote unless  substituting for an absent member as described below. Alternate members may not serve as  elected officers but may serve on ad hoc or standing committees of the Advisory Board.      a) One (1) alternate shall serve on the Advisory Board for each Supervisorial District Appointment  for a total of five (5) District alternates.  The role of District alternate is fully interchangeable  with that of regular District appointed Advisory Board members.  A District alternate may not  vote unless substituting for the respective absent District appointed members.      b) Five (5) alternates shall serve on the Advisory Board as At‐Large alternates.  The role of At‐Large  alternate is fully interchangeable with that of regular At‐Large Advisory Board members.  At‐ Large alternates may fully participate and voice opinions but may not vote unless substituting  for an absent At‐Large member.      B. Eligibility:     1. General: The Advisory Board shall be composed of members representing broad and diverse voices,  perspectives and expertise, including but not exclusive to: budget justice advocacy, children’s services,  community health, consumer advocacy, faith leadership, senior services, fire and public safety  protection, housing and homelessness, labor union representation, legal advocacy, local businesses,  mental health services, non‐partisan civic organizations, policy organizations, public health, racial  justice and equity, safety net services, senior services, substance use services, taxpayers, and youth  services.    2. Live/Work Requirement: Committee members shall either live or work in Contra Costa County, with a  majority being residents of the County. There is no requirement for Supervisorial District seat  appointees to live or work within a specific Supervisorial District.    3. No Public Officials: Public officials, including both elected and appointed, are not eligible to serve on the  Advisory Board.    C. Terms of Office:      1. Appointments: The members of the Advisory Board and alternates shall serve staggered terms of two  or three years.    a) Supervisorial District Appointments: Each of the two (2) Supervisorial District seats and alternates  identified in Article II(A) for each Supervisorial District, shall serve a term of two (2) years.    b) At‐Large Appointments: Each of the seven (7) At‐Large seats and alternates identified in Article  II(A), shall serve a term of three (3) years.    2. Term Limits: Each member is limited to serving, consecutively, for a maximum of six years.    D. Appointment Process:     1. Initial Appointments:     a) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the 17‐member Advisory Board  through a single recruitment process.   b) Applications shall be referred to each County Supervisor to select three nominees to serve on the  Advisory Board (two nominees plus one stand‐by nominee).  c) Supervisorial District nominees will be transmitted to the Finance Committee of the Board of  Supervisors (the “Finance Committee”) along with all remaining applications for appointment.  d) The Finance Committee shall review the Supervisorial District nominations and select nominees for  the remaining seven (7) At‐Large seats taking into account the goals identified in Article II(B)(1).  e) In the case where the same nominee is selected for a Supervisorial District appointment by multiple  Supervisors, the Finance Committee shall take into consideration the stand‐by nominees  recommended by those Supervisors in resolving the conflict and making a final recommendation to  the Board of Supervisors.  f) The Finance Committee shall ultimately make every effort to ensure that there is representation  from the broadest cross‐section of stakeholders as described in Article II(B)(1) as well as  geographic, racial and ethnic representation reflecting the County’s diversity.      2. Subsequent Appointments: The County shall use the process outlined in Article II(C)(1) above to fill  scheduled vacancies.    3. Unscheduled Vacancies:       a) General: Should an unscheduled vacancy occur during a member’s term of office, either by death,  resignation or otherwise, the Board of Supervisors shall be notified of the vacancy and shall direct  the Clerk of the Board to announce the vacancy and collect applications for appointment.    b) Supervisorial District Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in a Supervisorial District seat, then the  applications seeking appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Supervisorial  District responsible for making nominations for appointment to that seat. The Supervisorial District  will then transmit the nomination for appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    c) At‐Large Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in an At‐Large seat, then the applications seeking  appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Finance Committee to consider  making nominations for appointment to the vacant seat. The Finance Committee will then transmit  the nomination for consideration and appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    d) Resignation:  Any appointed member may resign by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Board  of Supervisors.    Article III. – Advisory Board Structure & Meetings  A. Officers:  The Advisory Board shall select a Chair and Vice Chair for purposes of officiating meetings, who  shall each serve for a term of one (1) year.  Alternate members may not serve as officers.    B. Regular Meetings:  Regular meetings of the Advisory Board shall be held at least quarterly based on a  schedule adopted by the Advisory Board and that schedule may be changed or augmented as needed.  In  addition, regularly scheduled meetings may be canceled by a majority vote of the Advisory Board or, for  lack of business or a quorum, by the Chair.      C. Special Meetings:  Special meetings of the Advisory Board or any other committees may be called by the  Chair at any time.  Such meetings shall be called in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown  Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance regarding member and public notice.    D. Quorum:  A quorum of the Advisory Board shall occur when a majority of the membership are present. A  majority of the membership is defined as a majority of filled seats on the Advisory Board at any given time.  For example, if only 13 seats are filled and four (4) are vacant, then a majority for purposes of establishing a  quorum would require seven (7) members be present at the meeting. Similarly, if all 17 seats are filled, a  majority for purposes of establishing a quorum would require nine (9) members be present at the meeting.  No action shall be taken by the Advisory Board unless a majority of the members are present as defined  above. An Alternate Advisory Board member substituting for a member may be included in determining a  quorum.    E. Voting:  Each member of the Advisory Board or the member’s alternate has one vote and a minimum of  nine (9) votes of the members present are required to pass a motion.     F. Conflict of Interest:  As a general rule, no member shall participate as a member in any discussion or voting  if doing so would constitute a conflict of interest.      G. Meeting Procedure:  The Chair will preside at all meetings and proceed with the business of the Advisory  Board in a manner prescribed in these bylaws. The Chair will also decide questions of procedure as needed.     H. Order of Business:  The regular order of business of the Advisory Board shall be at least the following:  1. Call to order  2. Roll call to determine voting eligibility of At‐Large alternates.  At the start of each meeting, the five At‐ Large alternates shall be randomly ordered by staff to replace absent At‐Large members for purposes of  voting.  a. Public comment on items not on the agenda  b. Approve Record of Action from prior meeting  c. Consideration and action on agenda items  d. Adjournment    I. Public Access:  All meetings of the Advisory Board shall be open and accessible to the general public in  accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance.   Opportunity for public comment will be included in each agenda item.  In the interest of facilitating the  business of the Advisory Board, the Chair may set in advance of public comment reasonable time limits for  oral presentation.    Article IV. – Administration  The Advisory Board shall obtain staff support from the County Administrator’s Office. The staff will be responsible  for the compilation and distribution of Advisory Board meeting notices, agenda packets and records of action.     Article V. – Compensation    Members of the Advisory Board shall serve without compensation and shall not receive reimbursement for any  expenses incurred while conducting official business.    Article VI. – Changes to Bylaws  The provisions of these Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed within the limitations imposed by the Brown  Act, the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance and the policies of the Contra Costa County Board of  Supervisors.  No such alteration, amendment or repeal shall be effective unless and until the change has been  approved by the Board of Supervisors, after consideration and recommendation by the Finance Committee.                    CONTRA COSTA COUNTY   MEASURE X COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD    BYLAWS  (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April xx, 2021)    Article I – Purpose    A. The Measure X Community Advisory Board (the “Advisory Board”) was established by the Board of  Supervisors on February 2, 2021 to advise the Board of Supervisors on the use of Measure X transactions  and use tax funds. The main responsibilities of the Advisory Board are:  1. Overseeing an annual assessment of community needs, focusing primarily on the priority areas  identified in the Needs Assessment, including emergency response (fire/medical), health care, safety  net services, preventative care, affordable housing, and supports for early childhood, youth, families,  and seniors.  2. Creating detailed priority lists of the top ten service gaps (county‐ and community‐provided) based on  the results from the needs assessment.   3. Using the assessment to make general funding priority recommendations to the Board of Supervisors  on 95% of the revenue generated by Measure X.  4. Providing an annual report on the outcomes and impact of allocated funds.   5. The Advisory Board committee shall initially meet as needed and thereafter shall meet quarterly.  Article II – Membership    A. Composition:    1. The Advisory Board shall consist of 17 members, composed of 10 Supervisorial District appointees  (2 per Supervisorial District) and seven (7) At‐Large appointees.    2. The Advisory Board shall include ten (10) alternates. Alternate members have made a commitment  to attend the meetings and gain the understanding of the issues and each other’s viewpoints  needed to reach agreement on recommendations. Alternate members are expected to attend all  regular Advisory Board meetings and may participate fully, except that they may not vote unless  substituting for an absent member as described below. Alternate members may not serve as  elected officers but may serve on ad hoc or standing committees of the Advisory Board.      a) One (1) alternate shall serve on the Advisory Board for each Supervisorial District Appointment  for a total of five (5) District alternates.  The role of District alternate is fully interchangeable  with that of regular District appointed Advisory Board members.  A District alternate may not  vote unless substituting for the respective absent District appointed members.      b) Five (5) alternates shall serve on the Advisory Board as At‐Large alternates.  The role of At‐Large  alternate is fully interchangeable with that of regular At‐Large Advisory Board members.  At‐ Large alternates may fully participate and voice opinions but may not vote unless substituting  for an absent At‐Large member.      B. Eligibility:     1. General: The Advisory Board shall be composed of members representing broad and diverse voices,  perspectives and expertise, including but not exclusive to: budget justice advocacy, children’s services,  community health, consumer advocacy, faith leadership, senior services, fire and public safety  protection, housing and homelessness, labor union representation, legal advocacy, local businesses,  mental health services, non‐partisan civic organizations, policy organizations, public health, racial  justice and equity, safety net services, senior services, substance use services, taxpayers, and youth  services.    2. Live/Work Requirement: Committee members shall either live or work in Contra Costa County, with a  majority being residents of the County. There is no requirement for Supervisorial District seat  appointees to live or work within a specific Supervisorial District.    3. No Public Officials: Public officials, including both elected and appointed, are not eligible to serve on the  Advisory Board.    C. Terms of Office:      1. Appointments: The members of the Advisory Board and alternates shall serve staggered terms of two  or three years.    a) Supervisorial District Appointments: Each of the two (2) Supervisorial District seats and alternates  identified in Article II(A) for each Supervisorial District, shall serve a term of two (2) years.    b) At‐Large Appointments: Each of the seven (7) At‐Large seats and alternates identified in Article  II(A), shall serve a term of three (3) years.    2. Term Limits: Each member is limited to serving, consecutively, for a maximum of six years.    D. Appointment Process:     1. Initial Appointments:     a) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the 17‐member Advisory Board  through a single recruitment process.   b) Applications shall be referred to each County Supervisor to select three nominees to serve on the  Advisory Board (two nominees plus one stand‐by nominee).  c) Supervisorial District nominees will be transmitted to the Finance Committee of the Board of  Supervisors (the “Finance Committee”) along with all remaining applications for appointment.  d) The Finance Committee shall review the Supervisorial District nominations and select nominees for  the remaining seven (7) At‐Large seats taking into account the goals identified in Article II(B)(1).  e) In the case where the same nominee is selected for a Supervisorial District appointment by multiple  Supervisors, the Finance Committee shall take into consideration the stand‐by nominees  recommended by those Supervisors in resolving the conflict and making a final recommendation to  the Board of Supervisors.  f) The Finance Committee shall ultimately make every effort to ensure that there is representation  from the broadest cross‐section of stakeholders as described in Article II(B)(1) as well as  geographic, racial and ethnic representation reflecting the County’s diversity.      2. Subsequent Appointments: The County shall use the process outlined in Article II(C)(1) above to fill  scheduled vacancies.  a) Supervisorial District Appointments:  1) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the Supervisorial District  Appointments every two (2) years in a single recruitment process.   2) Applications shall be referred to each County Supervisor to select three nominees to serve on  the Advisory Board (two nominees plus one alternate nominee).  3) In the case where the same nominee is selected for a Supervisorial District appointment by  multiple Supervisors, Supervisors will be notified to allow for modifications to their  nominations.    4) Once conflicts are resolved, nominations will be submitted directly to the Board of Supervisors.  b) At‐Large Appointments:  1) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the At‐Large Appointments  every three (3) years in a single recruitment process.   2) Applications shall be referred to the Finance Committee to select seven (7) At‐Large seats and  five (5) At‐Large alternates, taking into account the goals identified in Article II(B)(1).  3) The Finance Committee shall ultimately make every effort to ensure that there is  representation from the broadest cross‐section of stakeholders as described in Article II(B)(1)  as well as geographic, racial and ethnic representation reflecting the County’s diversity.  4) Final nominations shall be submitted to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration of  appointment.        2.3. Unscheduled Vacancies:       a) Vacancies through September 30, 2021:  Should an unscheduled vacancy occur prior to October 1,  2021, the Supervisorial Districts and Finance Committee may use the initial recruitment pool for  nomination/appointment.    a)b) General: Should an unscheduled vacancy occur during a member’s term of office, either by death,  resignation or otherwise, the Board of Supervisors shall be notified of the vacancy and shall direct  the Clerk of the Board to announce the vacancy and collect applications for appointment.    b)c) Supervisorial District Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in a Supervisorial District seat, then the  applications seeking appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Supervisorial  District responsible for making nominations for appointment to that seat. The Supervisorial District  will then transmit the nomination for appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    c)d) At‐Large Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in an At‐Large seat, then the applications seeking  appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Finance Committee to consider  making nominations for appointment to the vacant seat. The Finance Committee will then transmit  the nomination for consideration and appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    d)e) Resignation:  Any appointed member may resign by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Board  of Supervisors.        Article III. – Advisory Board Structure & Meetings  A. Officers:  The Advisory Board shall select a Chair and Vice Chair for purposes of officiating meetings, who  shall each serve for a term of one (1) year.  Alternate members may not serve as officers.    B. Regular Meetings:  Regular meetings of the Advisory Board shall be held at least quarterly based on a  schedule adopted by the Advisory Board and that schedule may be changed or augmented as needed.  In  addition, regularly scheduled meetings may be canceled by a majority vote of the Advisory Board or, for  lack of business or a quorum, by the Chair.      C. Special Meetings:  Special meetings of the Advisory Board or any other committees may be called by the  Chair at any time.  Such meetings shall be called in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown  Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance regarding member and public notice.    D. Quorum:  A quorum of the Advisory Board shall occur when a majority of the membership are present. A  majority of the membership is defined as a majority of filled seats on the Advisory Board at any given time.  For example, if only 13 seats are filled and four (4) are vacant, then a majority for purposes of establishing a  quorum would require seven (7) members be present at the meeting. Similarly, if all 17 seats are filled, a  majority for purposes of establishing a quorum would require nine (9) members be present at the meeting.  No action shall be taken by the Advisory Board unless a majority of the members are present as defined  above. An Alternate Advisory Board member substituting for a member may be included in determining a  quorum.    E. Voting:  Each member of the Advisory Board or the member’s alternate has one vote and a minimum of  nine (9) votes of the members present are required to pass a motion.     F. Conflict of Interest:  As a general rule, no member shall participate as a member in any discussion or voting  if doing so would constitute a conflict of interest.      G. Meeting Procedure:  The Chair will preside at all meetings and proceed with the business of the Advisory  Board in a manner prescribed in these bylaws. The Chair will also decide questions of procedure as needed.     H. Order of Business:  The regular order of business of the Advisory Board shall be at least the following:  1. Call to order  2. Roll call to determine voting eligibility of At‐Large alternates.  At the start of each meeting, the five At‐ Large alternates shall be randomly ordered by staff to replace absent At‐Large members for purposes of  voting.  a. Public comment on items not on the agenda  b. Approve Record of Action from prior meeting  c. Consideration and action on agenda items  d. Adjournment    I. Public Access:  All meetings of the Advisory Board shall be open and accessible to the general public in  accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance.   Opportunity for public comment will be included in each agenda item.  In the interest of facilitating the  business of the Advisory Board, the Chair may set in advance of public comment reasonable time limits for  oral presentation.    Article IV. – Administration  The Advisory Board shall obtain staff support from the County Administrator’s Office. The staff will be responsible  for the compilation and distribution of Advisory Board meeting notices, agenda packets and records of action.     Article V. – Compensation    Members of the Advisory Board shall serve without compensation and shall not receive reimbursement for any  expenses incurred while conducting official business.    Article VI. – Changes to Bylaws  The provisions of these Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed within the limitations imposed by the Brown  Act, the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance and the policies of the Contra Costa County Board of  Supervisors.  No such alteration, amendment or repeal shall be effective unless and until the change has been  approved by the Board of Supervisors, after consideration and recommendation by the Finance Committee.                1        CONTRA COSTA COUNTY   MEASURE X COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD    BYLAWS  (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April xx, 2021)    Article I – Purpose    A. The Measure X Community Advisory Board (the “Advisory Board”) was established by the Board of  Supervisors on February 2, 2021 to advise the Board of Supervisors on the use of Measure X transactions  and use tax funds. The main responsibilities of the Advisory Board are:  1. Overseeing an annual assessment of community needs, focusing primarily on the priority areas  identified in the Needs Assessment, including emergency response (fire/medical), health care, safety  net services, preventative care, affordable housing, and supports for early childhood, youth, families,  and seniors.  2. Creating detailed priority lists of the top ten service gaps (county‐ and community‐provided) based on  the results from the needs assessment.   3. Using the assessment to make general funding priority recommendations to the Board of Supervisors  on 95% of the revenue generated by Measure X.  4. Providing an annual report on the outcomes and impact of allocated funds.   5. The Advisory Board committee shall initially meet as needed and thereafter shall meet quarterly.  Article II – Membership    A. Composition:    1. The Advisory Board shall consist of 17 members, composed of 10 Supervisorial District appointees  (2 per Supervisorial District) and seven (7) At‐Large appointees.    2. The Advisory Board shall include ten (10) alternates. Alternate members have made a commitment  to attend the meetings and gain the understanding of the issues and each other’s viewpoints  needed to reach agreement on recommendations. Alternate members are expected to attend all  regular Advisory Board meetings and may participate fully, except that they may not vote unless  substituting for an absent member as described below. Alternate members may not serve as  elected officers but may serve on ad hoc or standing committees of the Advisory Board.      a) One (1) alternate shall serve on the Advisory Board for each Supervisorial District Appointment  for a total of five (5) District alternates.  The role of District alternate is fully interchangeable  with that of regular District appointed Advisory Board members.  A District alternate may not  vote unless substituting for the respective absent District appointed members.      b) Five (5) alternates shall serve on the Advisory Board as At‐Large alternates.  The role of At‐Large  alternate is fully interchangeable with that of regular At‐Large Advisory Board members.  At‐ Large alternates may fully participate and voice opinions but may not vote unless substituting  for an absent At‐Large member.    2      B. Eligibility:     1. General: The Advisory Board shall be composed of members representing broad and diverse voices,  perspectives and expertise, including but not exclusive to: budget justice advocacy, children’s services,  community health, consumer advocacy, faith leadership, senior services, fire and public safety  protection, housing and homelessness, labor union representation, legal advocacy, local businesses,  mental health services, non‐partisan civic organizations, policy organizations, public health, racial  justice and equity, safety net services, senior services, substance use services, taxpayers, and youth  services.    2. Live/Work Requirement: Committee members shall either live or work in Contra Costa County, with a  majority being residents of the County. There is no requirement for Supervisorial District seat  appointees to live or work within a specific Supervisorial District.    3. No Public Officials: Public officials, including both elected and appointed, are not eligible to serve on the  Advisory Board.    C. Terms of Office:      1. Appointments: The members of the Advisory Board and alternates shall serve staggered terms of two  or three years.    a) Supervisorial District Appointments: Each of the two (2) Supervisorial District seats and alternates  identified in Article II(A) for each Supervisorial District, shall serve a term of two (2) years.    b) At‐Large Appointments: Each of the seven (7) At‐Large seats and alternates identified in Article  II(A), shall serve a term of three (3) years.    2. Term Limits: Each member is limited to serving, consecutively, for a maximum of six years.    D. Appointment Process:     1. Initial Appointments:     a) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the 17‐member Advisory Board  through a single recruitment process.   b) Applications shall be referred to each County Supervisor to select three nominees to serve on the  Advisory Board (two nominees plus one stand‐by nominee).  c) Supervisorial District nominees will be transmitted to the Finance Committee of the Board of  Supervisors (the “Finance Committee”) along with all remaining applications for appointment.  d) The Finance Committee shall review the Supervisorial District nominations and select nominees for  the remaining seven (7) At‐Large seats taking into account the goals identified in Article II(B)(1).  e) In the case where the same nominee is selected for a Supervisorial District appointment by multiple  Supervisors, the Finance Committee shall take into consideration the stand‐by nominees  recommended by those Supervisors in resolving the conflict and making a final recommendation to  the Board of Supervisors.  f) The Finance Committee shall ultimately make every effort to ensure that there is representation  from the broadest cross‐section of stakeholders as described in Article II(B)(1) as well as  geographic, racial and ethnic representation reflecting the County’s diversity.    3      2. Subsequent Appointments:     a) Supervisorial District Appointments:  1) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the Supervisorial District  Appointments every two (2) years in a single recruitment process.   2) Applications shall be referred to each County Supervisor to select three nominees to serve on  the Advisory Board (two nominees plus one alternate nominee).  3) In the case where the same nominee is selected for a Supervisorial District appointment by  multiple Supervisors, Supervisors will be notified to allow for modifications to their  nominations.    4) Once conflicts are resolved, nominations will be submitted directly to the Board of Supervisors.  b) At‐Large Appointments:  1) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors will solicit applications to fill the At‐Large Appointments  every three (3) years in a single recruitment process.   2) Applications shall be referred to the Finance Committee to select seven (7) At‐Large seats and  five (5) At‐Large alternates, taking into account the goals identified in Article II(B)(1).  3) The Finance Committee shall ultimately make every effort to ensure that there is  representation from the broadest cross‐section of stakeholders as described in Article II(B)(1)  as well as geographic, racial and ethnic representation reflecting the County’s diversity.  4) Final nominations shall be submitted to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration of  appointment.      3. Unscheduled Vacancies:       a) Vacancies through September 30, 2021:  Should an unscheduled vacancy occur prior to October 1,  2021, the Supervisorial Districts and Finance Committee may use the initial recruitment pool for  nomination/appointment.    b) General: Should an unscheduled vacancy occur during a member’s term of office, either by death,  resignation or otherwise, the Board of Supervisors shall be notified of the vacancy and shall direct  the Clerk of the Board to announce the vacancy and collect applications for appointment.    c) Supervisorial District Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in a Supervisorial District seat, then the  applications seeking appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Supervisorial  District responsible for making nominations for appointment to that seat. The Supervisorial District  will then transmit the nomination for appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    d) At‐Large Vacancy: If the unscheduled vacancy is in an At‐Large seat, then the applications seeking  appointment will be transmitted by the Clerk of the Board to the Finance Committee to consider  making nominations for appointment to the vacant seat. The Finance Committee will then transmit  the nomination for consideration and appointment to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.    e) Resignation:  Any appointed member may resign by giving written notice to the Clerk of the Board  of Supervisors.      4      Article III. – Advisory Board Structure & Meetings  A. Officers:  The Advisory Board shall select a Chair and Vice Chair for purposes of officiating meetings, who  shall each serve for a term of one (1) year.  Alternate members may not serve as officers.    B. Regular Meetings:  Regular meetings of the Advisory Board shall be held at least quarterly based on a  schedule adopted by the Advisory Board and that schedule may be changed or augmented as needed.  In  addition, regularly scheduled meetings may be canceled by a majority vote of the Advisory Board or, for  lack of business or a quorum, by the Chair.      C. Special Meetings:  Special meetings of the Advisory Board or any other committees may be called by the  Chair at any time.  Such meetings shall be called in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown  Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance regarding member and public notice.    D. Quorum:  A quorum of the Advisory Board shall occur when a majority of the membership are present. A  majority of the membership is defined as a majority of filled seats on the Advisory Board at any given time.  For example, if only 13 seats are filled and four (4) are vacant, then a majority for purposes of establishing a  quorum would require seven (7) members be present at the meeting. Similarly, if all 17 seats are filled, a  majority for purposes of establishing a quorum would require nine (9) members be present at the meeting.  No action shall be taken by the Advisory Board unless a majority of the members are present as defined  above. An Alternate Advisory Board member substituting for a member may be included in determining a  quorum.    E. Voting:  Each member of the Advisory Board or the member’s alternate has one vote and a minimum of  nine (9) votes of the members present are required to pass a motion.     F. Conflict of Interest:  As a general rule, no member shall participate as a member in any discussion or voting  if doing so would constitute a conflict of interest.      G. Meeting Procedure:  The Chair will preside at all meetings and proceed with the business of the Advisory  Board in a manner prescribed in these bylaws. The Chair will also decide questions of procedure as needed.     H. Order of Business:  The regular order of business of the Advisory Board shall be at least the following:  1. Call to order  2. Roll call to determine voting eligibility of At‐Large alternates.  At the start of each meeting, the five At‐ Large alternates shall be randomly ordered by staff to replace absent At‐Large members for purposes of  voting.  a. Public comment on items not on the agenda  b. Approve Record of Action from prior meeting  c. Consideration and action on agenda items  d. Adjournment    I. Public Access:  All meetings of the Advisory Board shall be open and accessible to the general public in  accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance.   Opportunity for public comment will be included in each agenda item.  In the interest of facilitating the  business of the Advisory Board, the Chair may set in advance of public comment reasonable time limits for  oral presentation.      5            Article IV. – Administration  The Advisory Board shall obtain staff support from the County Administrator’s Office. The staff will be responsible  for the compilation and distribution of Advisory Board meeting notices, agenda packets and records of action.     Article V. – Compensation    Members of the Advisory Board shall serve without compensation and shall not receive reimbursement for any  expenses incurred while conducting official business.    Article VI. – Changes to Bylaws  The provisions of these Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed within the limitations imposed by the Brown  Act, the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance and the policies of the Contra Costa County Board of  Supervisors.  No such alteration, amendment or repeal shall be effective unless and until the change has been  approved by the Board of Supervisors, after consideration and recommendation by the Finance Committee.                RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the resignation of Linda Mason, Community Seat # 3, of the Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity; DECLARE the seat vacant and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to post the vacancy, as recommended by the County's EEO Officer. FISCAL IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: For many years, the IOC served as the reviewing committee for ACEEO nominations; however, the mission of the ACEEO is more consistent with the Board's Hiring Outreach and Oversight Committee, which is now designated as the reviewing committee for ACEEO nominations to the following seats: Community 1, 2, 3, & 4 Education Business Labor Involved in Training Veterans APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: 19253351455 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Lauren Hull, Deputy cc: C. 15 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:ACEEO Resignation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Disabled Union 1 &2 Management 1 & 2 A resignation results in an "unscheduled vacancy" which must be reported to the Board of Supervisors. Committee liaisons should submit a Board Order to be included in the Board of Supervisor's agenda to "announce the vacancy. " Once the Board Order is approved, Clerk of the Board must advertise the vacancy for at least 10 days before a new appointment can be made (under State law). Active recruitment for the vacancy should occur during this time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The seat will be not be filled which could impede the committee from making informed decisions and recommendations. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None AGENDA ATTACHMENTS MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Vacancy Notice Contra Costa County NOTICE C.15 The Board of Supervisors will make appointments to fill existing advisory body vacancies. Interested citizens may submit written applications for vacancies to the following address: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 1025 Escobar Street, pt Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Board , Commission , or Committee Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity Seat: Community #3 A pp ointments will be made after May 11, 2021 I, Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator, hereby certify that, in accordance with Section 54974 of the Government Code, the above notice of vacancy (vacancies) will be posted on April 27, 2021. cc: Hard Copy to Clerk of the Board Lobby Hard Copy to M inutes File Soft Copy .DOCX to M :\5-Notices and Postings Soft Copy .PDF to S:\Minutes Attachments\Minutes 2020 Soft Copy .PDF to M :\1-Committee Files and Applicat ions I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes ofthe Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors And ~nistrator By: A.an~ Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the concept introduced by the Contra Costa Health Plan at the March 12, 2021 Joint Conference Committee Meeting to convert CCHP from a Medi-Cal two plan model to a single plan model known as a County Organized Health System (COHS), and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board and the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) CEO to sign a non-binding letter of intent to the State of California. FISCAL IMPACT: Conversion to a single plan model will increase CCHP’s Medi-Cal membership from 200,000 to approximately 238,000. The net income impact is expected to be positive and in the range of 2% to 4% of gross revenue. BACKGROUND: On March 12, 2021 the Contra Costa Health Plan Joint Conference Committee received and reviewed the option for a CCHP conversion to a single plan model. Supervisors Andersen and Glover are voting members on the Committee, which approved the concept and recommended forwarding the submission to the full County Board for approval. The State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) is beginning the procurement process for Commercial Medi-Cal Managed Care plans. As part of the procurement process counties now have the option to request a change in the local plan model. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5405 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Jackie Peterson, Marcy Wilhelm C. 16 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:County Organized Health System Letter of Intent BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) currently operates in a “Two-Plan Model” county. The two plans are CCHP and Anthem Blue Cross. Currently CCHP has approximately 84% of the Medi-Cal membership and Anthem has approximately 16%. An option for CCHP is to convert to a single plan model known as a County Organized Health System (COHS). The COHS model provides a number of benefits: (a) enhances the probability of success in the State’s CalAIM initiatives (b) provides the pathway for full Medi-Cal population health initiatives (c) opens possibilities for better management for those transitioning out of incarceration (d) allows for consideration of a fully integrated model inclusive of behavioral health, dental and long-term care and (e) the single plan structure is a cost effective alternative. The County Board is currently the governing body of CCHP. Conversion to a COHS has no impact on the current governance or organizational structure. Conversion from a two plan to a single plan model requires the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) approval, a new County Ordinance, possible State legislative action, and Federal approval of a section 1115 Waiver for the creation a new COHS. The State timeline for model conversion consideration is as follows: a) Letter of intent approved by the County Board of Supervisors by April 30, 2021. b) County Ordinance adoption by October 1, 2021 (the substance of the Ordinance is currently under review). c) State legislative action, if needed, by September 10, 2021 (this appears to be unlikely at this time) d) After October 19, 2021 Final Commercial Plan RFP release. e) 2021-2022 DHCS will work with federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for necessary waiver amendments. f) January 2024 new contracts and plans begin. Submission of the County letter of intent (LOI) is the first step in the process. The LOI is non-binding and does not guarantee State approval but without the submission by the April 30, 2021 deadline CCHP would be excluded from future consideration. The LOI is intended to (a) demonstrate understanding of the obligations of the new plan (b) describe county engagement and (c) outline the necessary steps to meet the requirements. See attachment A for the Letter of Intent. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to file a letter of intent will eliminate CCHP from model conversion consideration. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS COHS Letter MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Letter of Intent March 31, 2021 Kirk Davis, Deputy Director Health Care Delivery Systems, Department of Health Care Services SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO: BRIAN.HANSEN@DHCS.CA.GOV RE: LETTER OF INTENT FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY To Whom it May Concern: Contra Costa County (“Contra Costa” or “County”) submits this letter of intent to the Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) to request a transition from the two-plan model to a single local plan model. As you know, Contra Costa directly owns and operates Contra Costa Health Plan (“CCHP”), which is the local initiative plan in our county. Contra Costa proposes to convert CCHP to a single local plan that is either an HIO authorized by new federal legislation or a non-HIO allowed to contract as a single plan through a federal waiver. CCHP is well-positioned to take sole responsibility for the Medi-Cal managed care population in Contra Costa. As the local initiative, the plan already serves 84% of the local Medi-Cal population, and contracts with almost all the health care providers who furnish services to Medi- Cal enrollees, including the 16% not enrolled with CCHP. Through CCHP, Contra Costa has a demonstrated record of success in arranging and providing Medi-Cal services through managed care. We believe that the health and well-being of the County’s Medi-Cal population will benefit from transitioning to a single local plan model. Contact Information Primary County Contact Name: Patrick Godley, MBA, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Contra Costa Health Services Telephone: (925) 957-5405 Address: 50 Douglas Dr., Ste.310A, Martinez, CA 94533 Email Address: Patrick.Godley@cchealth.org Kirk Davis, Deputy Director, Health Care Delivery Systems Department of Health Care Services March 31, 2021 Page 2 Secondary County Contact Name: Anna Roth, RN, MS, MPH, Director of Health Services, Contra Costa County Health Services Telephone: (925) 957-5403 Address: 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 200, Martinez, CA 94533 Email Address: Anna.Roth@cchealth.org Primary Managed Care Plan Contact Name: Sharron A. Mackey, M.H.S., M.P.A., Chief Executive Officer, Contra Costa Health Plan Telephone: (925) 313-6104 Address: 595 Center Ave. Ste. 100, Martinez, CA 94553 Email Address: Sharron.Mackey@cchealth.org Secondary Managed Care Plan Contact Name: Angela Choy, MBA, MS, Chief Operating Officer, Contra Costa Health Plan Telephone: (925) 313-6104 Address: 595 Center Avenue, Suite 100, Martinez, CA 94533 Email Address: Angela.Choy@cchealth.org Local Plan Type Contra Costa proposes to convert CCHP to a non-HIO allowed to contract as a single plan through a federal waiver and if that is not feasible for some reason then we propose to be an HIO authorized by federal statute. Description, Contract Model, and Partners We propose that CCHP assume the role of the single local plan. Because CCHP current operates as the Medi-Cal local initiative plan under the two-plan model, this change will not require joining a different existing plan or developing a new plan. CCHP already has the experience and capacity to serve all the Medi-Cal managed care enrollees in the County. CCHP offers primary care to 82% of the plan’s membership through its two direct networks: Community Provider Network (“CPN”) and Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Network inclusive of the Medical Centers eleven Federally Qualified Health Centers (“CCRMCN”). Providers in CPN are private physicians and the Federally Qualified Health Centers who directly contract with CCHP to provide services to our Medi-Cal members. Primary Care providers in CCRMCN are employees of Contra Costa County Health Services; specialty services are contracted. Kirk Davis, Deputy Director, Health Care Delivery Systems Department of Health Care Services March 31, 2021 Page 3 CCHP also has one subcontracted closed network—Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (KFHP)— that serves the remaining 18% of our membership. KFHP has a service area of Contra Costa County, but is available throughout Kaiser’s network for those assigned. CCHP’s primary network of specialists draws from both CPN and CCRMCN. Members access specialty care in CPN or CCRMCN by referral from their primary care provider or with prior authorization, depending on specialty service type. CCHP also has an additional specialist network staffed through the County Mental Health Alcohol and other Drugs division that provides mild to moderate mental health specialty care. Given CCHP’s expansive existing networks and infrastructure, with contracts in place for hospital care, specialty care, primary care and FQHC services, the County would not need to establish any arrangements for the administration and operation of the plan. Nonetheless, the County intends to offer contracts to those few providers not already in one of its networks who serve Medi-Cal enrollees in the commercial plan. Given CCHP’s existing role in Medi-Cal managed care, dominant enrollment in the county, and existing network structure, the shift to a single-plan MCP model will be seamless as it will affect a small percentage of the population. Additionally, because of our network structure we believe there will be no need for enrollees to change providers. Readiness Planning Service utilization: CCHP maintains readiness to provide full service as a Medi-Cal Managed Care Plan. For example, CCHP has existing policies and procedures detailing quality assurance for the entire range of plan activities, including utilization management, geographic and demographic accessibility standards, and time-elapsed standards for service utilization. It also has existing procedures for primary care provider (“PCP”) assignment, claims payment, case management, and coordination of care. Moreover, CCHP oversees quality improvement initiatives to enhance the member experience and operates a robust member service unit, along with an Advice Nurse 24x7 member call center. Network adequacy: CCHP has annually been certified by DHCS for network adequacy. As described above, CCHP already contracts with primary care, specialty care, hospital, and ancillary providers. It has a wide-range network of providers to meet enrollee needs. Each enrollee in the health plan will have a choice of PCP and will have access through their PCP to the specialty provider network both in and outside of the health plan network. The health plan also contracts with local hospital and subacute care facilities to provide tertiary care. Many specialty care services are accessible on referral from the PCP, while other services require authorization from the health plan that is processed within regulated guidelines. CCHP also contracts with ancillary care providers including those that provide durable medical equipment, chiropractic services, and acupuncture services. The health plan is committed to Kirk Davis, Deputy Director, Health Care Delivery Systems Department of Health Care Services March 31, 2021 Page 4 ensuring that all members have access to all covered benefits, including enhanced benefits such as in lieu of services. Quality and monitoring including utilization management protocols: CCHP’ well-established procedures will ensure overall quality of plan services, including monitoring and correcting for systemic problems through mechanisms such as:  Utilization review protocols to detect under and overutilization  Processes to detect and report fraud, waste and abuse  Member complaint and grievance procedures  Medical occurrence screening (e.g., potential quality incidents) and follow-up  Facility site reviews and corrective action plans  Quality improvement projects (QIPs) related to problems identified from HEDIS results and member satisfaction surveys  Addressing the service deficiencies from the population needs assessment  Health education system to support member education and support preventive care  Integration in the County safety net through partnerships with the Health Services Division delivery systems, Public Health, BH/MH, Homeless Program, and CCRMC. Accessibility standards: On an annual basis, CCHP submits network data to the Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) according to current Annual Network Certification (“ANC”) requirements to assess network adequacy. Targeted recruitment efforts are used to address shortages found by this review. CCHP complies with both Department of Managed Health Care (“DMHC”) and DHCS regulatory requirements for provider/hospital ratios, time/distance standards, and DMHC time elapsed standards. CCHP additionally complies with DHCS monitoring in collaboration with their external quality monitoring organization. If required, CCHP will apply to DMHC and DHCS for alternative access standards by zip code or provider type to satisfy network adequacy requirements. Any additional efforts undertaken by the MCP: CCHP has demonstrated success working collaboratively with the County’s Health Services divisions to fully realize an integrated model of care in Contra Costa County. Attestations Financial Attestation: County hereby attests that it has a reasonable expectation it will meet the following financial requirements based on our knowledge and intent as of the date of this Letter of Intent: a. County is in good financial standing, has a working capital ratio of at least 1:1, and is able to assume financial risk for Medi-Cal managed care plan services for Medi-Cal members in Contra Costa County. Kirk Davis, Deputy Director, Health Care Delivery Systems Department of Health Care Services March 31, 2021 Page 5 b. County will have the ability to self-fund all pre-implementation activities, including readiness requirements, and will not require funding from DHCS related to the cost of these activities. c. County will meet financial readiness requirements that are similar to the example requirements listed in Exhibit A, Attachment 18 to the current Med-Cal Managed Care Two-Plan Boilerplate Contract at Section 2 “Financial Information”, Section 8 “Provider Compensation Arrangements”, and Section 20 “Budget Detail and Payment Provisions”. General Readiness Attestation: County hereby attests that it has a reasonable expectation it will meet the following general readiness requirements based on our knowledge and intent as of the date of this Letter of Intent: a. The local plan will meet non-financial readiness requirements and timelines that are similar to the example requirements listed in the Med-Cal Managed Care Two-Plan Boilerplate Contract. b. If the local plan is a COHS (or equivalent single-MCP model plan), it will meet network capacity requirements for 100% of the Eligible Beneficiaries in the county. (This requirement differs from what is listed in the Two-Plan model contract.) c. The local plan will implement all applicable Medi-Cal managed care plan requirements that are added through new legislation or other guidance, including but not limited to, all elements of the final CalAIM proposal (California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal). Network Contracts Attestation: County hereby attests that it has a reasonable expectation it will meet the following general readiness requirements based on our knowledge and intent as of the date of this Letter of Intent: By September 2021, the County and CCHP will describe preliminary planning for a network contracting strategy and ongoing negotiations to support the increased capacity necessary for the new local plan responsibility for January 2024. Regulatory Requirements Attestation: County hereby attests that it has a reasonable expectation it will meet the following general readiness requirements based on our knowledge and intent as of the date of this Letter of Intent: a. County does not believe a new State statute is necessary to shift CCHP to a single local plan model. b. The County will bring an ordinance to the Board of Supervisors authorizing the shift of the County to a local plan model by October 2021, for the Board's consideration. Required Attachments See the Contra Costa County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020 at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/69335/CAFR-2020-PDF?bidId Kirk Davis, Deputy Director, Health Care Delivery Systems Department of Health Care Services March 31, 2021 Page 6 The audited financial statements for the CCHP Medi-Cal line of business can be found at pages 28-30; the CCHP Commercial product can be found on pages 152-154 of the CAFR above. See attached Annual Forecast. There are no health-related financial sanctions currently in effect for CCHP or Contra Costa County. While CCHP has had corrective actions plans related to medical audits, CCHP has completed all of the issued CAPs and as of the date of this letter is not under any current CAP. County Board of Supervisors ________________________________ Diane Burgis, Chair Date: ___________________________ Contra Costa Health Plan ________________________________ Sharron A. Mackey, CEO Date: ___________________________ 04/28/2021 RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25716 to add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant II (APVA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1475 ($5,667 - $6,888) and cancel one (1) vacant Engineering Technician Supervisor – Materials Testing (NSHC) (represented) position #1500 at Salary Plan and Grade ZA5 1697 ($7,060 - $8,581) in the Public Works Department's Maintenance Division. FISCAL IMPACT: This action will result in an annual savings of $34,348. This position will be funded by 100% Local Road and Flood Control Funds. BACKGROUND: In March 2014, the Public Works Materials and Testing Lab was abolished. Incumbent staff assigned to the Lab were reassigned to different divisions within the Public Works department to ensure continued employment. The Engineering Technician Supervisor – Materials Testing incumbent was reassigned to the Public Works Department’s Maintenance Division. The Maintenance Division does not perform materials testing work and therefore, upon reassignment, the incumbent’s duties were modified to align with the operational needs of the Maintenance Division. The primary duties and responsibilities included, but were not limited to, logging and tracking APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Adrienne Todd (925) 313-2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Adrienne Todd C. 17 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Administrative Services Assistant II and Cancel one Engineering Technician-Supervisor position in the Public Works Department. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) proper hazardous materials handling and disposal, maintenance yard inspections and compliance, Adopt-A-Road program administration, training program administration, safety compliance and contract administration. Additionally, the organizational structure of the division did not require the incumbent to direct or supervise subordinate staff. The incumbent separated County employment in 2020. This provided the Department with the opportunity to re-examine the duties of the position and to assign them to the correct job classification. Based upon the Department’s review of the assigned duties and level of responsibility, it has been determined that an Administrative Services Assistant II position is the most appropriate classification to perform this work. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to approve this action will result in the inability for the Department to recruit and/or assign work to the appropriate job classification. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 Union Notification MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25716 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25716 DATE 2/16/2021 Department No./ Department Public Works Budget Unit No. 0650 Org No. 4547 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: Add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant II (APVA) position and cancel one (1) vacant Engineering Technician Supervisor – Materials Testing (NSHC) position #1500 in the Public Works Department 's Maintenance Division. Proposed Effective Date: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost -34348 Net County Cost 0 Total this FY -5725 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost savings . Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Brian M. Balbas ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 4/9/21 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 04/12/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25716 to add one (1) Administrative Services Assistant II (APVA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZB5-1475 ($5,667 - $6,888) and cancel one (1) vacant Engineering Technician Supervisor – Materials Testing (NSHC) (represented) position #1500 at salary plan and grade ZA5 -1697 ($7,060 - $8,581) in the Public Works Department's Maintenance Division. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Rebecca Martinez 04/12/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/12/2021 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY Human Resources Department Human Resources Department 1025 Escobar Street 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 FAX: (925) 335-1797 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact your designated Labor Analyst by the date specified. Absent such notice, the Human Resources Department will consider this matter finalized. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Revised: 04/01/2021 Date: To: Please be advised that the Human Resources Department intends to: P:\Forms\Union Notification NOTES: From: Subject: Union Notification RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25715 to add one (1) Accountant III (SATA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1576 ($6,263-$7,612) and cancel one (1) vacant Supervising Accountant (SAHJ) (represented) position #12963 at Salary Plan and Grade ZA5 1703 ($7,102-8,633) in the Public Works Department. FISCAL IMPACT: This action will result in an annual savings of $23,365. This position will be funded by 100% local Road and Special District funds. BACKGROUND: This proposed action reverses the action previously approved on February 25, 2020, Position Adjustment Resolution No. 22572 to add one (1) Supervising Accountant position and cancel one (1) Accountant III position. This previous action was taken to allow recruitment of replacement staff prior to the incumbent’s separation. This action allowed adequate time for the transfer of specialized knowledge from the experienced incumbent to the staff member who would be assuming the duties. This process has been fully completed and therefore, reversal of the original action is appropriate to restore the original staffing structure. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Adrienne Todd (925) 313-2108 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Adrienne Todd C. 18 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Add one Accountant III and Cancel one Supervising Accountant position in the Public Works Department CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Public Works Department will not have the ability to assign work to the appropriate classification. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25715 Union Notification MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25715 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25715 DATE 2/23/2021 Department No./ Department Public Works Budget Unit No. 0650 Org No. 4503 Agency No. 65 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25715 to add one (1) Accountant III (SATA) (represented) position and cancel one (1) vacant Supervising Accountant (SAHJ) (represented) position #12963 in the Public Works Department. Proposed Effective Dat e: Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost -23365 Net County Cost 0 Total this FY -3894 N.C.C. this FY 0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost savings . Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Brian M. Balbas ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT L.Strobel 4/9/21 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/14/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25715 to add one (1) Accountant III (SATA) (represented) position at salary plan and grade ZB5 1576 ($6,263-$7,612) and cancel one (1) vacant Supervising Accountant (SAHJ) (represented) position #12963 at salary plan and grade ZA5 1703 ($7,102 -8,633) in the Public Works Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing pos itions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Genesis Duenas 4/14/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: David J. Twa, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date 4/14/2021 No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefit s Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY Human Resources Department Human Resources Department 1025 Escobar Street 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 FAX: (925) 335-1797 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact your designated Labor Analyst by the date specified. Absent such notice, the Human Resources Department will consider this matter finalized. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Revised: 04/01/2021 Date: To: Please be advised that the Human Resources Department intends to: P:\Forms\Union Notification NOTES: From: Subject: Union Notification RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25711 to cancel one (1) vacant Library Assistant-Advanced (3KTB) (represented) position # 17280 at Salary Plan and Grade QXX 1234 ($4,451 - $5,685) and add one (1) Media Production Technician (ADDL) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade ZB5 1304 ($4,784 -$5,815) in the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost to the Library Fund of $5,151. No impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Library’s mission is “Bringing People and Ideas Together.” Part of that mission requires the Library to utilize current technology to provide information in accessible formats. In 2019, approximately 75% of all traffic on the internet is video. According to Cisco Systems, this percentage will increase to 82% by 2022. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become necessary for the Library to provide even more information via electronic and video means. As a result, the Library seeks to add one Media Production Technician. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Samuel Treanor C. 19 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one Library Assistant-Advanced Level position and add one Media Production Technician position BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) This position would help facilitate transition of the Library's various programs and information onto electronic and video means. This position will be responsible for facilitating the creation and maintenance of the Library’s video social media presence. Among other responsibilities, establishing this classification would allow the Library to expand its ability to provide the popular video story-times and other video virtual services. Further, using video technology, this classification could expand Library programming to allow programs to be enjoyed across multiple branches, rather than requiring programming to be repeated on a branch-by-branch basis. Additionally, this classification will be expected to instruct other Library staff on these technologies to better serve the public at the various library branches. With the addition of this position, the Library will no longer need one of its Library Assistant-Advanced level positions because that position will have served its purpose in curating information onto the Library’s website and providing the platform for the new classification to begin working. The Library Assistant-Advanced position was vacated March 31, 2021 due to a retirement. The cost of adding a Media Production Technician position will be mostly offset by the cancellation of the Library Assistant-Advanced position. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Library will continue to have obstacles fulfilling its mission as it will be unable to produce and provide video content. The Library will fall behind on its ability to serve patron needs and educate them on expanding technologies. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25711: CANCEL Library Assistant-Advanced and ADD Media Production Technician MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25711 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25711 DATE 3/5/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0620 Org No. 3714 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25711 to cancel one (1) vacant permanent full -time Library Assistant -Advanced (3KTB) (represented) position # 17280 and add one (1) permanent full -time Media Production Technician (ADDL) (represented) at the Library Department . Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $5,151.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $859.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 4/7/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE CANCEL one (1) vacant permanent full -time Library Assistant -Advanced (3KTB) (represented) position # 1728 0 at salary level QXX ($4,451.72 -$5,685.03) and ADD one (1) permanent full -time Media Production Technician (ADDL) (represented) at salary level ZB5 ($4,784.48-$5,815.57) at the Library Department. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Dat e) Genesis Duenas 4/9/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/22/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25712 to increase the hours of one (1) vacant Library Assistant-Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) position #6074 from 20/40 hours to 40/40 hours at Salary Plan and Grade QXX 1030 ($3,637.52 - $4,645.27) in the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost to the Library Fund of approximately $30,221. No fiscal impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: The Library has been working on a reallocation of resources to create more efficient staffing at its community library locations. The Library has identified a vacant Library Assistant position as having insufficient hours to properly meet staffing and patron needs. Following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Library worked on evaluating its staffing and scheduling plans to best meet the needs of patrons. Following this evaluation, the Library determined that its community libraries should each have at APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Samuel Treanor C. 20 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Increase the Hours of One Library Assistant-Journey Level Position from 20/40 to 40/40 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) least a Tuesday through Saturday schedule. As part of that determination, the Library has been working to adjust schedules of its vacant positions to align with this new scheduling plan. The Library has determined that a part-time position located in Kensington would better serve the needs of the public if it were full-time. This also creates staffing efficiencies as full-time positions are typically seen as more desirable for recruitment and voluntary reassignment purposes. Particularly as the Library begins moving toward reopening, a full-time position will be better equipped to serve the public. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this position change is not approved, the Library will have difficulties with recruitment and retention, as well as providing services to the public. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300_ Increase LAJ Union Notification_44866 P300 25712 Increase Hours LAJ In Library MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25712 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25712 DATE 3/5/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3795 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Increase hours for Library Assistant -Journey Level position 6074 from 20/40 to 40/40 Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $30,221.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $5,037.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 4/7/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administ rator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/12/2021 Increase the hours of one (1) vacant Library Assistant -Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) position #6074 from 20/40 hours to 40/40 hours at salary plan and grade QXX 1030 ($3,637.529 - $4,645.274). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Alexandra Austin 4/14/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY Human Resources Department Human Resources Department 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1292 FAX: (925) 335-1797 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact your designated Labor Analyst by the date specified. Absent such notice, the Human Resources Department will consider this matter finalized. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Revised: 09/14/2020 Date: To: Please be advised that the Human Resources Department intends to: P:\Forms\Union Notification NOTES: From: Subject: Union Notification POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25712 DATE 3/5/2021 Department No./ Department Library Budget Unit No. 0621 Org No. 3795 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Increase hours for Library Assistant -Journey Level position 6074 from 20/40 to 40/40 Proposed Effective Date: 5/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $30,221.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $5,037.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Alison McKee ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 4/7/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administ rator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/12/2021 Increase the hours of one (1) vacant Library Assistant -Journey Level (3KVB) (represented) position #6074 from 20/40 hours to 40/40 hours at salary plan and grade QXX 1030 ($3,637.529 - $4,645.274). Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Alexandra Austin 4/14/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/19/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25724 to reassign ten (10) Registered Nurse-Project (VWX5) positions #18293, #18294, #18295, #18296, #18297, #18298, #18299, #18300, #18301, #18302, at salary plan and grade L32-1880 ($10,398 - $12,986), and their incumbents, from Department 0450 (Public Health) to Department 0540 (Hospital and Clinics) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, the annual cost of approximately $1,684,280 with pension cost of $653,164 already included will shift from Public Health Emergency Planning to Hospital Enterprise Fund I. This cost is 100% offset by Federal and State Emergency funds) (cost center 6911). BACKGROUND: The Health Services department is requesting to reassign ten (10) Registered Nurse-Project positions that were initially allocated to the Public Health Division for the purpose APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Lauren Ludwig, 925-957-5269 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 21 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Reassign ten (10) Registered Nurse Positions in the Health Services Department BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of COVID relief efforts – prior to filling the positions, there was a need identified in multiple Ambulatory Care Health Centers to have additional nursing staff available to provide COVID vaccines to the community. Reassigning these RN positions will allow the Ambulatory Care Health Centers to obtain the staff needed to keep up with demand in vaccination efforts, in a continued effort to lessen the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this action is not approved, the Ambulatory Care Health Centers responsible for vaccinating the community will not have sufficient staffing to keep up with demand. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 No. 25724 HSD MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25724 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25724 DATE 4/8/2021 Department No./ Department Health Services Budget Unit No. 0450 Org No. 5257 Agenc y No. A18 Action Requested: Reassign ten (10) Registered Nurse-Project (VWX5) positions #18293, #18294, #18295, #18296, #18297, #18298, #18299, #18300, #18301, #18302 at salary plan and grade L32-1880 ($10,398 - $12,986), and their incumbents, from Department 0450 (Public Health – Emergency Planning Unit) to Department 0540 (Hospital Enterprise) in the Health Services Department. (Represented) Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $0.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $0.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Cost neutral; positions are funded by COVID relief funds. Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Lauren Ludwig ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Kennard for 4/12/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE Exempt from Human Resources review under delegated authority. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Resources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/20/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Enid Mendoza Other: Approve as recommended by the department. ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25725 to temporarily increase the hours of one (1) Video Production Assistant (ADWA) (represented) position number 295 from part time (30/40) to full time (40/40) through June 30, 2021 in the Office of Communication & Media under County Administration. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this action will result in a one-time cost of approximately $4,333 including benefits. (100% CCTV Franchise Fees) BACKGROUND: The Office of Communication & Media responds to broadcast and live streaming needs throughout the County. The office has identified a temporary need for increased CCTV support to meet administrative and production needs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If unapproved, the Office of Communications & Media, will have insufficient staffing to meet demands from County departments to provide production support, which could result in a slowdown of communication to the public. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Susan Shiu, (925) 313-1180 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Susan Shiu, Sylvia WongTam C. 22 To:Board of Supervisors From:Susan Shiu, Communication and Media Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Temporary Increase the Hours of One Video Production Assistant position AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25725 Temporarily Increase Hours Video Production Assistant MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25725 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25725 DATE 4/13/21 Department No./ Department County Administrator Budget Unit No. 0003 Org No. 1225 Agency No. 03 Action Requested: Temporary increase the hours of 0ne (1) Video Production Assistant (ADW A) (represented) position number 295 from 30/40 to 40/40 through June 30, 2021 Proposed Effective Date: 4/27/21 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $4,333 Net County Cost $0 Total this FY $4,333 N.C.C. this FY $0 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT General Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. Sarah Shkidt for Julie Enea ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Sarah Shkidt for Julie Enea 4/13/21 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administrator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/19/2021 Temporarily increase the hours of one (1) Video Production Assistant (ADWA) (represented) position number 295 from 30/40 to 40 /40 through June 30, 2021 Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary sc hedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Gladys Scott Reid 4/19/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Res ources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/21/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Huma n Resources Other: Approve as recommended by the Department. _______/s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea_____ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. xxxxxx 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS F unds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specifi ed period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year-to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs : b. Support Cost s : (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c . Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c . financial implications 7. Briefly describe the al ternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost bene fit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resources Departmen t, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit anal ysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25708 to cancel one (1) vacant Clerk-Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position # 6051 at Salary Plan and Grade 3RH 0750 ($3,302.32-$4,097.33); and add one Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA) (represented) position at Salary Plan and Grade TB5 1393 ($5,225.25-$6,351.32) in the Library Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon approval, this action will result in an annual cost to the Library Fund of approximately $31,811. No fiscal impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: After the library's network security attack in early 2020, the Library began coordinating more closely with the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) to improve network security for the Library and its APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Samuel Treanor at (925) 608-7702 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Sylvia Wong Tam, Jeremy Treanor C. 23 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Cancel one full-time Clerk-Experienced Level position and add one full-time Information Systems Specialist II position BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) patrons. Part of this coordination included a restructuring of the Library’s Automation team, which handles the Library’s network capabilities. An Information Systems Specialist II position is necessary to work as part of this new coordination with DoIT. Due to a retirement in February, a Clerk-Experienced Level position has become vacant. The Library has determined that it can still provide exceptional service to patrons even if that position were to be canceled. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this position change is not approved, the Library will have difficulty implementing its restructuring of information technology support with the Department of Information Technology. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS P300 25708 Add ISS II Cxl Clerk B in Library MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed P300 25708 POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST NO. 25708 DATE 2/26/2021 Department No./ Department County Library Budget Unit No. 0620 Org No. 3714 Agency No. 85 Action Requested: Cancel one (1) vacant permanent full -time Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) position # 6051; and add one permanent full-time Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA) position at the Library. Proposed Effective Date: 4/1/2021 Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No / Cost is within Department’s budget: Yes No Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associated with request: Estimated total cost adjustment (salary / benefits / one time): Total annual cost $31,811.00 Net County Cost $0.00 Total this FY $7,953.00 N.C.C. this FY $0.00 SOURCE OF FUNDING TO OFFSET ADJUSTMENT Library Fund Department must initiate necessary adjustment and submit to CAO. Use additional sheet for further explanations or comments. ______________________________________ (for) Department Head REVIEWED BY CAO AND RELEASED TO HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT /s/ Erin M Steffen 4/5/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ Deputy County Administ rator Date HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE 4/12/2021 ADOPT Position Adjustment Resolution No. 25708 to cancel one (1) vacant per manent full-time Clerk -Experienced Level (JWXB) (represented) position # 6051 ) at salary plan and grade 3RH 0750 ($3,302.32 -$4,097.33); and add one permanent full-time Information Systems Specialist II (LTVA) (represented) position) at salary plan and gra de TB5 1393 ($5,225.25- $6,351.32) at the Library. Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the Basic / Exempt salary schedule. Effective: Day following Board Action. (Date) Rebecca Martinez 4/12/2021 ___________________________________ ________________ (for) Director of Human Res ources Date COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION: DATE 4/21/2021 Approve Recommendation of Director of Human Resources Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Human Resources /s/ Julie DiMaggio Enea Other: ____________________________________________ ___________________________________ (for) County Administrator BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION: Monica Nino, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Adjustment is APPROVED DISAPPROVED and County Administrator DATE BY APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL / SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT POSITION ADJUSTMENT ACTION TO BE COMPLETED BY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION Adjust class(es) / position(s) as follows: P300 (M347) Rev 3/15/01 REQUEST FOR PROJECT POSITIONS Department Date No. 1. Project Positions Requested: 2. Explain Specific Duties of Position(s) 3. Name / Purpose of Project and Funding Source (do not use acronyms i.e. SB40 Project or SDSS Funds) 4. Duration of the Project: Start Date End Date Is funding for a specified period of time (i.e. 2 years) or on a year -to-year basis? Please explain. 5. Project Annual Cost a. Salary & Benefits Costs: b. Support Costs: (services, supplies, equipment, etc.) c. Less revenue or expenditure: d. Net cost to General or other fund: 6. Briefly explain the consequences of not filling the project position(s) in terms of: a. potential future costs d. political implications b. legal implications e. organizational implications c. financial implications 7. Briefly describe the alternative approaches to delivering the services which you have considered. Indicate why these alternatives were not chosen. 8. Departments requesting new project positions must submit an updated cost benefit analysis of each project position at the halfway point of the project duration. This report is to be submitted to the Human Resource s Department, which will forward the report to the Board of Supervisors. Indicate the date that your cost / benefit analysis will be submitted 9. How will the project position(s) be filled? a. Competitive examination(s) b. Existing employment list(s) Which one(s)? c. Direct appointment of: 1. Merit System employee who will be placed on leave from current job 2. Non-County employee Provide a justification if filling position(s) by C1 or C2 USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF NECESSARY RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a lease amendment with Pleasant Hill CA I SGF, LLC, to extend the initial term through September 30, 2035, and modify rents for approximately 137,232 square feet of office space for the Employment and Human Services Department, located at 300, 400, and 500 Ellinwood Way, Pleasant Hill, at an annual rent of $3,491,160 with rent increases thereafter. FISCAL IMPACT: 20% Children and Family Services, 10% Aging and Adult Services, 70% Workforce Services. BACKGROUND: The County entered into a lease for the property at 300, 400, and 500 Ellinwood Drive, Pleasant Hill, in 2008. These buildings are centrally located in the county and are essential to Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) service delivery. Each building houses different services such as Administrative Support functions in the 300 building, customer service for CalWORKS, CalFresh, and MediCal in the 400 building, and Children and Family Services in the 500 building. The buildings are fully occupied and are part of EHSD’s long-term space needs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Margaret Eychner, 925. 957-2463 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Lease Amendment for Employment & Human Services located at 300, 400 and 500 Ellinwood Way, Pleasant Hill. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The property was sold on September 3, 2020, and is reassessable for property tax purposes as of that date. Extending the initial rental period through September 30, 2035 returns the lease term to 35+ years, including extensions as of the date of change in ownership, which maintains the County’s eligibility for non-tax status for property taxes. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County will no longer qualify for non-tax status and will have to pay property taxes where they do not currently. ATTACHMENTS Lease Amendment RECOMMENDATION(S): ADOPT Resolution No. 2021/135 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with California Department of Education to increase the payment limit by $5,270 to a new payment limit of $3,866,015 for general childcare and development program services with no change to term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive up to $3,866,015 34.8% ($1,346,792) Federal, 65.2% ($2,519,223) State. No County match required. State Contract CCTR 0025-03; County Contract 39-801-53. (CFDA 93.596, 93.575) BACKGROUND: The California Department of Education notified the Employment and Human Services Department on February 18, 2021 of the 2020-2021 funding amendment of the General Childcare APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Nelly Ige C. 25 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2020-21 California Department of Education General Childcare & Development Revenue Contract Amendment 3 BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) and Development program services. The County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide general childcare services to program eligible County residents. The program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau. The board approved the original 2020-2021 revenue agreement on June 23, 2020 (c.33). Subsequently, there was an administrative amendment to add language reflective of the Contra Costa County Pilot Plan which did not require board approval. The board approved a second amendment to accept additional funds and increase Child Days of Enrollment on February 9, 2021 (c.26). This Board Order is to accept additional funds from the state and to change the Child Days of Enrollment from 77,932 to 78,038. Approval of this Board Order will allow the continued provision of these childcare services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, County will not receive additional funding to operate the Childcare and Development Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The Department of Education General Childcare & Development funding 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 2021/135 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/135 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and for Special Districts, Agencies and Authorities Governed by the Board Adopted this Resolution on 04/27/2021 by the following vote: AYE:5 John Gioia Candace Andersen Diane Burgis Karen Mitchoff Federal D. Glover NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: Resolution No. 2021/135 In The Matter Of: 2020-21 California Department of Education General Childcare and Development Revenue Contract Amendment 3 WHEREAS: The California Department of Education notified the Department on February 18, 2021 of the 2020-2021 funding amendment of the General Childcare and Development program services, WHEREAS, the County receives funds from the California Department of Education to provide general childcare service to program eligible County residents, WHEREAS, this program is operated by the Employment and Human Services Department, Community Services Bureau, WHEREAS, this Board Order is to accept additional funds from the state and to change the Child Days of Enrollment from 77,932 to 78,038, WHEREAS, approval of this Board Order will allow the continued provision of these childcare services. 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 California Department of Education to increase the payment limit by $5,270 to a new payment limit of $3,866,015 for general childcare and development program services with no change to term of 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Nasim Eghlima, Theo Trinh, Nelly Ige RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #29-825-3 with AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah, to pay County an amount of $4,000, to provide car seats and car seat boosters to low-income families under the AAA Child Passenger Safety Donation Program for the period from April 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will allow the County to receive $4,000 from AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the collaboration is to facilitate distribution of car seats and booster seats to the Public Health Division’s Clinic Services program and partnering agencies including First 5, family resource centers, hospitals, head start, community and outreach programs. The recipients of the car seats and car seat boosters will receive education on how to properly use them from a certified Public Health Division employee. Expected program outcomes include fewer injuries in car accidents. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 26 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #29-825-3 with AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #29-825-2 with AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah in an amount of $3,500 for the County to distribute child car seats and car seat boosters to low-income families in Contra Costa County, for the period April 9, 2020 through December 18, 2020. Approval of Agreement #29-825-3 will allow the County to receive funds to continue to provide car seats and booster seats to low-income families through December 31, 2021. This agreement includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties from any claims arising out of the performance of this agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Health Services Department will not receive child passenger safety seats from AAA’s Child Passenger Safety Seat Donation Program. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This program supports the following Board of Supervisors’ community outcomes: (1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; (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 Agreement #28-957 with Public Health Institute, a nonprofit corporation, to pay County an amount not to exceed $65,000 for County’s Substance Use Navigator services and participation in the California Bridge Program, which ensures people with substance use disorder receive 24/7 high-quality care in every California hospital by 2025, for the period from February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $65,000 in funding by Public Health Institute for participation in the California Bridge Program. (No County match required) BACKGROUND: In collaboration with the Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) and Contra Costa Behavioral Health Services, the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) will develop and pilot a strategy to sustain Substance Use Navigator services under the California Bridge Program. Program outcomes include developing a mechanism to utilize Medi-Cal Administrative Activities (MAA) funding and implement claiming, assist CCHP in meeting their National Committee on Quality Assurance (NCQA) incentive by tracking pharmaceutical prescriptions for opioid medications, implement Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 27 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #28-957 with Public Health Institute BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) System (DMC-ODS) reimbursement options based on phase 2 outcome and identification, and develop report tracking Emergency Department utilization directly related to opioid use. Approval of this Agreement #28-957 will allow County to receive funding for County’s Substance Use Navigator services and participation in the California Bridge Program, through January 31, 2022. This contract includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not receive funding to participate in the California Bridge Program. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Grant Agreement #29-549-7 with John Muir Health, including indemnification, to pay County an amount not to exceed $50,000 for respite care services for homeless adults provided at the Philip Dorn Respite Center for the period from April 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will allow the County to receive an amount not to exceed $50,000 from John Muir Health for support to the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2021. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: The Philip Dorn Respite Center, as a Community Benefit Program, located in Concord, is a respite care program for homeless adults who are discharging from local hospitals and require medical stabilization services. Respite care refers to recuperative services for those homeless persons who may not meet medical criteria for hospitalization, but who are too sick or medically vulnerable to reside in an emergency shelter and cannot be returned to the streets. The goal of the program is to get all homeless persons off the street and help them to achieve their highest level of self-sufficiency. County has been receiving funds from John Muir Health for this program since June 2016. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 28 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Grant Agreement #29-549-7 from John Muir Health BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Grant Agreement #29-549-6 with John Muir Health to receive funds for the Philip Dorn Respite Center to provide respite care services for homeless adults for the period April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Approval of Grant Agreement #29-549-7 will allow the County to continue to receive support for the Philip Dorn Respite Center through December 31, 2021. This agreement includes agreeing to indemnify John Muir Health for any claims arising out of the County’s performance under the agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, the County will not be able to receive funding for services at the Philip Dorn Respite Center. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Agreement #28-960 with Mt. Diablo Unified School District, a government agency, to pay County in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to collaborate with youth enrolled in the contractor’s Mt. Diablo Youth Employment Services and Career Pathways Program to be placed in internships throughout Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) for the period March 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this agreement will result in an amount not to exceed $20,000 in funding from Mt. Diablo Unified School District. No County match is required. BACKGROUND: Health disparities are associated with poor educational outcomes, and in Concord and Bay Point, Latino and African American residents face disproportionate rates of preventable chronic illnesses such as heart disease, obesity, and cancer. County will collaborate with the contractor’s Mt. Diablo Youth Employment Services and Health Career Pathways program, and support the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, to provide students the necessary skills and experience to advance their education and career goals and become part of the health workforce. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement #28-960 with Mt. Diablo Unified School District BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under Agreement #28-960 county will receive up to $20,000 in funding for internship placement for youth enrolled in the Contractor’s Mt. Diablo Youth Employment Services and Career Pathways Program for the period March 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021. This Agreement includes the county agreeing to hold harmless the District for any claims arising out of the performance of this contract. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this agreement is not approved, County will not receive funds for internship placement for youth enrolled in Contractor’s Mt. Diablo Youth Employment Services and Career Pathways Program. ATTACHMENTS RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT Resolution No. 2021/136 to approve and authorize the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment in an amount not to exceed $143,750 with the California Department of Aging for the Dignity at Home, Fall Prevention Program to extend the term end date of June 30, 2021 to a new term end date of March 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: County to receive an amount not to exceed $143,750 from California Department of Aging, Fall Prevention Program Act. Funding is 100% State, with no County match requirement. BACKGROUND: Dignity at Home, Fall Prevention Program will allow Employment and Human Services Department, Area Agency on Aging, to provide fall and injury prevention information, education, referral services, equipment, assessments, services, material and labor costs to older adults with disabilities whose income does not exceed 80% of medium income and who are at risk of falling or institutionalization. The board approved execution of agreement to receive funds on March 10, 2020 (c.47). This board order is to approve execution of a contract amendment to extend the term end date of June 30, 2021 to a new term end date of March 31, 2022. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Tracy Murray, Kathy Arana C. 30 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:California Department of Aging, Fall Prevention Program Act Funding Amendment CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without funding, the Fall Prevention Program could not be implemented. AGENDA ATTACHMENTS Resolution 2021/136 MINUTES ATTACHMENTS Signed Resolution No. 2021/136 Signed Resolution No. 2021/136 RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract and accept payment in an amount not to exceed $27,408 from Mount Diablo Unified School District, for the provision of food services to the Crossroads High School childcare program for the period August 19, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no net County costs associated with this agreement. Mount Diablo Unified School District has agreed to pay the County up to the limits of the California Child and Adult Food Program, for all food service expenses related to this Contract. The program may provide up to 6,622 meals at the rate of $3.84 per breakfast and $4.41 per lunch. BACKGROUND: In order to further support the childcare service partnership with Crossroads High School and to ensure the success of food and nutrition goals within these programs, the Department provides the daily meals at selected childcare sites. The meals are provided to program eligible children co-enrolled in the California Child and Adult Food Program and the Contractor's education programs. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the County will be unable to provide food services to its childcare partner. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-5052 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 31 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:2021-22 Food Services Agreement with Mt. Diablo Unified School District/Crossroads High School CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This agreement 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 Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with The Ratcliff Architects, effective April 27, 2021, to increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $2,250,000, and to extend the term from July 10, 2022 to July 10, 2023, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Projects will be assigned to the as-needed architect when there is an approved project and funding. (100% Various Funds) BACKGROUND: On July 10, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved an as-needed Consulting Services Agreement with Ratcliff, in the amount of $750,000. On June 2, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment No. 1 with Ratcliff, in the amount of $750,000 and extended the term to July 10, 2022. The contract payment limit of $1,500,000 has nearly been reached. Amendment No. 2 is necessary to provide architectural services and the additional costs associated with the completion of ongoing and new projects. Ratcliff is familiar with these active projects, and the design and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 32 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Services Agreement with The Ratcliff Architects (Ratcliff) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) construction of typical building types and health care facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract amendment be awarded at this time. Ratcliff will continue to provide architectural services, such as programming, design and construction administration. The type, size and location of projects vary. Typical projects may include new construction, building renovations/modernizations, remodeling of an entire building or specific areas within a building, tenant improvements, exterior building restorations, mechanical-electrical-plumbing upgrades, structural improvements, code-related improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Projects may also include fire district buildings projects. Extending this as-needed agreement will save the county money when compared with the time and expense in conducting a consultant selection process on a project-by project basis, will allow the design phase to commence sooner and provide for a shorter project completion schedule. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Amendment No. 2 is not approved, projects currently in process will be delayed, which will ultimately result in higher project costs. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with KMD Architects, to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $2,000,000, and to extend the term from July 10, 2022 to July 10, 2023, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Projects will be assigned to the as-needed architect when there is an approved project and funding. (100% Various Funds) BACKGROUND: On July 10, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved an as-needed Consulting Services Agreement with KMD Architects (KMD), in the amount of $750,000. On June 16, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment No. 1 with KMD in the amount of $750,000 and extended the term to July 10, 2022. On November 1, 2020, the Public Works Department approved an Administrative Amendment APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 33 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize amendment No.3 to Consulting Services Agreement with KMD Architects. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Agreement, Amendment No. 1 to change KMD's address. KMD is familiar with these active projects, and the design and construction of typical building types and health care facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract amendment be awarded at this time. KMD will continue to provide architectural services, such as programming, design and construction administration. The type, size and location of projects vary. Typical projects may include new construction, building renovations/modernizations, remodeling of an entire building or specific areas within a building, tenant improvements, exterior building restorations, mechanical-electrical-plumbing upgrades, structural improvements, code-related improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Projects may also include fire district buildings projects. Extending this as-needed agreement will save the county money when compared with the time and expense in conducting a consultant selection process on a project-by project basis, will allow the design phase to commence sooner and provide for a shorter project completion schedule. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Amendment No. 3 is not approved, projects currently in process will be delayed, which will ultimately result in higher project costs. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Applied Materials and Engineering, Inc., effective April 27, 2021, to increase the payment limit by $500,000 to a new payment limit of $1,350,000 and extend the term from June 26, 2021 to December 31, 2022, to provide as-needed material testing and inspection services for various County projects, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Work performed under this contract is funded with charges to various facilities projects. (100% Various Funds) BACKGROUND: On June 26, 2018 the Board of Supervisors approved a contract with Applied Materials & Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $850,000 through the period of June 26, 2021. The contract payment limit of $850,000 has nearly been reached. Amendment No. 2 is necessary to provide for the additional costs associated with completion of material testing and inspection services for existing and new County projects. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 34 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize Amendment No. 1 with Applied Materials & Engineering, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) The Public Works Department is involved in various facilities projects in the County that require materials testing and inspection services. Government Code section 31000 authorized the County to contract for services including the type of material testing and inspections services provided by Applied Materials & Engineering, Inc. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract amendment be awarded at this time. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without Board of Supervisors approval, there will be a possible delay in completing current projects requiring materials testing and inspection services. Executing this amendment will facilitate the process of various County facilities projects requiring materials testing and inspection expertise. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Delta Personnel Services, Inc. dba Guardian Security Agency in an amount not to exceed $475,000 to provide security guard services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will increase department expenditures by $475,000, of which $275,000 is assigned to Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) as Administrative Overhead, funded by 6% County, 36% State, and 58% Federal revenues. $200,000 is assigned to EHSD Community Services Bureau funded at 50% State and 50% Federal revenues. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department maintains an agreement with the County Health Services Department to provide personnel security officers (PSOs) at several EHSD locations. EHSD, through a contract with Delta Personnel Services, Inc. dba Guardian Security Agency (Guardian), provides security personnel services at EHSD locations when PSOs are unavailable due to vacation schedules, illness, and alternative work schedules, or for night and social occasion events. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 35 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Delta Personnel Services, Inc. dba Guardian Security Agency, Inc. for Security Guard Services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Guardian provides contingency security services to EHSD locations. Upon request from EHSD, Guardian will provide security services to perform temporary and unanticipated security to safeguard equipment and property, prepare reports, conduct visual checks of areas in and around EHSD suites, and monitor and respond at the request of staff regarding unauthorized visitors to insure the safety of visitors and employees at EHSD locations. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: County building sites, property, and staff would not have security and safety mechanisms in place. 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 in an amount not to exceed $36,000 to provide Resource Family Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This interagency agreement will increase Department expenditures by $36,000 to be funded by 25% State 2011 Realignment funds and 75% Federal funding. The expenditures are included in the FY 2021-2022 Department Budget (CFDA No. 93.658). BACKGROUND: The Resource Family Pre-Approval training 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 Pre-Approval APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 36 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College for Resource Family Pre-Approval Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) program has a single approval standard that replaced 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 inter-agency renewal agreement, Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College will provide caregivers of foster children a minimum of six (6) 18-hour training series, locate and hire independent training consultants, and provide appropriate instructional materials to each training participant. Trainings will educate prospective Resource Families on how to support and parent vulnerable children, as defined in State Assembly Bill 686. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires that all prospective resource families, foster family homes, approved relative caregivers, or non-relative extended family members attend Resource Family Pre-Approval training in order to be approved as a caregiver for foster youth in Contra Costa County. If this training is not made available to prospective caregivers, Contra Costa County will have less approved caregivers able to accept foster youth in Contra Costa County. 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 – Los Medanos College in an amount not to exceed $37,800 to provide foster parent and relative caregiver Heritage training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This 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 FY 2021/22 department budget (CFDA #93.658). BACKGROUND: In response to the continued problems related to prenatal 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 alcohol and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 37 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Los Medanos College for Resource Family Heritage Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 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. Heritage training for foster caregivers requires 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, which was approved by County Counsel. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Heritage training is not delivered to foster caregivers, there will be less available specially-trained families who are able to care for babies and children born exposed to drugs and/or alcohol, and/or who may be HIV exposed. 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 caregivers to better meet the specialized needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows transition to family reunification. 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 $20,160 to provide Heritage training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: The interagency agreement is funded with 75% Federal ($15,120), 17.5% State ($3,528) and 7.5% General Fund ($1,512) funding and is included in the FY 2021-2022 department budget (CFDA #93.658). BACKGROUND: In response to the continued problems related to prenatal 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 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 38 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College Campus for Resource Family Heritage Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) providing comprehensive and coordinated 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. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Heritage training is not delivered to foster caregivers, there will be less available specially 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 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 caregivers to better meet the specialized needs of vulnerable children in the foster care system and allows transition to family reunification. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), in an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 to provide emergency vehicle outfitting services for various County departments, for the period of May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: This cost is to be 100% funded through Fleet Services ISF budget and user departments. (75% Fleet Internal Service Fund, 25% User Departments) BACKGROUND: Public Works Fleet Services purchases and outfits all emergency services vehicles for the County. This includes vehicles from the Sheriff, Public Works, Animal Services, Probation, District Attorney and Health Services Departments. The Sheriff’s vehicles take up the vast majority of this commodity. Outfitting includes lights, sirens, controllers, electronics, wiring, and other hard parts such as partitions, consoles and trunk slider trays. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Carlos Velasquez, (925) 313-7072 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 39 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), a California Corporation, Countywide. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Originally bid on BidSync #2011-443, Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), was the only qualified bidder. The 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. Government Code Section 23004 authorizes the County to make contracts and purchase and hold personal property necessary to the exercise of its powers. Fleet Services is requesting a contract with Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), Inc., to be approved for an initial period covering three years. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, emergency vehicle outfitting services with Stommel, Inc. (dba Lehr), will not occur. 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 Pre-Approval training for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This interagency agreement will increase Department expenditures by $30,000 to be funded using 75% Federal ($22,500) and 25% State 2011 Realignment ($7,500) funds. The expenditures are included in the FY 2021-2022 Department Budget (CFDA #93.658). BACKGROUND: Resource Family Approval 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 APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 40 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa Community College District – Diablo Valley College for Resource Family Pre-Approval Training BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) family approval process. The RFA program has a single approval standard that replaces the 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, DVC will provide caregivers of foster children a minimum of three (3) and maximum of six (6) 18-hour training series, locate and hire independent training consultants, and provide appropriate instructional materials to each training participant. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: State law requires that all prospective resource families, foster family homes, approved relative caregivers, or non-relative extended family members (“NREFMs”) attend Resource Family Pre-Approval training in order to be approved as a caregiver for foster youth in Contra Costa County. If this training is not made available to prospective caregivers, Contra Costa County will have less approved caregivers able to accept foster youth in the County. 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 Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #27-579-7 with Bay Area Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology Associates Medical Group, Inc. (dba BATROA), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $750,000, to provide radiology/oncology services for Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members for the period April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $750,000 over a three-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network since 2009. On March 19, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-579-6 with Bay Area Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology Associates Medical Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to provide radiology/oncology services to CCHP members for the period from April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 41 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-579-7 with Bay Area Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology Associates Medical Group, Inc. (dba BATROA) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #27-579-7 will allow this contractor to continue to provide radiology/oncology services to CCHP members through March 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): DETERMINE that the bid submitted by W.E. Lyons Construction Co. complied with the requirements of the County’s Outreach Program for this project, as provided in the project specifications, and FURTHER DETERMINE that W.E. Lyons Construction Co. submitted the best responsive and responsible bid for this project. FURTHER DETERMINE that W.E. Lyons Construction Co. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the above project, has entered into a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with the Contra Costa Building and Trades Council to comply with the requirements of the County's Project Labor Agreement policy. AWARD the construction contract for the above project to W.E. Lyons Construction Co. in the amount of $12,990,000 and DIRECT that the Public Works Director, or designee, prepare the contract. DIRECT that W.E. Lyons Construction Co. shall submit two good and sufficient security bonds (performance and payment bonds) in the amount of $12,990,000 each. ORDER that, after the contractor has signed the contract and returned it, together with the bonds, evidence of insurance, and other APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 42 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Construction Contract for Buchanan Field Terminal Replacement Project at 181 John Glenn Drive, Concord (WJ5304) RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) required documents, and the Public Works Director has reviewed and found them to be sufficient, the Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to sign the contract for this Board. ORDER that, in accordance with the project specifications and upon signature of the contract by the Public Works Director, or designee, any bid bonds posted by the bidders are exonerated and any checks or cash submitted for bid security shall be returned. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to sign any escrow agreements prepared for this project to permit the direct payment of retention into escrow or the substitution of securities for moneys withheld by the County to ensure performance under the contract, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22300. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to order changes or additions to the work pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20142. DELEGATE, pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4114, to the Public Works Director, or designee, the Board’s functions under Public Contract Code Section 4107 and 4110. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated construction cost will be funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (estimated at $6.1 million or 47%), Caltrans (estimated at $150,000 or 1%), and the Airport Enterprise Fund (estimated at $6.74 million or 52%) BACKGROUND: The Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 2008, identifies a new general aviation terminal (Terminal) on the capital improvement list. The Terminal will replace the existing terminal building at the north end of John Glenn Drive. The Terminal would include space for the Airports Division Administrative staff, Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) staff and equipment, public space to support scheduled/unscheduled air service providers, office space for aviation businesses, and general public meeting space. The Airports Division currently rents office space from one of the airport businesses and moving those functions into the Terminal will accommodate the additional office space needed, while resulting in a long-term savings to the Airport Enterprise Fund. On April 28, 2020, the Board authorized Airport staff to submit FAA and Caltrans grants for the construction of the ARFF and general aviation components of the Terminal. On February 2, 2021, the Board approved the project design and specifications and authorized staff to put the project out to bid. The Construction cost estimate was for $11,700,000 and the general prevailing wage rates will be the minimum rates paid on this project. Bids were received and opened by the Public Works Department on March 11, 2021, and the bid results were as follows: Bidder Base Bid W.E. Lyons Construction Co. $12,990,000 Marcon Builders $14,489,355 Zovich & Sons Inc. $14,559,000 Thompson Builders $14,680,000 Patriot Contracting $14,990,000 Rodan Builders $15,315,000 CWS Construction $15,975,000 The FAA is expected to fund a significant portion of the construction costs associated with the ARFF function and public areas of the terminal building, since Buchanan Field Airport has an active Part 139 certificate. The Airport Enterprise Fund will pay the grant match, all non-grant eligible costs, and project costs above the grant awards, including the construction of the Airport’s administrative office space. The Airport Enterprise Fund will also pay the added costs to complete the space including furnishings, window coverings, and the like. Staff has evaluated the low bid submitted by W.E. Lyons Construction Co. and their good faith documentation. Staff has determined that W.E. Lyons Construction Co.'s bid is responsive and their good faith effort documentation is in compliance with the County's Outreach Program. The Public Works Director recommends that the Board award the construction contract for this project to W.E. Lyons Construction Co., the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, in the amount of $12,990,000. Pursuant to the County's Project Labor Agreement (PLA) policy, a PLA is required on this project. W.E. Lyons Construction Co. has signed a PLA, the General Prevailing Rates of Wages which shall be the minimum rates paid on this project, are on file with the Clerk of the Board and copies are available to any parties upon request. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the project is not approved, the County will not be able to construct the terminal building, ARFF facility and administrative offices. The Airports Division would have to continue to rent office/ARFF space for approximately $6,500 per month, which does not meet the short-term or long-term space needs. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-8 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., an individual, effective April 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-721-6 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-7) to increase the payment limit by $69,000 from $255,000 to a new payment limit of $324,000, with no change in the original term of June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment agreement will result in additional contractual service expenditures of up to $69,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with Minh Nguyen, M.D. for pulmonary critical care specialty services since June 1, 2012. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah. M.D. 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, Marcy Wilhelm C. 43 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-8 with Minh Nguyen, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 2, 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-7 with Minh Nguyen, M.D., to provide pulmonary critical care services, including consultation, training, medical and surgical procedures for CCRMC and Health Centers patients for the period from June 1, 2020 through May 31, 2023. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-721-8 will allow Contractor to continue to provide pulmonary critical care services through May 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #76-624-7 with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Service Masters Restoration Services), a corporation, effective March 23, 2021, to amend Contract #76-624-5, to increase the payment limit by $3,500,000, from $4,000,000 to a new payment limit of $7,500,000, with no change in the original term of December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will result in additional budgeted expenditures of up to $3,500,000 over one year and will be funded 100% by Federal and State emergency funding. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: Sharjo, Inc., has contracted with Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers since December 1, 2018, for the provision of emergency deep cleaning and restoration services during emergency events and is a reliable provider of additional emergency and deep cleaning services during the COVID-19 pandemic. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Kathleen Cyr, Marcy Wilhelm C. 44 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #76-624-7 with Sharjo, Inc. (dba Service Masters Restoration Services) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On November 3, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-624-5 with Sharjo, Inc. to provide emergency restoration services to resolve emergency events requiring immediate assistance as determined by the Facilities Administration staff at CCRMC and Health Centers for the period December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the County has increased the utilization of this Contractor’s services to perform ongoing daily deep cleaning services. The Division underestimated the increased utilization of services from this Contractor and is requesting additional funding in the amount of $3,500,000 to continue to provide additional, continuous daily deep cleaning services, through the term of this contract. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #76-624-7 will allow the Contractor to continue to provide additional, continuous daily emergency deep cleaning and restoration services to resolve emergency events requiring immediate assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic as determined by the Facilities Administration staff at CCRMC and Health Centers through November 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, this contractor will not be able to provide additional ongoing, restoration and emergency deep cleaning services for the County. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #26-748-8 with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC, a professional corporation, in an amount not to exceed $1,823,000, to provide plastic surgery services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,823,000 over a 3 year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has been contracting with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC, since July 2013, for his expertise in plastic surgery services. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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, MD, 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Noel Garcia, Marcy Wilhelm C. 45 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #26-748-8 with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On May 22, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-748-6 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #26-748-7) with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC, to provide plastic surgery services including clinic coverage, consulting, training and medical and/or surgical procedures at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment Agreement #26-748-7 with Mauricio Kuri, M.D., PC, to increase the payment limit by $56,000 to a new payment limit of $1,823,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #26-748-8 will allow this contractor to continue to provide plastic surgery services including clinic coverage, consulting, training and medical and/or surgical procedures at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers, through June 30, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, patients requiring plastic surgery care at CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers will not have access to this contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with Contra Costa County Office of Education in an amount not to exceed $216,090 ($108,045 annually for two years) to provide educational liaison services for children and youth in foster care for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will increase department expenditures by $216,090, ($108,045 annually for two 2 years); to be funded 70% by 2011 Realignment and 30% by County General Fund. (70% State, 30% County) BACKGROUND: Education Liaisons at Contra Costa County Office of Education work collaboratively with local school districts, child welfare agencies, foster care agencies, probation, post-secondary institutions, caregivers, and community organizations with the goal of improving the educational gap for foster youth. Using a unique partnership, Education Liaisons work closely with Children and Family Services (CFS) Social Workers to help support the educational needs of children by ensuring proper educational placement, school enrollment, and checkout from school as well as assisting with the transfer of grades, credits, and records when there is a school change as mandated by California Education Code § 48853.5(b)-(d), (e)(8)(C). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: V. Kaplan, (925) 608-5052 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 46 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement with Contra Costa County Office of Education for Educational Liaison Services for Foster Youth CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without educational liaisons, foster children and youth will experience increased barriers in accessing the same academic resources, services, and extracurricular and enrichment activities that are available to all students. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This agreement supports four of the five 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 Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and 4) "Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by supporting the educational rights of children and youth in foster care. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-697-1 with Daniel T. Oberlin, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $930,000, to provide urologic oncology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $930,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers rely on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to their patients. CCRMC has contracted with Daniel T. Oberlin, M.D., for urologic oncology specialty services since May 1, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #76-697 with Daniel T. Oberlin, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $365,000, to provide urologic oncology services at CCRMC, for the period from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D. 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 47 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-697-1 with Daniel T. Oberlin, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #76-697-1 will allow this contractor to continue to provide urologic oncology services through April 30, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to provide urologic oncology services through this contractor to CCRMC patients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Global Orphan Project, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $20,000 to provide CarePortal, a web-based, secure database platform to fulfill basic needs for Children and Family Services foster youth and caregivers for the period May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This will increase department expenditures by $20,000: funded 70% ($14,000) by State 2011 Realignment Funds and 30% ($6,000) by County. BACKGROUND: The Global Orphan Project, Inc. will provide a web-based, secure database platform CarePortal by which Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) child welfare social workers may request the fulfillment of specific basic needs for foster youth and caregivers. CarePortal will be used to request physical contributions of goods or services to stabilize the home of the child and family. EHSD child welfare staff will identify needs of Contra Costa County foster youth and families, submit a request for assistance via CarePortal.org. The requests will go immediately APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 48 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Global Orphan Project, Inc. CarePortal Contract Renewal BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to participating local churches for fulfillment. This contract contains revisions to the standard indemnification language which has been approved by County Risk Management and County Counsel. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: An alternate means of providing basic needs items and services to foster youth and caregivers will need to be identified. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) “Children Ready for and Succeeding in School”; (2) “Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood”; (3) “Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient”; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families" by providing basic needs items and services to foster youth and care givers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-758-8 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), a California Constitutional corporation, effective February 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-758-7, for additional physicians to provide remote neurology and consultation services with no change in the payment limit of $510,000 and no change in the term of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment has no change to the original amount of $510,000 for a 3 year period, which will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: The UCSF Neurology Department has provided remote teleneurology on-call and consultation services for Contra Costa Regional and Health Center since 2014. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-758-7 with UCSF to provide twenty-four hour a day, remote neurology and neurovascular consultation services for patients being treated in the Emergency Department or Inpatient Units APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D., 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 49 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #26-758-8 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) at CCRMC, for the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023, which included mutual indemnification. Approval of Amendment Agreement #26-758-8 will allow this contractor to continue to provide services through December 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, twenty-four hour a day, remote neurology and neurovascular consultation services for patients being treated in the Emergency Department or Inpatient Units at CCRMC would not be available. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Jon K. Takata Corporation (dba Restoration Management Company), to extend the term from February 28, 2021 to February 28, 2022, and increase hourly rates, to provide on-call restoration services at various County facilities, with no change to the payment limit of $2,500,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Contract costs are budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget. There is no fiscal impact to this action. BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of County buildings. At times, when an unexpected event such as flooding from a broken water pipe or leaking roof, or fire damage causes massive damage, restoration services are needed. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County buildings. The contractor has requested an increase in hourly rate charges. The contract allows for a yearly increase by a factor equal to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco - Oakland area as published by the Bureau APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 50 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Jon K. Takata Corporation (dba Restoration Management Company). BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) of Labor Statistics for the year immediately preceding, plus 2 percent (%). This is the first increase the contractor has requested since the start of the contract. The contract with Jon K. Takata Corporation (dba Restoration Management Company), is due to expire February 28, 2021. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for on-call restoration services and is requesting authorization to extend this contract to February 28, 2022, to ensure the County has access to the contractor's services pending evaluation, award and execution of the new restoration services contracts. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, restoration services with Jon K. Takata (dba Restoration Management Company), will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Denalect, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $350,000 to provide alarm monitoring services at various County facilities, for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Facilities Maintenance Budget. (100% General Fund) BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for electronic system (alarm) monitoring in County buildings. Denalect, Inc., is the County’s standard for this type of monitoring, and all alarmed buildings currently have Denalect equipment and are monitored 24 hours a day via phone lines and radio transmission. Government Code Section 31000 authorizes the County to contract for special services for building security matters. Denalect, Inc., will be able to request rate increases of three percent, on each anniversary of the effective date of this Contract. The contract will have a term of three (3) years with the option of two (2) one-year extensions and will pay for services according to the rates set forth in the contract. Facilities Services is requesting a contract with Denalect, Inc., to be approved for a period covering three years. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 51 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Denalect, Inc., a California Corporation, Countywide. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, alarm monitoring services with Denalect, Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to execute a purchase order with OmniPro LLC on behalf of the Employment and Human Services Department, Information Technology Unit, in an amount not to exceed $249,768, to procure approximately 174 personal computers for the period of April 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Administrative Overhead: $249,768 (6% County; 36% State; 58% Federal) BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department, Information Technology Unit (IT), is replacing user personal computers (PCs) to support Windows 10. With more employees projected to be hired in the coming months, and the upgrading of PCs in our public use labs, we are requesting this purchase order to support the new hires and to upgrade a portion of our Public Use PC’s to Windows 10. These PCs are needed to continue the upgrade to Windows 10 (1909) and Office 2016. In accordance with Administrative Bulletin No. 611.0, County Departments are required to get Board approval for single item purchases greater than $100,000. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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 8-4960 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 52 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorize Purchasing Agent to issue Purchase Order with OmniPro LLC CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to go forward with technology upgrade. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #76-700-1 with Stephen P. Taylor, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $495,000, to provide urology services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (CCRMC) and Contra Costa Health Centers, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $495,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (Rate increase) BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, CCRMC and Contra Costa Health Centers rely on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to their patients. CCRMC has contracted with Stephen P. Taylor, M.D., for urology services since June 15, 2000. In August 2020, the County Administrator approved, and Purchasing Services Manager executed Contract #76-700 with Stephen P. Taylor, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to provide neurology services at CCRMC and Health Centers, for the period from June 15, 2020 through June 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah, M.D. 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, Marcy Wilhelm C. 53 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #76-700-1 with Stephen P. Taylor, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #76-700-1 will allow this contractor to continue providing urology services at CCRMC and Health Centers through June 30, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, this contractor will not be able to provide urology services to CCRMC patients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #26-774-6 with Robert A. Buckley, M.D., an individual, effective May 1, 2021, to amend Contract #26-774-3 (as amended by Administrative Amendment Agreements #26-774-4 and #26-774-5) to increase the payment limit by $45,000 from $605,000 to a new payment limit of $650,000, with no change in the original term of July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract amendment agreement will result in additional contractual service expenditures of $45,000 and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: Due to the limited number of specialty providers available within the community, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Contra Costa Health Centers (CCRMC) relies on contracts to provide necessary specialty health services to its patients. CCRMC has contracted with Robert A. Buckley, M.D. for orthopedic specialty services since July 1, 2014. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Samir Shah. M.D. 925-370-5525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, Marcy Wilhelm C. 54 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract Amendment Agreement #26-774-6 with Robert A. Buckley, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On March 22, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-774-3 with Robert A. Buckley, M.D., in an amount not to exceed $605,000, to provide orthopedic clinic services, consultation and training services for patients at CCRMC, for the period from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021. In September 2018, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Administrative Amendment Agreement #26-774-4 with Robert A. Buckley, M.D., to correct a typo in the clinic rate for orthopedic services with no change in the original term of July 1, 2018 through June 30. 2021. In March 2021, the County Administrator approved and Purchasing Services Manager executed Administrative Amendment Agreement #26-774-5 with Robert A. Buckley, M.D., to correct the number of clinic hours from 4 hours per week to 6 hours per week with no change in the original term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #26-774-6 will allow Contractor to provide additional orthopedic services at CCRMC through June 30, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the County will not have access to this contractor’s orthopedic services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #27-272-13 with East Bay Retina Consultants, A Medical Group, Inc., a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $900,000, to provide ophthalmology and retina surgery services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members and County recipients, for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $900,000 over a 3 year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network providing ophthalmology and retina surgery services since February of 1997. On June 18, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract # 27-272-12 with East Bay Retina Consultants, A Medical Group, Inc., in an amount of $750,000, to provide ophthalmology and retina surgery services for CCHP members and County recipients for the period June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Noel Garcia, Marcy Wilhelm C. 55 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-272-13 with East Bay Retina Consultants, A Medical Group, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #27-272-13 will allow this contractor to continue to provide ophthalmology and retina surgery services through May 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #27-975-3 with George James Counelis, M.D., Inc. (dba Bay Area Neurosciences), a professional corporation, in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide neurosurgery services to Contra Costa Health Plan (CCHP) members and County recipients, for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $300,000 over a 3 year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. This contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network providing neurosurgery services since June of 2015. On June 18, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #27-975-2 with George James Counelis, M.D., Inc. (dba Bay Area Neurosciences), in an amount of $300,000, to provide neurosurgery services for CCHP members and County recipients for the period June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Noel Garcia, Marcy Wilhelm C. 56 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #27-975-3 with George James Counelis, M.D., Inc. (dba Bay Area Neurosciences) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #27-975-3 will allow this contractor to continue to provide neurosurgery services through May 31, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-475-9 with K.B.R., Inc. (dba Rash Curtis & Associates), a corporation, in an amount not to exceed $450,000, to provide debt collection services for unpaid accounts for the Health Services Department for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Contractor will be paid on a commission basis for debts it actually collects and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. BACKGROUND: This contract will meet the social needs of the County providing collection services, for unpaid accounts for services rendered by the Health Services Department, including sending letters, making phone calls, reporting to credit bureaus on behalf of County. The contractor also provides collection services on non-medical past due accounts for the Environmental Health Division. The contractor has been providing debt collection services to the Health Services Department since July of 2010. On July 14, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-475-8 with K.B.R., Inc. (dba Rash Curtis & Associates) in the amount of $450,000 for the provision of debt collection services for unpaid accounts for the Health Services Department, for the period from July 1, 2020 through June APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5405 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 57 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-475-9 with K.B.R., Inc. (dba Rash Curtis & Associates) BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-475-9 will allow this contractor to continue providing debt collection services for unpaid accounts through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will not be able to receive payment for unpaid debt collections recovered by the contractor’s services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-391-18 with Laura Swafford, an individual, in an amount not to exceed $250,000, to provide technical support and training services for the Health Services Department for the ccLink System, for the period from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in annual expenditures of up to $250,000 and will be funded as budgeted by the department in FY 2021-22, by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contractor has been providing technical support and training services for the Health Services Department for the ccLink System to enhance utilization of the EPIC Billing System since 2006. Approval of this contract will allow the contractor to continue to work on data and financial analysis, partner with department leaders to understand current workflows and develop future workflows that will result in operations improvements, investigate complex billing issues and recommend both operational and technical solutions that align with the department’s business strategy. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Godley, 925-957-5410 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Tasha Scott, Marcy Wilhelm C. 58 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-391-18 with Laura Swafford BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 14, 2020 the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-391-17 with Laura Swafford, in the amount of $250,000 to provide technical support and training services to the Health Services Department’s billing office work processes and creating work queues in ccLink for the period from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract #23-391-18 will allow this contractor to continue to provide technical support and training services through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, this contractor will not provide services to the Department for work queues and billing in ccLink System. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #74-489-7 with Margaret L. Miller, M.D., an individual, in an amount not to exceed $209,664, to provide outpatient psychiatric care services to mentally ill older adults in Central Contra Costa County, for the period from May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this contract will result in budgeted expenditures of up to $209,664 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Realignment funds. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Behavioral Health Division has been contracting with Margaret L. Miller, M.D., since May 1, 2015 to provide outpatient psychiatric care to mentally ill adults in Central Contra Costa County. On April 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #74-489-6 with Margaret L. Miller, M.D., in the amount of $209,664 to provide outpatient psychiatric care to mentally ill adults in Central Contra Costa County, for the period from May 1, 2020 through April 30, 2021. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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, 925-957-5201 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, Marcy Wilhelm C. 59 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #74-489-7 with Margaret L. Miller, M.D. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Approval of Contract #74-489-7 will allow this contractor to continue providing psychiatric services through April 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the county’s clients will not have access to this contractor’s psychiatric care services. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel, or designee, to execute on behalf of Contra Costa County, a first amended and restated legal services contract, effective February 1, 2021, among Soluri Meserve, a Law Corporation, and the Counties of Contra Costa, Solano, and San Joaquin, to pay the firm an amount not to exceed $224,000 in connection with the firm's legal work for these three Delta Counties Coalition counties between October 22, 2019, and December 31, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: Water Agency funds will be used to pay one-third of the attorney's fees and expenses charged by the Firm between February 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. BACKGROUND: The Delta Counties Coalition ("DCC") is comprised of the Counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo. The DCC advocates for the five counties' shared interests concerning matters affecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Since October 22, 2019, Soluri Meserve ("Firm") APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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 Counsel 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel C. 60 To:Board of Supervisors From:Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Delta Counties Coalition Legal Services Contract with Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) has been performing legal services for the Counties of Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo under a legal services contract among those counties. The legal services contract needs to be amended to reflect Yolo County's withdrawal from the contract, a $12,000 increase to the current $140,000 payment limit for the current term that ends December 31, 2021, an extension of the term for one additional year through December 31, 2022, and a $72,000 payment limit for legal services that will be performed between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022. Under the amended and restated contract, each county will be responsible for paying its proportional share (i.e., one-third) of attorney's fees and expenses charged by the Firm between February 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. Water Agency staff recommends approving the amended and restated legal services contract to ensure the Firm can continue to perform legal work for the three DCC counties through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The contract would not be amended and the firm would stop performing legal services once the current $140,000 payment limit is reached, or by December 31, 2021, whichever occurs first. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #25-090 with Bay Area Community Services, Inc., a non-profit corporation, in an amount not to exceed $3,911,380 to operate the East County Interim Housing Program (ECIHP), which provides interim housing for homeless adults over 18 years of age living in East Contra Costa County for the period from April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $3,911,380 and funded 100% by Project Homekey California (administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development). BACKGROUND: Contractor will operate a 175-room, low-barrier, permanent housing-focused ECIHP serving homeless adults over 18 years of age living in East Contra Costa County without custody of minor children at 2101 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg, CA. Contractor will provide staffing twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week which including coordinating admissions and exits, coordinating meal services, providing onsite wellness checks and ensuring individuals have their basic needs met with clothes, food, and hygiene supplies. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: L Walker, M Wilhelm C. 61 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #25-090 with Bay Area Community Services, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Under this new Contract #25-090, contractor will provide interim housing for homeless residents in East County for the period April 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, East County’s homeless individuals will not receive interim housing, further putting the resident and community at risk. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and ACKNOWLEDGE that, by its terms, the contract between the County and East Bay Cardiovascular & Thoracic Associates, Inc., pertaining to cardiothoracic and vascular surgery services to Contra Costa Health Plan members and initially approved by the Board on February 2, 2021, (C.67), does not have a maximum payment limit of $1,600,000 as previously specified in the Board action but, rather, has a maximum payment $2,400,000 with no other change in terms. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $2,400,000 over a two-year period and will be funded 100% by CCHP Enterprise Fund II revenues. BACKGROUND: CCHP has an obligation to provide certain specialized health care services for its members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contracts with the County. Contractor has been a part of the CCHP Provider Network for several years providing cardiothoracic and vascular surgery services through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and was required APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Kathleen Cyr, Marcy Wilhelm C. 62 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Corrected Board Order for Contract 77-314 with East Bay Cardiovascular & Thoracic Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) to convert the existing MOU into a County contract. On February 2, 2021, a Board action (C.67) was approved to establish a contract with East Bay Cardiovascular & Thoracic Associates, Inc. with a payment limit that did not reflect the intended amount as agreed to by both parties. This action corrects the payment limit to reflect the amount of $2,400,000. Under Contract #77-314, this contractor will provide cardiothoracic and vascular surgery services to CCHP members for the period April 1, 2021 through March 31, 2023. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, certain specialized health care services for CCHP members under the terms of their Individual and Group Health Plan membership contract with the County will not be provided. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment & Human Services Director, or designee, on behalf of the Community Services Bureau, to execute a contract with WestEd, a California Teaching Pyramid Consulting Agency, in an amount not to exceed $28,000, to provide coaching services to the Bureau with a contract term of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Additionally, to approve a special condition to modify the General Conditions Section 12: No Waiver by County, to include mutual indemnification against any claims arising out of the performance of this agreement. The revisions to the standard indemnification language have been approved by County Counsel. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Federally funded, no County match is required. BACKGROUND: The Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) Community Services Bureau (CSB) announced a Request for Interest (RFI) 707 seeking applications from APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: A. Bailey-Nesbitt, 925-608-4930 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 63 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:WestEd, a California Teaching Pyramid Consulting Agency - Special Condition Board Approval Request BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) eligible individual(s) or organization(s) to provide coaching services to the Bureau. The successful respondent(s) will provide on-going coaching support to teaching staff to support the implementation and sustainability of Teaching Pyramid practice in the classroom. WestEd has developed and delivered California Teaching Pyramid technical assistance, training, strengths-based and practice-based coaching to over 3,600 early childhood program staff and managers in more than 400 programs around the state. Many of these programs are Head Start programs operated by public, non-profit, and private organizations. Working Together has deep and ongoing relationships with a number of small to large Head Start programs: managing annual contracts, collaborating to plan and conduct training and coaching, and providing technical assistance to program managers around program policies and procedures related to the Performance Standards for education, mental health, and disabilities services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Without approval of the modification to the General Conditions, WestEd will not be able to provide consultation to our Teaching staff, ultimately not enhancing our education program for our Childcare Centers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a non-financial contract with 1st Northern California Credit Union to provide auto loan services for the Keeping Employment Equals Your Success (KEYS) Auto Loan Program, for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: None. This is a non-financial contract. BACKGROUND: The Employment and Human Services Department created the Keeping Employment Equals Your Success (KEYS) Auto Loan Program for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs) participants who need a personal automobile to complete their transition to self-sufficiency. The KEYS Auto Loan Program targets CalWORKs participants and in coordination with the 1st Northern California Credit Union (Credit Union), provides automobile loans for participants who meet loan criteria. This contract outlines the Credit Union's no-fee facilitation responsibilities. The KEYS Auto Loan Program is successful at helping participating CalWORKs APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Laura Pacheco 8-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 64 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with 1st Northern California Credit Union for KEYS Auto Loan Services BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) clients remain employed and well on the road to self-sufficiency. The modifications made to the mutual indemnification clause of Contra Costa County General Conditions have been approved by Contra Costa County Risk Management. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Employment and Human Services Department will be unable to facilitate the provision of an automobile loan to qualified CalWORKs participants who have been unable to obtain an automobile loan through conventional means. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The services provided under this contract support all five of Contra Costa County’s community outcomes: (1) "Children Ready for and Succeeding in School"; (2) "Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood"; (3)"Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient"; (4) "Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing"; and (5)"Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families” by providing transportation opportunities to qualified CalWORKs participants. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Mark Scott Construction, Inc., to extend the term from March 31, 2021 to March 31, 2022, to provide on-call restoration services at various County facilities, with no change to the payment limit of $7,000,000, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: Contract costs are budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Budget. There is no fiscal impact to this action. BACKGROUND: Public Works Facilities Services is responsible for maintenance of County buildings. At times, when an unexpected event such as flooding from a broken water pipe or leaking roof, or fire damage causes massive damage, restoration services are needed. Government Code Section 25358 authorizes the County to contract for maintenance and upkeep of County buildings. The contract with Mark Scott Construction, Inc., is due to expire March 31, 2021. The Public Works Department recently conducted a formal solicitation for on-call restoration services and is requesting authorization to extend this contract to March 31, 2022, to ensure the County has access to the contractor's services pending evaluation, award and execution of the new restoration services contracts. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 65 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:APPROVE and AUTHORIZE Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Mark Scott Construction, Inc., to extend On-Call Restoration Services. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, restoration services with Mark Scott Construction, Inc., will be discontinued. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute an interagency agreement with Chabot-Las Positas Community College District (CLPCCD), in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to deliver education and training services to foster care providers, community partners, and Children and Family Services staff for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2023. FISCAL IMPACT: This will increase department expenditures by $750,000 over a two year period: $375,000 in FY 2021-2022 and $375,000 in FY 2022-2023. Funded 100% by State 2011 Realignment revenues. BACKGROUND: CLPCCD has a successful history in providing an array of training and technical assistance to child welfare agencies and community partners as evidenced by partnerships with Alameda, Mendocino and Solano Counties. CLPCCD provides training to increase the skills and capacity of those who work directly with foster and adoptive children. Courses range from topics such as trauma informed care, Resource Family Pre-Approval training, Safety Organized Practice, professional APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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) 812-6724 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: Laura Malone C. 66 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Agreement with Chabot-Las Positas Community College District for Training Services to CFS Staff, Community Partners and Foster Care Providers BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) development and new laws and initiatives impacting child welfare. This is an effort to expand expertise and knowledge of those individuals providing care and services to Contra Costa County children and youth placed in foster care. This contract contains mutual indemnification language approved by County Counsel. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Valuable education and training services will not be provided to those who work directly with foster and adoptive children. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: This interagency 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 providing training to foster care providers. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee, to execute a contract with Language Line Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,100,000 for interpretation and translation services for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will increase Department expenditures by $1,100,000 to be funded with 6% County, 36% State and 58% Federal revenue. BACKGROUND: Language Line Services, Inc. provides telephone interpretation, on-site interpretation, and document translation services to the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) and to the clients served by EHSD. Services are provided to the County adult population, children, families, and employment and training program related clients throughout the County. State and Federal regulations require the County to provide public information materials regarding client services to potential, present and past recipients in any non-English language that is prevalent within the County. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: EHSD would be unable to meet requirements for the administration of State and Federal programs. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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. Pacheco, (925) 608-4963 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Laura Cassell, Deputy cc: C. 67 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract with Language Line Services, Inc. for Interpretation and Translation Services RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract #23-629-3 with Associated Consultants, LLC., a limited liability company, in an amount not to exceed $1,155,000, to provide data analytics consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit for the period from March 1, 2021 through February 29, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: This contract will result in contractual service expenditures of up to $1,155,000 over a 3-year period and will be funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the needs of the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit by providing data analytics consulting services. Services like developing and managing information to support decision making, managing and improving existing reporting systems, and performing complex analyses. These functions are imperative to the Unit’s risk assessment and decision-making process. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8700 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: F Carroll C. 68 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Contract #23-629-3 with Associated Consultants, LLC BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) In 2017, the Health Services Department solicited for a data analytics service provider; Associated Consultants, LLC was chosen for their value, experience, and industry expertise. In March 2018, the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit began contracting with Associated Consultants, LLC to help fill the need for managing and analyzing data. On March 13, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #23-629 with Associated Consultants, LLC for data analytics consultation and technical assistance including, industry best practices for business software applications and reports writing for the Health Services Department’s Information Technology Unit, for the period from March 1, 2018, through August 31, 2019. On July 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-629-1, effective August 1, 2019, to amend Contract #23-629, to increase the payment limit by $385,000, from $385,000 to a new payment limit of $770,000, and to extend the termination date from August 31, 2019, to February 28, 2021, for additional data analytics consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit. Approval of Contract #23-629-3 will allow the contractor to provide additional data analytics consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit through February 28, 2024. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the County will no longer have access to the contractor’s expertise in data analytics consulting and technical assistance to support the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment Agreement #72-124-2 with Ride Roundtrip, Inc., a corporation, effective April 27, 2021, to amend Contract #72-124 (as amended by Contract Amendment Agreement #72-124-1), to increase the payment limit by $1,100,000, from $1,800,000 to a new payment limit of $2,900,000 with no change in the term of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021, for increased usage of hosted software portal services for transportation coordination, scheduling, and dispatch for Medi-Cal patients. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will increase contractual expenditures by $1,100,000 during fiscal years 2020/21 and 2021/22, and will be funded by 100% State Department of Health Care Services allocations. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: The Health Services Department’s Public Health Division provides social service case management to Medi-Cal patients who are identified as high utilizers who need additional services to improve their health outcomes. The County began contracting with this vendor in 2019 because transportation is a significant need for these patients. These services allow County personnel access to arrange rides for these patients via a web-based transportation booking portal. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 69 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment #72-124-2 with Ride Roundtrip, Inc. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Usage of these services has increased exponentially due to COVID-19 testing and vaccination efforts. On March 19, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #72-124, with Ride Roundtrip in the amount of $800,000 for the provision of electronic services to schedule and provide transportation to patients including interfacing with the County’s Electronic Health Record System for the period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020. On December 8, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #72-124-1 to increase the payment limit by $1,000,000 to a new payment limit of $1,800,000, and extend the term from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021 to reflect the continued provision of the Monthly Subscription System Access services. Approval of Contract Amendment Agreement #72-124-2 will allow this contractor to provide additional software portal services through December 31, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, the Health Services Department’s Public Health Division will not have access to these services, resulting in a negative impact on the health outcomes of these patients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-346-26, with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS), including mutual indemnification, to amend Agreement #26-346-21 (as amended by Amendment Agreements #26-346-22 through #26-346-25) to extend the termination date from March 31, 2021 to March 31, 2022 with no change in the original payment limit of $2,294,377, for nuclear medicine services. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no change in the budgeted expenditures of up to $2,294,377, which are funded 100% by Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. However, the term extension will result in a portion of the previously approved expenditures and payments occurring in FY 2021-22. The services provided for the County's patients under this contract are billable to patients and third-party payors. BACKGROUND: For many years, the County and VANCHCS have maintained a mutual sharing agreement, which has made available to the County specialized medical services not otherwise available due to lack of resources, equipment, and personnel. These services included specialized laboratory testing, radiology services, nuclear medicine studies, computerized tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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, 925-370-5741 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: E Suisala , M Wilhelm C. 70 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-346-26 with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) dermatology, gastroenterology, urology, audiology and speech, and ophthalmology services. The County provides Emergency Room treatment and inpatient care, including certain ancillary services, for VANCHCS referred patients. On March 27, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Agreement #26-346-21 with VANCHCS to provide a full range of Nuclear Medicine Services to County's patients at the VANCHCS Outpatient Clinic in Martinez and CCRMC’s Nuclear Medicine Department, in an amount not to exceed $474,000 for the period April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019. On July 24, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-346-22 with VANCHCS to modify the Rate Schedule, with no change in the original contract payment limit of $474,000, and no change in the original term of April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-346-23 with VANCHCS to increase the payment limit by $515,737 to a new payment limit of $989,737, and to extend the term through March 31, 2020. On January 7, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-346-24 with VANCHCS to increase the payment limit by $594,640 to a new payment limit of $1,584,377, with no change in the term of April 1, 2018 through March 31, 2020. On March 31, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-346-25 with VANCHCS to increase the payment limit by $710,000 to a new payment limit of $2,294,377, and to extend the term through March 31, 2021. This contract includes mutual indemnification to hold harmless both parties for any claims arising out of the performance of this agreement. Approval of Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-346-26 will allow the County to continue receiving funding for additional nuclear medicine services through March 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this amendment is not approved, VANCHCS will not be able to continue to provide nuclear medicine services to CCRMC patients. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute on behalf of the County Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-531-13 with Nordic Consulting Partners, Inc., a corporation, effective April 27, 2021, to amend Contract #23-531-12, to increase the payment limit by $6,000,000, from $11,000,000, to a new payment limit of $17,000,000, and to extend the termination date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022, for additional consultation and technical assistance for the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit. FISCAL IMPACT: This amendment will increase contractual expenditures by $6,000,000 during fiscal years 2021/22 and 2022/23 and will be funded by 100% Hospital Enterprise Fund I revenues. (No rate increase) BACKGROUND: This contract meets the needs of the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit by providing consultation and technical assistance in support of the ccLink Electronic Health Record System including system optimization, information security, training, and application support. This support is imperative to improving the unit’s business performance and strategy. This vendor has APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Patrick Wilson, 925-335-8777 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: F Carroll, M Wilhelm C. 71 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment/Extension #23-531-13 with Nordic Consulting Partners, Inc BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) been contracting with the Health Services Department’s Information Systems Unit since 2012. On January 7, 2020, the Board of Supervisors approved contract #23-531-12, with Nordic Consulting Partners, Inc. for the provision of consultation and technical assistance in the amount of $11,000,000, for the period from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021. This work includes future project based needs to implement the CalAIM waiver for Medi-Cal, additional build in ccLink to support new programs in public health and care coordination, business intelligence analysts to create, modify, and release new data analytics reports, and for project management support needs. Approval of Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #23-531-13 will allow this contractor to continue providing consulting services for ccLink including consultation, technical support, system optimization, information security, training and application support through December 31, 2022. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract is not approved, the Department will not have access to this contractor’s expert consultation and technical assistance in support of ccLink. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with Kava Massih Architects effective April 27, 2021, to increase the payment limit by $750,000 to a new payment limit of $1,500,000, and to extend the term from October 8, 2022 to October 8, 2023, to provide as-needed architectural services for various County projects, Countywide. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Various Funds. Projects will be assigned to the as-needed architect when there is an approved project and funding. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2019, the Board of Supervisors approved an as-needed Consulting Services Agreement with Kava Massih Architects, in the amount of $750,000. Kava Massih is familiar with these active projects, and the design and construction of typical building types and health care facilities. Therefore, it is recommended that the contract amendment be awarded at this time. Kava Massih will continue to provide typical architectural services, such as programming, design and construction administration. The type, size and location of projects will vary. Typical projects may include new construction, building APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Ramesh Kanzaria 925-957-2480 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 72 To:Board of Supervisors From:Brian M. Balbas, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approve and Authorize Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with Kava Massih Architects. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) renovations/modernizations, remodeling of an entire building or specific areas within a building, tenant improvements, exterior building restorations, mechanical-electrical-plumbing upgrades, structural improvements, code-related improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Projects may also include fire district buildings projects. Extending this as-needed agreement will save the county money when compared with the time and expense in conducting a consultant selection process on a project-by-project basis, will allow the design phase to commence sooner and provide for a shorter project completion schedule. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If Amendment No. 1 is not approved, projects currently in process will be delayed, which will ultimately result in higher project costs. RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT and APPROVE the revised Head Start Policy Council Bylaws for the Community Services Bureau, as recommended by the Employment and Human Services Director. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Head Start Performance Standards 1301.3 require annual Board of Supervisors approval of the Head Start Policy Council Bylaws. Please find attached the final Policy Council Bylaws and the redline version of the previous Bylaws that have been reviewed by the Policy Council Sub-Committee on February 3, 2021 and approved by the Head Start Policy Council on February 17, 2021. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If these revised Head Start Policy Council Bylaws are not approved, changes would not be implemented. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Nancy Hager (925) 608-4966 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 73 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Approval of Revised Head Start Policy Council Bylaws ATTACHMENTS HS PC Bylaws HS PC Bylaws Redlined version CC Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau Head Start/Early Head Start Bylaws PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 2 Table of Contents I. Name..................................................................................................................... 3 II. Authority .............................................................................................................. 3 III. Purpose and Res ponsibilities ........................................................................ 3 IV. Policy Council Membership ........................................................................... 3 V. Executive Committee ....................................................................................... 5 VI. Subcommittees .................................................................................................. 7 VII. Meetings .............................................................................................................. 7 VIII. Resolution of Disputes .................................................................................... 7 IX. Amendments ...................................................................................................... 8 PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 3 I. Name The name of this council is the Contra Costa County Head Start and Early Head Start Policy Council, hereinafter referred to as the Policy Council . II. Authority The Policy Council is established and organized under the Head Start Act of 2007. III. Purpose and Responsibilities A. Purpose The purpose of the Policy Council is to promote the objectives of the Head Start and Early Start Programs operated by Contra Costa County. The Policy Council serves as the link among public and private organizations, Contra Costa County and Delegate Agencies, the communities served, and the parents of enrolled children. B. Responsibilities The Policy Council shall approve and submit to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decisions about each of the following: (i) Activities to support the active involvement of parents in supporting program operations, including policies to ensure that the Contra Costa County is responsive to community and parent needs; (ii) Program recruitment, selection, and enrollment priorities; (iii) Applications for funding and amendments to applications for funding for programs under this subchapter, prior to submission of application s described in this clause; (iv) Budget planning for program expenditures, including policies for reimbursement and participation in policy council activities; (v) Bylaws for the operation of the Policy Council; (vi) Consistent with Contra Costa County’s policies, Perso nnel Management Regulations, applicable Memoranda of Understanding, and laws and regulations, program personnel policies and decisions regarding the employment of program staff, including standards of conduct for program staff, contractors, and volunteers and criteria for the employment and dismissal of program staff; (vii) Developing procedures for how members of the Policy Council will be elected; and (viii) Recommendations on the selection of delegate agencies and the service areas for such agencies. IV. Policy Council Membership A. Composition The Policy Council consists of 36 member seats represented by parents of currently enrolled children, past parents and community agency representatives. Policy Council PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 4 composition is reviewed annually to ensure that it meets the general membership guidelines of Head Start Performance Standards and that the representatives are proportionately selected according to program option (Head Start, Early Head Start, Full-Day, Part-Day, and Home -Base d). 1. Parents of Currently Enrolled Children At least 51 percent of the Policy Council seats must be filled by parents of children currently enrolled in Head Start (“HS”) and Early Head Start (“EHS”). (See 45 CFR 1305.2 for the definition of “parent”). The number of seats allocated to each childcare center is based on the center’s number of funded HS and EHS slots with one seat for every 60 slots rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. Parents, and their alternates, are nominated and elected by the parent committee of the center at which their child ren are enrolled. The parent nominee who receives the most votes is elected to serve as the primary representative of the center where his or her child attends. The parent nominee who receives the second highest vote number of votes is elected to serve as the alternate representative. When the primary representative is unable to attend a meeting, the alternate representative will attend the meeting and vote in the primary representative’s place. Each childcare center shall maintain a list of its primary and alternate representatives, which it shall send to the Policy Council Secretary. 2. Past Parent Representatives Parents of children who formerly attended HS and EHS programs may serve on the Policy Council for a total of five years, inclusive of terms served while their children were enrolled in HS/ EHS. Past parents interested in serving as representatives may submit a letter of interest to the Policy Council and are elected during the Policy Council Orientation Meeting. 3. Community Agency Representatives Community Agency Representatives are members of local community agencies, selected by the Policy Council, that serve low -income children and families. B. Term of Membership Members are elected each year to a one -year term that commences on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the following calendar year. Members may serve on the Policy Council for a total of five years. C. Absences Policy Council members are required to attend all meetin gs. If a member provides less than a 24-hour notice of his or her absence, the absence will be considered unexcused. If a parent of a currently enrolled child will be absent, he or she must confirm that his or her alternate will attend on his or her behalf . The member must give twenty-four hours’ notice of his or her absence to the alternate , Policy Council Secretary, and childcare site supervisor of the center the parent’s child attends . If a parent of a currently enrolled child has tw o unexcused absences, the center that he or she represents will be notified, and the center will make the determination as to whether PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 5 the parent will remain on the Policy Council or if the parent will step down and the center will elect a new representativ e. The center must notify the Policy Council Secretary of any changes in representation. If a past parent or community representative has two unexcused absences, the Policy Council may choose to terminate his or her membership . Community representatives may be terminated only after the Policy Council notifies the agency represented. D. Resignation If a member wishes to resign from the Policy Council , or a parent representative is no longer eligible to serve because his or her children are no longer enrolled in the HS or EHS program, the member must submit his or her resignation in writing to the Policy Council Secretary. E. Termination A Policy Council member may be terminated by two-thirds (2/3) vote at any regular meeting for reasons of misconduct or excessive absenteeism. If the termination is for excessive absenteeism, this vote will take place only after notice has been sent to the childcare center the member represents and the childcare center has provided a response . The member will be notified in writing of his or her termi nation from the Policy Council. Any decision to terminate a Past Parent or Community Representative is made by the Policy Council itself, with the member being notified in writi ng. F. Vacancy If the seat of a parent of a currently enrolled child becomes vacant, the vacant seat will be filled by the member’s alternate until t he parent committee of the center represented by th e member elects a new representative to fill the vacant seat. If a seat held by a community agency representative becomes vacant, the agency must appoint a replacement as soon as possible. The Policy Council Chair will announce vacancies of past parent representative seats. G. Prohibition Persons employed by Contra Costa County, delegate agencies, and partner agencies, who work for or with HS and/or EHS programs, and immediate family members of such persons including co-parents, are prohibited from serving as members of the Policy Council. H. Conflict of Interest Policy Council members shall abide by all applicable conflict of interest laws and regulations, including but not limited to those pertaining to financial reporting, contracting, and personnel decisions. V. Executive Committee The Policy Council is led by the Executive Committee . The Executive Committee is comprised of Policy Council members who are elected annually to serve as executive officers. The Executive PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 6 Committee oversees the monthly Policy Council meetings and also meets separately each month to plan Policy Council meetings, to review the agenda and to review the previous month’s meeting minutes. A. Officers 1) Chairperson The Chairperson preside s over all Policy Council meetings. He or she has the authority to call special meetings, to maintain order, and to appoint members to chair ad-hoc committees. The Chairperson shall enforce the observance of order and decorum among the members, and shall recognize members; staff and visitors who wish to speak and make official written communication. 2) Vice-Chairperson The Vice -Chairperson assists the Chairperson and assume s the Chairperson’s obligations and authority if the Chairperson is absent. The Vice Chair is responsible for reviewing the desired outcomes and meeting rules during Policy Council meetings. 3) Secretary The Secretary conducts a roll call of members and declare s whether a quorum exists at the beginning of each meeting and monitors member attendance . He or she reads any corre spondence into the record during Policy Council meetings , prepares meeting minutes, and ensures that meetings are recorded. He or she reviews and corrects the previous month’s minutes and seeks approval of the minutes during Policy Council meetings . 4) Parliamentarian The Parliamentarian assists the Chairperson in maintaining order during meetings. He or she states and reviews the principles of conduct and expected behaviors during meetings. He or she acts as timekeeper of the agenda items and notifies the Chairperson when time is about to be exceeded. He or she also serves as the Chairperson of the Bylaws Subcommittee. B. Election of Officers Executive Officers are elected and seated annually at the general meeting in September. Nominations for the officers are made by the general membership. Only parent representatives may serve as officers. Vote s are cast by roll call. No more than three past parent representatives may serve on the Executive Committee during any term. C. Attendance Executive Officers shall attend all Policy Council and Executive Committee meetings. Executive Officers may attend Executive Committee meetings by teleconference. Arriving 15 minutes or more late to an Executive Committee meeting is considered an unexcused absence . D Removal from Office Executive Officers may be removed from office by a two -thirds (2/3) vote of the general membership at any regular meeting for misconduct or excessive absenteeism. PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 7 E. Officer Vacancies The Chairperson of the Policy Council fills officer vacancies by appointment. The Policy Council ratifies the appointments . VI. Subcommittees The Policy Council has six standing subcommittees: Executive Subcommittee, Fiscal Subcommittee, Program Services Subcommittee , By-laws Subcommittee, Advocacy Subcommittee and Ongoing Monitoring –Self Assessment Subcommittee. Executive Officers must sit on at least one subcommittee. Each subcommittee must always maintain at le ast four members. The Policy Council Chair appoints subcommittee leads and the Policy Council must confirm all appointments by ratification. Subcommittees must follow the Brown Act, keep minutes, and present reports to the Policy Council. VII. Meetings Policy Council meetings are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month , except in the months of July and December. Meeting notices and agendas shall comply with the Brown Act, the County’s Better Government Ordinance, and all applicable local and state meeting laws. A. Regular Meetings The Policy Council will hold a minimum of nine (9) meetings per year. Meeting agendas will be published 96 hours in advance . All meetings of the Policy Council and its committees will be held in accordance with the Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance. B. Special Meetings A special meeting may be called at any time by the Chairperson. Twenty-four notice of a special meeting must be given to Policy Council members . C. Quorum A quorum is required to conduct a Policy Council meeting. A quorum exists when members representing a minimum of 40% of the total seats of the Policy Council, filled and vacant, are present at a meeting and at least 51% of those members present are currently enrolled parents. D. Voting Only Policy Council members or their alternate s are permitted to vote on action items. Motion approvals require a majority vote. VIII. Resolution of Disputes The Policy Council has developed an impasse procedure, which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The impasse procedure is set forth in CSB Policies and Procedures, Program Governance: Section 10, i -iv PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 8 IX. Amendments Amendments to these bylaws may be initiated by action of the Policy Council and must be approved by the Board of Supervisors . Proposed amendments must be presented to members at least one general meeting prior to sending the amendments to the Board of Supervisors for approval. CC Employment and Human Services Department Community Services Bureau Head Start/Early Head Start Bylaws PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 2 Table of Cont ents I. Name ......................................................................................................................... 3 II. Authority .................................................................................................................. 3 III. Purpose and Responsbilities ............................................................................. 4 IV. Policy Council Membership ................................................................................ 4 V. Executive Committee ............................................................................................ 5 VI. Subcommittees ...................................................................................................... 6 VII. Meetings ................................................................................................................... 6 VIII. Resolution of Disputes ......................................................................................... 7 IX. Amendments ........................................................................................................... 7 PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 3 I. Name The name of this council is the Contra Costa County Head Start and Early Head Start Policy Council, hereinafter referred to as the Policy Council . II. Authority The Policy Council is established and organized under the Hea d Start Act of 2007. III. Purpose and Responsibilities A. Purpose . The purpose of the Policy Council is to promote the objectives of the Head Start and Early Start Programs operated by Contra Costa County. The Policy Council serves as the link among public and private organizations, Contra Costa Countyand Delegate Agencies, the communities served, and the parents of enrolled children. B. Responsibilitie s. The Policy Council shall approve and submit to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decisions about each of the following: (i) Activities to support the active involvement of parents in supporting program operations, including policies to ensure that the Contra Costa County is responsive to community and parent needs; (ii) Program recruitment, selection, and enrollment priorities ; (iii) Applications for funding and amendments to applications for funding for programs under this subchapter, prior to submission of applications described in this clause ; (iv) Budget planning for program expenditures, including policies for reimbursement and participation in policy council activities ; (v) Bylaws for the operation of the Policy Council ; (vi) Consistent with Contra Costa County’s policies, Pers onnel Management Regulations, applicable Memoranda of Understanding , and laws and regulations, program personnel policies and decisions regarding the employment of program staff, including standards of conduct for program staff, contractors, and volunte ers and criteria for the employment and dismissal of program staff ; (vii) Developing procedures for how members of the Policy Council will be elected; and PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 4 (viii) Recommendations on the selection of delegate agencies and the service areas for such agencies. IV. Policy Council Membership A. Compositio n 1. The Policy Council consists o f 36 member seats represented by parents of currently enrolled children , past parents, and community agency representatives. Policy Council composition is reviewed annually to ensure that it meets the general membership guidelines of Head Start Performance Standards and that the representatives are proportionately selected according to program option (Head Start, Early Head Start, Full -Day, Part-Day, and Home- Based).Parents of Currently Enrolled Children At least 51 percent of the Policy Council seats must be filled by parents of children currently enrolled in Head Start (“HS”) and Early Head Start (“EHS”). (See 45 CR 1305.2 for definition of “parent.”) The number of seats allocated to each childcare center is based on the center’s number of funded HS and EHS slots with one seat for every 60 slots rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. Parents, and their alternate , are nominated and elected by the parent committee of the center at which their child ren are enrolled. The parent nominee who receives the most votes is elected to serve as the primary representative of the center where his or her child attends. The parent nominee who receives the second highest vote number of votes is elected to serve as the alternate representative. When the primary representative is unable to attend a meeting, the alternate representative will attend the meeting and vote in the primary representative’s place. Each childcare center shall maintain a list of its primary and alternate representatives, which it shall send to the Policy Council Secretary. 2. Past Parent Representatives Parents of children who formerly attended HS and EHS programs may serve on the Policy Council for a total of five years, inclusive of terms served while their children were enrolled in HS/EHS. Past parents interested in serving as representatives may submit a letter of interest to the Policy Council and are elected during the Policy Council Orientation Meeting. 3. Community Agency Representatives Community Agency Representatives are members of local community agencies, selected by the Policy Council, that serve low-income children and families. B. Term of Membership Members are elected each year to a one -year term that commences on September 1 and ends on August 31 of the following calendar year. Members may serve on the Policy Council for a total of five years. PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 5 C. Absences Policy Council members are required to attend all meetings. . If a member provides less than a 24-hour notice of his or her absence, the absence will be considered unexcused. If a parent of a currently enrolled child will be absent, he or she must confirm that his or her alternate will attend on his or her behalf . The member must give twenty-four hours’ notice of his or her absence to the alternate , Policy Council Secretary, and childcare site supervisor of the center the parent’s child attends If a parent of a currently enrolled child has two unexcused absences, the center that he or she represents will be notified, and the center will make the determination as to whether the parent will remain on the Policy Council or if the parent will step down and the center will elect a new representative. The center must notify the Policy Council Secretary of any changes in representation. If a past parent or communit y representative has two unexcused absences, the Policy Council may choose to terminate his or her membership . ommunity representatives may be terminated only after the Policy Council notifies the agency represented. D. Resignation If a member wishes to resign from the Policy Council, or a parent representative is no longer eligible to serve because his or her children are no longer enrolled in the HS or EHS program, the member must submit his or her resignation in writing to the Policy Council Secretary. E. Termination A Policy Council member may be terminated by two-thirds (2/3) vote at any regular meeting for reasons of misconduct or excessive absenteeism. If the termination is for excessive absenteeism, this vote will take place only after notice has been sent to the childcare center the member represents and the childcare center has provided a response . The member will be notified in writing of his or her termi nation from the Policy Council. Any decision to terminate a Past Parent or Community Representative is made by the Policy Council itself, with the member being notified in writing. F. Vacancy If the seat of a parent of a currently enrolled child becomes vacant, the vacant seat will be filled by the member’s alternate until the parent co mmittee of the center represented by the member elects a new representative to fill the vacant seat. If a seat held by a community agency representative becomes vacant, the agency must appoint a replacement as soon as possible. The Policy Council Chai r will announce vacancies of past parent representative seats. G. PROHIBITION Persons employed by Contra Costa County, delegate agencies, and partner agencies , who work for or with HS and/or EHS programs, and immediate family members of such persons including co-parents, are prohibited from s erving as members of the Policy Council. PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 6 H. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Policy Council members shall abide by all applicable conflict of interest laws and regulations, including but not limited to those pertaining to financial reporting, contracting, and personnel decisions. V. Executive Committee The Policy Council is led by the E xecutive Committee. The Executive Committee is comprised of Policy Council members who are elected annually to serve as executive officers. The Executive Committee oversees the monthly Policy Council meetings. andalso meets separately each month to plan Policy Council meetings, to review the agenda, and to review the previous month’s meeting minutes. A. Officers 1) Chairperson The Chairperson presides over Policy Council meetings. He or she has the authority to call special meetings, to maintain order, and to appoint members to chair ad-hoc committees. The Chairperson shall enforce the observance of order and decorum among the members and shall recognize members, staff , and visitors who wish to speak and make official written communication. 2) Vice-Chairperson The Vice -Chairperson assists the Chairperson and assume s the Chaiperson’s obligations and authori ty if the Chairperson is absent. The Vice Chair is responsible for reviewing the desired outcomes and meeting rules during Policy Council meetings. 3) Secretary The Secretary conducts a roll call of members and declare s whether a quorum exists at the beginning of each meeting, andmonitors member attendance. He or she reads any correspondence into the record during Policy Council meetings, prepares meeting minutes, and ensures that meetings are recorded . He or she reviews and corrects the previous month’s minutes and seeks approval of the minutes during Policy Council meetings. 4) Parliamentarian The Parliamentarian assists the Chairperson in maintaining order during meetings. He or she states and reviews the principles of conduct and expected behaviors d uring meetings. He or she acts as timekeeper of the agenda items and notifies the Chairperson when time is about to be exceeded. He or she also serves as the Chairperson of the Bylaws Subcommittee. B. Election of Officer s Executive Officers are elected and seated annually at the general meeting in September. Nominations for the officers are made by the general membership. Only parent repre sentatives may serve as officers===. Vote s are cast by roll call. No more than three past parent representatives may serve on the Executive Committee during any term. PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 7 C. Attendance Executive Officers shall attend all Policy Council and Executive Committee meetings. Executive Officers may attend Executive Committee meetings by teleconference. Arriving 15 minutes or more late to an Executive Committee meeting is considered an unexcused absence . D Removal from Office Executive Officers may be removed from office by a two -thirds (2/3) vote of the general membership at any regular meeting for misconduct or excessive absenteeism. E. Officer Vacancies The Chairperson of the Policy Council fills officer vacancies by appointment. The Policy Council ratifies the appointments. VI. Subcommittees The Policy Council has six standing subcommittees: Executive Subcommittee, Fiscal Subcommittee, Program Services Subcommittee, By-laws Subcommittee, Advocacy Subcommittee and Ongoing Monitoring –Self Assessment Subcommittee. Exe cutive Officers must sit on at least one subcommittee. Each subcommittee must always maintain at least four members. The Policy Council Chair appoints subcommittee leads and the Policy Council must confirm all appointments by ratification. Subcommittees must follow the Brown Act, keep minutes, and present reports to the Policy Council. VII. Meetings Policy Council meetings are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month , except in the months of July and December. Meeting notices and agendas shall comply with the Brown Act, the County’s Better Government Ordinance, and all applicable local and state meeting laws. A. Regular Meetings The Policy Council will hold a minimum of nine (9) meetings per year. Meeting agendas will be published 96 hours in advance . All meetings of the Policy Council and its committees will be held in accordance with the Brown Act and the Contra Costa County Better Government Ordinance. B. Special Meetings A special meeting may be called at any ti me by the Chairperson. Twenty-four notice of a special meeting must be given to Policy Council members . C. Quorum A quorum is required to conduct a Policy Council meeting . A quorum exists when members representing a minimum of 40% of the total seats of the Policy Council , filled and vacant, are present at a meeting and at least 51% of those members present are currently enrolled parents. PC Byl aws - PC Approved: Pending BOS Approved: —Pending | Community Services Bureau 8 D. Voting Only Policy Council members or their alternate s are permitted to vote on action items. Motion approvals require a majority vote. VIII. Resolution of Disputes The Policy Council has de veloped an impasse procedure, which has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. The impasse procedure is cet forth in CSB Policies and Procedures, Program Governance : Section 10, i -iv. IX. Amendments Amendments to these bylaws may be initiated by action of the Policy Council and must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Proposed amendments must be presented to members at least one general meeting prior to sending the amendments to the Board of Supervisors for approval. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute, on behalf of the County, Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-396-5 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of University of California, Davis Health System, an educational institution, effective June 29, 2021, and extend the termination date from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2026 to continue unpaid student training services at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: This contract meets the social needs of the County’s population by providing medical students, resident physicians and fellows, family nurse practitioner students, and physician assistant students to come to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center for graduate medical training. On December 19, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved Contract #26-396 with The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of University of California, Davis to provide training and clinical experience in the field of family practice for medical students, resident physicians and fellows, family nurse practitioner students, and physician assistant students who are enrolled at the University of California Davis, for the period from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2005, including mutual indemnification. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Alaina Floyd, marcy.wilham C. 74 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-396-5 with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of University of California, Davis BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) On July 6, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-396-1 which extended the term of the agreement from June 30, 2005 through June 30, 2008. On August 28, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-396-2 to extend the term from June 30, 2008 through June 30, 2011. On November 8, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-396-3 to extend the term from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016. October 18, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved Amendment Agreement #26-396-4 to extend the termination date from July 1, 2016 though June 30, 2021. Approval of Contract Amendment/Extension Agreement #26-396-5, will allow the County to continue providing training and clinical experience for students who are enrolled with the Regents of the University of California, on behalf of University of California, Davis, through June 30, 2026. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If this contract amendment/extension agreement is not approved, students will not receive supervised fieldwork experience at Contra Costa Regional Medical Center. ATTACHMENTS Amendment Agreement- UC Davis RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute non-financial Art Exhibition and Loan Agreements with local artists for the display of original artwork in County facilities, as recommended by the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: On December 13, 1994, the County’s Board of Supervisors created the Arts and Culture Commission for the purpose of advancing the arts in a way that promotes communication, education, appreciation and collaboration throughout Contra Costa County. The Arts and Culture Commission operates a series of signature art programs in the County where artworks are produced by local artists. In addition, there are designated art spaces in many County owned facilities. The Arts and Culture Commission believes that art displays in a community enhance the quality of life in that community. Therefore, the Commission recommends the County to utilize art space in its facilities to display artworks, showcase APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 75 To:Board of Supervisors From:Monica Nino, County Administrator Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Arts and Culture Commission Art Exhibition and Loan Agreement BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) artists, arts organizations, and diverse creative expressions representative of Contra Costa County. This board order will authorize the execution of agreements between the County and artists for the display of original artwork in County facilities. Art exhibitions support the larger community’s awareness of the arts and each exhibition is on display for approximately three to four months. A copy of the Art Exhibition and Loan Agreement is attached. The County is released from any claim, liability, or cost arising from any injury, death, or property damage that may result from the display of art under the agreement. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Artworks recommended by the Arts and Culture Commission will not be displayed at County facilities. ATTACHMENTS Art Exhibition and Loan Agreement ART EXHIBITION AND LOAN AGREEMENT This Art Exhibition and Loan Agreement is dated as of ___________, 202_, and is between the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and _____________________ (“Artist”). Recitals A. On December 13, 1994, the County’s Board of Supervisors created the Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County (the “Arts and Culture Commission”) for the purpose of advancing the arts in a way that promotes communication, education, appreciation and collaboration throughout Contra Costa County. B. The Arts and Culture Commission operates a changing exhibition program in the County’s Administration Building know as Art Passages. Exhibitions showcase artists, arts organizations, and diverse creative expressions representative of Contra Costa County. Art Passages supports the larger community’s awareness of the arts and each exhibition is on display for approximately three to four months. C. The County and the Artist agree that art displays in a community enhance the quality of life in that community. The County and the Artist therefore desire to work cooperatively to display Artist’s work as part of Art Passages. Toward that end, the Artist desires to lend art to the County, and the County desires to borrow art from the Artist, on the terms set forth in this agreement. The County and the Artist therefore agree as follows: Agreement 1. Loan. In accordance with the terms of this agreement, the County is borrowing from Artist, and the Artist is lending to County, the art identified on Attachment 1 to this agreement. 2. Artist/Lender. The Artist’s name and contact information is as follows: a. Name: _________________________________ b. Address _________________________________ __________________________________ c. Phone: _________________________________ d. Email Address: ___________________________ 3. Exhibition. The exhibition details are as follows: a. Name: ___________________________ b. Location ___________________________ ___________________________ c. Start Date: ___________________________ d. End Date: ___________________________ 4. Drop Off and Pick Up. The Artist shall drop off and pick up the art during the dates and times agreed to by the Artist and the Arts and Culture Commission. 5. Warranty. The Artist hereby warrants that they have the right to grant permission for the display of the artworks in accordance with this agreement. Artist also warrants that they have read and agree to the terms of this agreement. 6. Release. The Artist hereby releases the County from any claim, liability, or cost arising from any injury, death, or property damage that may result from the display of art under this agreement, including but not limited to, vandalism, fire, theft, earthquake, or any other cause, other than as a result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its employees or agents. The parties are signing this agreement as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph. [Insert signature blocks – no dates] [Attach an Attachment 1, with the blank table for the description of the art] RECOMMENDATION(S): AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign the 2021-2024 Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Recertification Application (Application) to the State of California Employment Development Department. for submission by the Employment and Human Services Director, or designee on behalf of the Workforce Development Board. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: The APPLICATION will serve as the request for Local Workforce Development Area (Local Area) subsequent designation and Local Workforce Development Board (Local Board) recertification for Program Year (PY) 2021-23 under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 76 To:Board of Supervisors From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Local Workforce Development Area Designation and Local Board Recertification ATTACHMENTS Local Area Designation & Local Board Recertification Page 1 of 11 Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification Application for Program Year 2021-23 Local Workforce Development Area Workforce Development Board Contra Costa County Page 2 of 11 Application for Local Area Subsequent Designation and Local Board Recertification This application will serve as your request for Local Workforce Development Area (Local Area) subsequent designation and Local Workforce Development Board (Local Board) recertification for Program Year (PY) 2021-23 under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). If the California Workforce Development Board (CWDB) determines the application is incomplete, it will either be returned or held until the necessary documentation is submitted. Please contact your Regional Advisor for technical assistance or questions related to this application. Workforce Development Board Contra Costa County____ Name of Local Area 4071 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250_________________ Mailing Address Concord, CA 94520_______________________________ City, State, ZIP April 14, 2021__________________________________________ Date of Submission Patience Ofodu __________________________________ Contact Person 925-671-4514____________________________________ Contact Person’s Phone Number Page 3 of 11 Local Board Membership The WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A) through (E) states the requirements for nominating and selecting members in each membership category. The WIOA Section 107(b)(2)(A) requires that business members constitute a majority of the Local Board. The chairperson shall be a business representative, per WIOA Section 107(b)(3). The local Chief Elected Official (CEO) is required to provide the names of the individuals appointed for each category listed on the following pages, and attach a roster of the current Local Board which identifies each member’s respective membership category. Business – A majority of the members must be representatives of businesses in the Local Area who (i) are owners of businesses, chief executives or operating officers of businesses, or other business executives or employers with optimum policy-making or hiring authority; (ii) represent businesses, including small businesses, or organizations; and (iii) are appointed from among individuals nominated by local business organizations and business trade association (WIOA Section 107[b][2][A]). Please identify the Local Board chairperson by typing CHAIR after their name. Page 4 of 11 Name Title Entity Appointment Date Term End Date Yolanda Vega Chair Principal Peak Performance Corporate Training 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 Michael McGill Engineer MMM Design Associates 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 Joshua Aldrich CEO Del Sol NRG, Inc. 10/9/2018 6/30/2022 Terry Curley Executive Vice President United Business Bank 10/9/2018 6/30/2022 Tom Guarino Government Relations, East Bay Public Affairs PG&E 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Jose Carrascal Director of Site Operations Corteva Agriscience 8/11/2020 6/30/2024 Stacey Marshall Manager Human Resources American Sugar Refining, Inc. 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 Carolina Herrera Manager, Community & Government Relations Kaiser Permanente 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Robert Muller Learning Manager PBF Energy 3/12/2019 6/30/2023 Laura Trevino Business Profile Account Manager Coast Personal Services 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Stephanie Rivera Director, Community Health Improvement John Muir Health 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Monica Magee Director of Marketing Bishop Ranch 8/11/2020 6/30/2024 Corry Kennedy Human Resource Manager Chevron 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Labor – Not less than 20 percent of the members must be representatives of workforce within the Local Area who must include (i) representatives of labor organizations who have been nominated by state labor federations; (ii) a member of a labor organization or a training director from a joint labor-management apprenticeship program, or if no such joint program exists in the area, such a representative of an apprenticeship program in the area; and may include (iii) representatives of community-based organizations with demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the employment needs of individuals with barriers to employment, veterans, or individuals with disabilities; and (iv) representatives of organizations with demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the employment, training, or education needs of eligible youth and/or out-of-school youth (WIOA Section 107[b][2][B]). California Unemployment Insurance Code (CUIC) Section 14202(b)(1) further requires and specifies that at least 15 percent of Local Board members shall be representatives of labor organizations unless the local labor federation fails to nominate enough members. For a local area in which no employees are represented by such organizations, other representatives of Page 5 of 11 employees shall be appointed to the board, but any local board that appoints representatives of employees that are not nominated by local labor federations shall demonstrate that no employees are represented by such organizations in the local area. Name Title Entity Appointment Date Term End Date 1. Thomas Hansen Business Manager IBEW Local 302 10/17/2017 6/30/2021 2. Joshua Anijar Executive Director Central Labor Council Contra Costa County 12/10/2019 6/30/2023 Education – Each Local Board shall include representatives of entities administering education and training activities in the Local Area who must include (i) a representative of eligible providers administering WIOA Title II adult education and literacy activities; (ii) a representative of institutions of higher education providing workforce investment activities; and may include (iii) representatives of local educational agencies, and community-based organizations with demonstrated experience and expertise in addressing the education or training needs of individuals with barriers to employment (WIOA Section 107[b][2][C]). Name Title Entity Appointment Date Term End Date 1. G. Vittoria Abbate Director, College & Career & Adult Education Mt. Diablo Unified School District 10/17/2017 6/30/2021 2. Kelly Schelin Associate Vice Chancellor, Educational Services Contra Costa College 7/14/2020 6/30/2024 Economic and Community Development – Each Local Board shall include representatives of governmental, economic, and community development entities serving the Local Area who must include (i) a representative of economic and community development entities; (ii) a representative from the state employment service office under the Wagner-Peyser Act; (iii) a representative of the Vocational Rehabilitation program; and may include (iv) representatives of agencies or entities administering programs serving the Local Area relating to transportation, housing, and public assistance; (v) Representatives of philanthropic organizations serving the Local Area; and (E) individuals or representatives of entities as the local CEO in the Local Area Page 6 of 11 may determine to be appropriate (WIOA Section 107[b][2][D] and [E]). Flex Additional Seats – from the above categories, including constituencies referenced in Attachment III of Training Employment & Guidance Letter (TEGL) 27-14 Name Title Entity Appointment Date Term End Date 1. Leslay Choy Executive Director San Pablo Economic Development Corporation 7/1/2020 6/30/2024 2. DeVonn Powers Founder Chief Executive Officer Humanity Way Inc. 12/8/2020 6/30/2024 Performed Successfully The Local Area hereby certifies that it has performed successfully, defined as having met 80 percent of their negotiated performance goals in PY 2018-19 or PY 2019-20 for the following indicators: • Employment Rate 2nd Quarter After Exit • Median Earnings Name Title Entity Appointment Date Term End Date 1. Carol Asch Rehabilitation Act of 1973/District Administrator California Department of Rehabilitation 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 2. Richard Johnson Employment Service/Employment Program Manager California Employment Development Department 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 3. Kwame Reed Economic Development Director City of Antioch 6/23/2020 6/30/2024 Page 7 of 11 Sustained Fiscal Integrity The Local Area hereby certifies that it has not been found in violation of one or more of the following during PY 18-19 or PY 19-20: • Final determination of significant finding(s) from audits, evaluations, or other reviews conducted by state or local governmental agencies or the Department of Labor identifying issues of fiscal integrity or misexpended funds due to the willful disregard or failure to comply with any WIOA requirement. • Gross negligence – defined as a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. • Failure to observe accepted standards of administration – Local Areas must have adhered to the applicable uniform administrative requirements set forth in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200. PY 2018 Performance Goals Adults Dislocated Workers Youth Employment Rate 2nd Quarter After Exit 66.0% 72.0% 66.0% Employment or Education Rate 2nd Quarter After Exit Median Earnings 2nd Quarter After Exit $6,100 $8,200 BASELINE Median Earnings PY 2019 Performance Goals Adults Dislocated Workers Youth Employment Rate 2nd Quarter After Exit 68.0% 72.5% 68.0% Employment or Education Rate 2nd Quarter After Exit Median Earnings 2nd Quarter After Exit $6,400 $8,400 BASELINE Median Earnings Page 8 of 11 Certify No Violation Engaged in Regional Planning Engaged in regional planning is defined as participating in and contributing to regional planning, regional plan implementation, and regional performance negotiations. The Local Area herby certifies that it has participated in and contributed to regional planning and negotiating regional performance measures in the following ways: Page 9 of 11 Local Area Assurances Through PY 21-23, the Local Area assures: A. It will comply with the applicable uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements (WIOA Section 184[a][2] and [3]). Highlights of this assurance include the following: • The Local Area’s procurement procedures will avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items, software, and subscriptions (in alignment with Title 2 CFR Section 200.318). • The Local Area will maintain and provide accounting and program records, including supporting source documentation, to auditors at all levels, as permitted by law (Title 2 CFR Section 200.508). Note that failure to comply with the audit requirements specified in Title 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F will subject the Local Area to potential cash hold (Title 2 CFR Section 200.338). B. All financial reporting will be done in compliance with federal and State regulations and guidance. Highlights of this assurance include the following: • Reporting will be done in compliance with Workforce Services Directive WSD19-05, Monthly and Quarterly Financial Reporting Requirements, (December 4, 2019). • All closeout reports will comply with the policies and procedures listed in WSD16-05, WIOA Closeout Requirement, (July 29, 2016). Note that failure to comply with financial reporting requirements will subject the Local Area to potential cash hold. (Title 2 CFR Section 200.338) C. Funds will be spent in accordance with federal and state laws, regulations, and guidance. Highlights of this assurance include: • The Local Area will meet the requirements of the California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 14211, to spend a minimum of 30 percent of combined total of WIOA Title I adult and dislocated worker formula fund allocations on training services. • The Local Area will not use funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing (WIOA Section 181[b][7]). Page 10 of 11 D. The Local Board will select the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM operator(s), with the agreement of the local CEO, through a competitive process such as a Request for Proposal, unless granted a waiver by the state (WIOA Section 121[d][2][A] and 107[g][2]). E. The Local Board will collect, enter, and maintain data related to participant enrollment, activities, and performance necessary to meet all CalJOBSSM reporting requirements and deadlines. F. The Local Board will comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of WIOA Section 188, including the collection of necessary data. G. The Local Area will engage in and contribute to, regional planning and regional plan implementation (for example, Local Area has participated in regional planning meetings and regional plan implementation efforts, and the Local Board and local CEO have reviewed and approved the regional plan and modifications). H. The Local Area will participate in regional performance negotiations. I. It will comply with CWDB policies and guidelines, legislative mandates and/or other special provisions as may be required under federal law or policy, including the WIOA or state legislation. J. Priority shall be given to veterans, recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, and individuals who are basic skills deficient for receipt of career and training services funded by WIOA Adult funding (WIOA Section 134[c][3][E] and Training and Employment Guidance Letter [TEGL] 10-09, and TEGL 19-16). RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Director, Safeway Gift Cards for incentives for consumer participation in Mental Health Services Act-Prop 63 (MHSA) planning processes, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $7,125.00 (500 cards at $15.00/each with five percent discount of $375.00). FISCAL IMPACT: This action would result in expenditures of up to $7,125 and will be funded 100% by Mental Health Services Act (MHSA-Prop 63) funds. BACKGROUND: Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, was passed by voters on November 2, 2004. This proposition imposes an additional 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. Gift Cards are provided to mental health consumers and family members as an incentive for ongoing and meaningful participation and involvement as full partners in the MHSA planning processes, from the inception of the planning through implementation and evaluation of identified activities. State Department of Mental Health Letter Number 05-01 requires the participation of mental health consumers and family members in this process. Additionally, counties must continue to be engaged in ongoing community planning processes for MHSA annual plan updates and for any new MHSA plan. As APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: Audrey Montana, (925)313-9525 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 77 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Authorizing purchase of incentive gift cards for MHSA Stakeholder participation such, to obtain broader stakeholder input, gift cards allow the county to provide a way to reward those BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) mental health consumers and their family members who so willingly volunteer many hours to participate in the myriad MHSA planning processes. Gift cards help offset potential costs and financial burden associated with meeting participation including, but not limited to: transportation and meals. The gift cards will be administered in accordance with the requirements outlined in Administrative Bulletin #615. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If there are no incentives available, Consumer and Family member participation and involvement will decrease during the Community Program Planning Process, which is a required component for the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Three-Year Program and Expenditure Plan. RECOMMENDATION(S): Authorize the Purchasing Agent to purchase, on behalf of the Health Services Department, transportation vouchers in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for County patients served under the Whole Person Care Pilot Program for the period from May 1, 2021 through December, 31 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: Funded 100% by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Administration’s Whole Person Care Pilot Program. No County funds will be used. BACKGROUND: The Whole Person Care Pilot Program includes transportation for enrolled patients to specific medical and non-medical appointments. Vouchers would be provided to patients who demonstrate a barrier to getting to their scheduled appointment and who are working with their Whole Person Care case manager to improve their health outcomes and establish relationships with their health and social service providers. Transportation barriers have been shown to be the main reason that patients do not attend scheduled appointments or are otherwise disconnected from the medical, behavioral, dental and social services that would help with improved quality of life and improved health outcomes. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dan Peddycord, (925)313-6712 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 78 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Transportation Vouchers for the Whole Person Care Program BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) Transportation vouchers will be purchased from County transportation companies, including but not limited to WestCat, Taxi companies, County Connection, Tri Delta, Lyft, Uber, AC Transit, and BART. This Board Order requests approval for transportation vouchers in increments of $5 and $10 for a total amount not to exceed $100,000 for the remainder of the Whole Person Care Pilot Program for the period from May 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, which will be issued in accordance with County Administrative Bulletin 615. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If not approved, the Whole Person Care Pilot Program would not be fulfilling the goals outlined in the DHCS funding application. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Librarian, or designee, to close the Antioch Library to the public from April 21 through May 31, 2021 in order for Public Works to paint the interior of the library, and to install new carpet and new shelving. FISCAL IMPACT: 100% Library Fund. BACKGROUND: In order to conduct a planned interior facility improvement, the Antioch Library will close on Wednesday, April 21, 2021, and reopen on Tuesday, June 1, 2021. Although initially planned to take place in the prior fiscal year, the improvements were postponed for several months due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the initial delay, shelving has been purchased and scheduled for installation, and work requests have been submitted to Public Works for the paint and carpet work. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Diane Burgis, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Liz Fuller (925) 261-1664 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 27, 2021 , County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: C. 79 To:Board of Supervisors From:Alison McKee, County Librarian Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:Facility Improvements at the Antioch Library BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) During the closure, Antioch library staff will be temporarily reassigned to other library locations to fill vacant positions. The book drop will not be open at the Antioch location, and holds will not be available for pickup. Those needing library services during the closure can visit the nearby Prewett or Oakley Libraries, or any other Contra Costa County Library. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The Library will be unable to conduct the planned facility improvements at the Antioch Library. RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Health Services Director, or designee, to execute an agreement with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District extending the term of the existing emergency ambulance agreement for Emergency Response Area IV through June 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: No anticipated General Fund impact; this is a nonfinancial agreement. BACKGROUND: Emergency Response Area IV is one of five ambulance operating areas in Contra Costa County. On December 9, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved an ambulance services contract with the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (Contract No. 23-055-19) for the provision of emergency ambulance services in Emergency Response Area IV (San Ramon Valley area). This contract as amended expires April 30, 2021. The County and the Fire District have been negotiating a new long-term emergency ambulance services contract that would authorize the District to continue providing emergency ambulance services in Emergency Response Area IV pursuant to the State EMS Act. The purpose of extending the term of the existing contract with the Fire District through June 30, 2021, is to give the parties more time to continue negotiating a long-term contract. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/27/2021 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: April 27, 2021 Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: C. 80 To:Board of Supervisors From:Anna Roth, Health Services Director Date:April 27, 2021 Contra Costa County Subject:San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Extension Agreement CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The current contract would expire on April 30, 2021.